 Os rhai, mae ein ddweud y gwleiddiad llawodraeth am byddwyr hefyd i ddweud i ddweud y gwrthiddiad a'r PC yn 2018, i ziwg symboliaeth i gyd yn gyfo'r ddegiwr mae'n gweithio'n tyty a'r cyflonau, ond gweld eich bywyd yng Nghaerffael, ac i ddweud eich mynd yn ei ddweud i gyd yn cydwybod. Mae'r Cy contaminodau yn gweithig i gyd, ac yn ddweud i cyfrifiadau targrion, i gyd, i gyd, i gyd, i gyd, i gyd. Agenda item 1, rwy'n gweithio. Agenda item 2, stage 5 of stage 2 of the planning bill, and I welcome the Minister for Local Government and Housing, Kevin Stewart, and his accompanying officials to today's meeting. Some MSPs who are not committee members but have lodged amendments to the bill will again be in attendance today and are very welcome. I therefore call amendments 257 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 145, 146 and 147. Good morning, convener. This group of amendments relates to a planning authority's ability to refuse to even deal with an application. The current provisions are in section 39 of the 1997 act. This power applies where, within the previous two years, a similar application was refused by Scottish ministers as a result of a call-in or appeal, or the planning authority refused it on local review, or where, in the absence of such an appeal or review decisions, the planning authority has refused two previous similar applications. A similar application in this context is one where the land and the proposal are the same or substantially the same. The other criterion that applies is that there has been no significant change in the development plan so far as it is relevant to the case or in any other material considerations. That ensures that the decision is based on planning considerations and is not arbitrary. I appreciate that there can be concerns within communities where the same or similar proposals for a site keep being submitted as applications despite previous refusal of permission. However, a second application can, in some circumstances, serve a useful purpose in proposing changes to a development that can address the original grounds for refusal. A proposal cannot be varied on appeal, so this may be the best way of making an application better. We also need to bear in mind that the planning system can, in the public interest, prevent a person developing their land. As this affects our human rights, we need to be careful how we restrict their access to the decision-making process. There is no planning appeal procedure where a planning authority declines to determine an application. Taking those into account, amendment 257 in my name seeks to extend the period in which the power to decline to determine can apply from the current two years to five years. This is a significant extension more than double the time. Claudia Beamish's amendment 145 would extend the period from two years to 10 years. Those amendments do not change the position that authorities cannot decline to determine an application where there has been a significant change in the development plan or in other material considerations. However, that means that the original grounds for refusal have to be revisited in the light of the current position and, indeed, may no longer apply. The planning authority will have to reach a considered and reasonable judgment on whether there have been any significant changes in circumstances. That does not mean reaching a view that the authority would make the same decision again. That would require processing of the application and considering the position anew. The longer the time since the original decision, the more likely that some material consideration will have changed, and the more difficult it will be for the planning authority to be certain whether there has been a change or not. If they cannot be certain, they will have to process the application. It is not reasonable to suppose that circumstances will not change substantially over a period of 10 years and, therefore, it is unlikely that any cases could be declined at that timescale. I believe that a five-year period represents a more reasonable extension to the times involved. Amendment 145 would also remove the right to make one similar application after a refusal before the ability to decline to determine whether it applies. As I have said, I believe that a second application can be helpful in addressing the concerns that people have raised, so I do not support that provision. Amendment 146 would require Scottish ministers to publish guidance on interpreting the definition of a similar application and on what constitutes a significant change in regard to the development plan and other material considerations. As I said in relation to a previous amendment, guidance cannot change the meaning of legislation. Interpretation is a matter for the courts. In any case, guidance could not usefully address all the possible issues that might arise in every type of case. Amendment 147 would introduce a specific power allowing ministers to introduce regulations to charge a higher fee for similar applications. Currently, fee regulations allow a zero fee where an applicant submits a largely similar application within 12 months of a decision on the previous application. We have already indicated our intention to reconsider this free go in the fees review following the bill. However, given that planning fees are in principle about cost recovery, there is no obvious basis for charging a higher than standard fee for repeat applications, which can often serve a useful purpose. We propose imposing a surcharge over and above the fee payable for a retrospective planning application. In such cases, however, there is a breach of planning control and the surcharge is in effect a penalty rather than relating to the cost of processing the application. I therefore ask that Claudia Beamish not move her amendments in this group and I move amendment 257, convener. Thank you very much. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 145 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning to you and the committee and to the minister. Amendment 145 aims to increase the time period in which local authorities potentially have to deal with multiple similar applications for the same development from two to ten years. It also aims to ensure that the local authority has the discretion to decline to determine the second application if it is deemed to be similar within a 10-year period. As the minister has already highlighted, section 39 of the act means that even if planning authorities have refused planning application, they are usually obliged to deal with a second application for the same development, whether submitted a few months or a few years later. Planning authorities are unable to decline to determine the second application unless ministers have refused permission for the development within the last two years. The current more than one stipulation allows developers an opportunity to submit a second application within 12 months of their original application being refused and the local authority are obliged to deal with that second application. It is only when a third application is submitted that local authorities can decline to determine it. This inability to decline the second application is often referred to in community groups as a free go for the developer. The amendment will give the planning authority the power to decline to determine the second application if they consider it appropriate to do so. I note the minister's comments on this, but I still wish to pursue this aspect of it from the perspective of more balance with communities. The need for this is even more pertinent, in my view, when you consider that at present, depending on the timescars for the two previous applications, the planning authority may be able to decline to determine the third resubmitted application, but if the third application is submitted more than two years after the refusal of the original application, the planning authority have to deal with it, and the process starts again. In my view, this is a war of attrition in some cases for communities. If the timescars in section 39 of the act were to stay at two years, the three-year application cycle can potentially occur every couple of years. My amendment would extend it from two to ten. I note the minister has recognised the burden of these current timescars on communities and has submitted 257, which suggests an increase from two to five years. However, I do not consider this to be long enough. I also note that, in my view, there are also human rights aspects that need to be considered for communities as well as for developers. I also note that, if my understanding is correct, 257 does not address the developers' opportunity to have a free go within 12 months of submitting a similar application. Increasing the restriction of similar applications from two to ten and giving the local authority more scope to decline to determine, will prevent communities and local authorities being consistently worn down by repeat applications. Within my own area, I have an example of a developer who was first refused planning permission in 2009. Since then, two further applications have been submitted, and an appeal for the third application has recently been made. This is nearly ten years of relentless pursuit of the same site, and, as a community activist, I also have experience of this from the community side as I was involved in fighting inappropriate opencast for seven years. The current process prevents communities from moving on, in my view, from the threat of previously rejected unsuitable proposals. This uncertainty can affect other investment in an area, and consideration also has to be given to the money spent by planning departments reviewing subsequent applications. Over the years, I have raised this a number of times with the Scottish Government, and in 2015 I met Alex Neil in an attempt to address this frequency. Sadly, there was no appetite to change it at that stage, and I hope that the planning bill will now allow for that change. I recognise that the minister has moved on this issue since we had discussions before the summer recess. The recommendations of the stage 1 report on the planning bill were that it was content with the proposals to change the local development plans to a 10-year cycle. The aim of that is to create a greater connection between communities and local improvement plans, as we know, and to provide a more coherent vision for communities. The time period for repeat applications reflecting the local development plan cycle proposed, along with giving local authorities the power to decline as a second similar application, would, in my view, help to secure this long-term vision for Scotland. In terms of 1.46, in an attempt to restrict the occurrence of repeat applications along with 1.45 to extend the timescale, I propose that the Scottish Government consider producing guidance on what constitutes significant change in a planning application. There is currently no statutory definition of what constitutes significant change, as the minister has highlighted in his remarks about his amendment. It is at the discretion of the planning authority to establish if an application is similar. I note the minister's comments about the courts. However, in my view, guidance would create consistency in the decision-making of the planning authority and give them confidence in that decision. It would also inform developers of what level of change is expected before an application will be reconsidered. As part of a package of amendments to address serial applications with 1.45 and 1.46, we must, in my view, look at fees and the cost of resubmitting a similar application. If a developer is putting forward an application within the 10-year period proposed in my amendment, and it is found to be similar, the planning authority should have discretion to apply an appropriately significant fee. If the amendment is successful at stage 2, it may be better considered in the future as a fine in parenthesis, as the aim of the amendment is to remove the incentive to lodge a similar application when it has already been declined or is still under review. Thank you, convener. I think that there's obviously been good progress made in terms of Claudia's proposals, and the minister has moved somewhat from perhaps what his predecessor's position was. I welcome the local example that Claudia has given. I don't know if all the members on the committee have received this email, but yesterday, Kil Macomb, residence association, got in touch. I don't know the local circumstance, but they've talked about a situation where a volume house builder has tried three times to get planning permission on a green belt site, has been refused twice by the planning authority, and an appeal has been dismissed by a reporter. They talk about that culture of repeat applications until developers get what they want. I will support the minister's amendment and Claudia Beamish's amendment, because I think that those amendments will not only improve planning practice but help to change that culture, because all of us, I believe, want to strengthen the plan-laid system and minimise repeat applications. That would be some way towards that. The minister's amendment deals with, of course, the important issue of serial applications, and I'm pleased to note that the minister has responded to concerns that I have raised over the past while, and I'm sure that other members have as well, so I think that it's very positive development. Of course, I think that what is not actually well known at the moment is that local authorities, planning authorities, do have discretion. I don't think that that's well known, and it's not well known amongst communities. It doesn't even seem to be well known amongst some councillors that actually this is a power that local authorities currently have, but I'm very pleased indeed to see that the period in question will be if the amendment is accepted, extended to five years, I think, with respect to Claudia Beamish's amendment on that point. I think that a five-year period strikes the right balance. I think that that reflects the issues involved, including, importantly, I think, as the minister said, that there is no planning appeal procedure where the planning authority does exercise discretion to decline to determine the application in light of this provision. I think that the five-year period strikes an important balance, and I would be very happy to support that. I think that it's a very welcome amendment that communities across Scotland will be supportive of. Thank you very much, convener. I'm happy that Ms Ewing has highlighted the discretion that already exists. I have to say that at points it's frustrating for me as minister to have to write to many of whom who should be in the know, including local authority-elected members, about the discretionary powers that are there. I don't want to sound like a broken record, convener, but I must reiterate the point about guidance and all that we are doing here. Guidance cannot change the meaning of legislation. It just cannot. As I said earlier, interpretation is a matter for the courts. As I've said again and again here, guidance cannot usefully address all of the issues that might arise in every type of case. Very briefly, convener. Thank you. While the minister says that it can't change the meaning, surely guidance can reflect what the bill says in terms of developing clarity, and I believe that my amendment 146 would do this and help those who make these decisions to make them in a consistent way. As I've already said, guidance cannot change the meaning of primary legislation. That is a matter for the courts. Beyond that, the last point that I made is that you cannot set out in guidance every single aspect that may or may not occur. I think that this theme will arise again later on today as it has in the past. Guidance is not the way to deal with this at all. On timescales, as I have put forward in my amendment, what we see is an increase in the timescale. In terms of Ms Beamish's amendment, what we will see without a doubt is that there will be material consideration changes and maybe even development plan changes within the 10-year timescale that she envisages. It would be unreasonable not to suppose that circumstances will change within that lengthy period. That is why the five-year period is the logical one to deal with. Are those not the same arguments that were levied against your proposals to move from a five-year to a 10-year local development plan cycle? Have we managed to overcome those concerns? There are real differences in terms of what we are seeing here and what has been proposed in terms of the local development plan cycle. The entire scenario of moving from five years to 10 years in the local development plan cycle was to concentrate on delivering rather than constantly planning. What we will see with Ms Beamish's amendment is the very real changes that will happen over that period of time. I think that the five-year scenario is the logical one and therefore, convener, I would ask folk to support amendment 257 in my name and to reject the other amendments in my group. The question is that amendment 257 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? 257 is agreed to. I call amendment 307, in the name of Daniel Johnson. Already debated with amendment 207, and I believe Monica, you are going to move this on behalf of Daniel Johnson. The question is that amendment 307 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 306, in the name of Lois MacDonald. Already debated with amendment 207, Lois MacDonald, to move or not move? Moved, convener. Thank you. Yes, you have. The question is that amendment 306 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 306, those opposed? The amendment is passed for three. I call amendment 318, in the name of Mark Ruskell. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Mark Ruskell, to move amendment 318 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Yes, I would like to move and speak to 318. The inspiration for this amendment came from the Scottish Parliament's first ever inquiry into air quality that took place last year in the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. There was a strong conclusion that consideration of air quality issues were not adequately embedded into the planning system and that change was needed. And the Minister spoke last week about creating great places. Well, great places are also healthy places and the reality is that we have 2,000 people dying every year in part due to air pollution. We have, of course, statutory limits on the levels of pollutants in our air and where levels are persistently breached, that leads to the designation of an air quality management area. There are 32 of these around Scotland and the designation leads to the production of action plans led by councils in an attempt to drive pollutant levels back under legal limits. However, there is no explicit link to the planning system. Most AQMAs are designated on the basis of transport emissions, but there is evidence that major developments are being approved without adequate mitigation measures being put in place, effectively locking in illegal levels of pollution. I would point to the example of a major housing allocation in Sgoon, where it has demonstrated that the building of 700 houses would have a significant impact on 2 AQMAs in Perth. That led to the director of public health for Tayside NHS lodging a formal objection to the development. Later on, it was finally agreed in discussions around phasing that only part of the development could be constructed ahead of a relief road being built to take traffic away from the two AQMAs. However, that was very much an afterthought in the planning process and only after a vociferous campaign by local communities was it considered at all. My amendment seeks to rectify the situation by elevating the consideration of air quality issues in planning. It would apply to decisions taken for major developments in AQMAs and those areas that are on the cusp of being designated due to persistently high pollution levels. I had originally lodged an amendment back in the summer that would have applied to all applications, both major and minor, but I have now withdrawn that amendment and re-logged it as 318 so that the provision only applies to major developments. Any increases in air pollution that may occur from a minor development would be relatively insignificant, whereas major developments go through an environmental assessment screening process, and, if appropriate, a full assessment is produced alongside traffic impact assessments. That should provide a robust basis for planning authorities to consider quality issues. The amendment is not about stopping development per se. It is about ensuring that if a planning authority wishes to approve a major development in an AQMA, then mitigation must be fully considered and acted on. I would conclude convener by asking what the point is of having legally binding targets if they have little weight when it comes to planning decisions, just to be considered as part of the balance of issues, as the minister put it last week. It is a failure to embed air quality into plans, which has led to successful legal actions against both the UK and Scottish Governments in recent years. The committee has the opportunity today to protect human health and to create great places by approving the amendment. Thank you very much. Jeremy Balfour, to speak to amendment 80 and other amendments in the group. Good morning. Amendment 80 aims to ensure that, when applications are made to the planning authority for planning permission regarding development of housing suitable for older people and disabled people, the planning authority must proceed on the assumption that such an application will normally be granted permission. Given that, within a generation, a third of all Scots will be aged over 65, we are currently facing a significant shortfall in the number of retirement and accessible properties being built, and that needs to be addressed urgently. Amendment 80 would seek to ensure that positive consideration is given to applications for retirement and accessible housing developments being put forward for consideration. That will help to address the imbalance and meet the needs of our age and population and those with specific disability needs. I therefore ask the committee to support amendment 80 in my name. Can I also speak to amendment 323? Most people assume that disabled toilet catered for everyone with a disability. It does not. Amendment 323 seeks to address this. There is a shocking current lack of toilet facilities available across Scotland for people with profound and multiple learning difficulties for those with physical disabilities such as spinal injuries and those who are older who have dementia. Amendment 53 calls for any large-scale new-building planning application such as a school, hospital, community centre or large retail shopping centre over 10,000 square metres to include an accessible toilet in their plans that will cater for the needs of those individuals. Accessible toilets are specialist toilet facilities, a 12-square-metre room that must contain equipment, including a hoist, adjustment height, changing bench and a room for two carers to be present. Those facilities will allow individuals with complex needs the basic right to be included in society and be able to go out shopping for the day, to go to a trip to the cinema while being able to go to the toilet safely and comfortably, something that most of us take for granted. There is also an economic benefit if this amendment is passed in that many people at the moment are not able to go shopping or to the cinema or to other facilities because they know that they will not have the toilet if they require it. Currently, there are only 172 accessible toilets in Scotland with only 10 here in Edinburgh and I am pleased to say that one is here in the Scottish Parliament. I am moving amendment 323 in my name to ensure that disabled people and older people are included in plans for large-scale developments in the future. I would also ask the committee to look favourably on maybe fees amendment on a similar issue as well. Thank you very much. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 141 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 141 is consequential on amendment 140 and perhaps the committee will be pleased to hear and those present will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to move or press, depending on the terminology this amendment, because I will have reassurances from both the Scottish Government and SEPA in relation to 140, which I withdrew previously, in terms of permitted development rights. Amendment 331 is designed to ensure that the planning system can be used to enable and support local decision makers to explicitly weigh up the long-term costs and implications of climate change impacts of development proposals against potentially competing considerations such as shorter-term economic considerations. This amendment is supported by stock climate chaos, a broad coalition of groups, including trade unions and community groups and churches, as well as NGOs. It is important that decisions in housing and transport planning, for example, are based on comprehensive information regarding the environmental impacts from infrastructure. Current practice is generally, frankly, poor in terms of life cycle considerations of energy use and contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. Requiring that national and major developments conduct a life cycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment would help decision makers to make more informed judgments in weighing up project proposals, leading to more sustainable development and avoiding investment now that won't serve us all well in the future. The amendment would oblige a planning authority to consider the likely impact of developments of greenhouse gas emissions, as it says in the amendment itself, on achieving national greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. I note that, at the moment, that says the Climate Change Act 2009, so it may be that further consideration has to be taken, even if there is keenness on this amendment, as we are at the moment considering another bill in our, well, the Scottish Government Bill in committee. The life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions means, and I quote again from my amendment, the emissions associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of a development. I believe very strongly that Scotland must future proof in this area. Amendment 230 would require community open space to be a condition of planning permission for developments of four or more dwellings. This is a probing amendment, and it defines community open spaces, a space with green infrastructure for civic areas and excludes parking spaces from falling under that definition. It is about creating, in my view, positive living spaces for people, setting the tone for more communal environments with potential benefits in health, air quality, local economy, inequality issues and general mental wellbeing. Homes for Scotland highlighted concerns about this amendment in relation to risking already marginal activity and making it unviable, though I understand as a representative for South Scotland, which is mostly rural or partly rural anyway. I do strongly believe that Scottish residents have a right to public community spaces where they live. Similarly to amendment 227, which has already been considered on the play sufficiency assessment, this amendment highlights the importance of our spaces, our living spaces and placemaking with an emphasis on the need for community space in our housing developments. Finally, I would like to speak positively about Mark Ruskell's amendment 318. I just want to go back to amendment 230, which deals with the requirement to provide community open space. The amendment says that that should be for any development of four or more houses. Let's assume that you have a development of just four houses, a very small development. How on earth is someone who is just building four houses meant to provide community open space in every case? Perhaps you could answer that. You said at the start that this is a probing amendment. I do not know whether you intend to move it or not. Perhaps you could indicate in your response whether that is the case? I would like to hear the comments of other members before I make a decision about whether to move or not. It is a probing amendment, as I say. I seem to be contradicting myself there. However, I think that it is very important to work out how do we get space. I appreciate from the perspective of a developer that that could be a space for another house in a marginal area. However, there are often houses, frankly, which are very, very close together and with no viable community space for people who live there. These issues around loneliness and mental health and other issues are profoundly important for our communities. Four may not be the right number. I recognise that. It was a way of starting it off. I think I would leave that where it is and see where we go with it. Finally, Mark Ruskell's amendment 318 is a significant amendment on protecting our communities against air pollution. I appreciate that he has removed the previous amendment and it is only now about major developments. Having taken evidence in the Eclare Committee in the summer time and through last year on air pollution, that is a serious issue for our communities. Significant numbers of people in Scotland actually die every year from that as a contributory factor. I think that it needs to be assessed as a health issue. Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to amendment 208 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. It's great to be back. Good morning to the committee. Thank you for having me. My amendment 208 speaks to a proliferation of housing development in my constituency and many other constituencies. I should say from the outset that all Democrats are not instinctively or ideologically opposed to new housing. Indeed, Edinburgh needs new housing. Scotland needs new housing. This amendment speaks to the correspondence that I received from many constituents and community groups. It is resonant throughout my party and all the local authority groups of Liberal Democrats who have submitted responses to me in the conduct of this act. This is about strengthening a presumption towards the use of brownfield land in housing development. We have had a situation in Edinburgh in particular where brownfield land was owned for development as early as 2003 prior to the crash and never built upon. Some outpost communities were established there where lots of people bought houses with the expectations that communities would be growing up around them, schools would be built, transport infrastructure enhanced, only to see the economic downturn, see developers move away from plans to develop that land and instead favour plans to develop more lucrative green belt land where they could exact a higher premium for their purchase. The amendment seeks to spell out to developers that they have to give due consideration to brownfield land that they might establish development on. They need to give adequate reasoning why they dismiss that. The local authority gives the final clause, and the amendment gives the power to local authorities to reject development on greenfield land if it deems it an intrinsic natural heritage value. That speaks to many of the developments that we see, particularly in my constituency, but I know in other members' constituencies as well. I am happy to be here and thank you for the opportunity to speak to it. John Finnie to speak to amendment 294 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning. We are in the section of legislation covering the termination of applications, and people may therefore be a bit surprised to see the word demolition feature in this, but it is the case that planning authorities must receive grant permission for a development, quote, for a development that involves the demolition of a building. My amendment refers to the Housing Scotland Act 2006. That is a very commendable piece of legislation that ensures that the highest standards are applied, and those standards, if a landlord is not prepared to put them in place, are enforced by way of a repairing standard enforcement order. Strange those might seem—this is an actual case that I am dealing with—that at the moment, rather than undertake that repairing standard enforcement, a rogue landlord and the Highlands and Islands, like many urban areas, is blessed with a number of those, and a strong history of abuse in relation to housing and occupancy could seek to circumvent, and someone has sought to circumvent putting in place a repairing standard enforcement order by applying for demolition. That piece of legislation would ensure that such an order in place could not take place. I am going to confirm myself simply to the comments of the two amendments that I have. The next one relates to the Ramsar Convention. Ramsar cites for those who do not know are internationally important wetland sites that are identified for protection by the Ramsar Convention. It is the Scottish Government's policy to apply the same level of protection to Ramsar sites as that switch is afforded to designated natura sites. The piece of legislation in question is the conservation natural habitats regulations 94, and that gave legal protection to natura sites in Scotland. The habitat regulations ensure that any plan or project that may damage a natura site is assessed and can only go ahead if certain strict conditions are met. The process is known as the habitat regulations appraisal, one aspect of which is an appropriate assessment. As Ramsar cites are not specifically listed in the habitat regulations, it is unclear how the Scottish Government policy to give those sites the same level of protection as natura sites should be implemented. My colleague Mark Ruskell previously, in a previous session of the Parliament, proposed an amendment to the nature conservation bill on this ferry. At the time, the response from Alan Wilson stated, and I quote here, that Ramsar sites in Scotland are already well protected through existing designations, so there is, strictly speaking, no need for the kind of additional mechanism. However, that is incorrect. The listed features of Ramsar sites in Scotland are not always covered by underlying designations, or in some cases are only protected by a lower triple SI designation, which does not provide the equivalent level of protection as a natura site. The planning bill gives an opportunity to demonstrate the Scottish Government's commitment to this important international obligation, and I hope that opportunity will be seized by the minister. Graham Simpson speaks to amendment 324 and other amendments in the group. Thanks very much, convener. Amendment 324 deals with biodiversity. I've spoken quite a bit already about the need to deliver more housing in the right places, but this shouldn't be at the expense of biodiversity. The concept of net biodiversity gain is increasingly well recognised in environmental assessments. It requires that development leaves biodiversity—I'll get it right—in a better state than before. It's particularly important to secure this requirement, as there's currently no statutory system for ensuring impacts on biodiversity are mitigated outwith designated sites. Residual cumulative effects are particularly hard to address. A requirement to provide biodiversity net gain would help Scotland meet its obligations and targets. England's 25-year environment plan states that, "...we will seek to embed a net environmental gain principle for development to deliver environmental improvements locally and nationally. I consider that Scotland should also be looking to achieve this. The amendment's not particularly taxing. It says that if a planning authority thinks that there could be an effect on biodiversity from a development, it should consider that. Just consider it. Having considered that, the authority should only grant permission if it is satisfied that there will be net positive effects on biodiversity from the development. Frankly, if we want to improve habitats and make great places for people to live, then this is one way of doing it. It ties in nicely with other amendments looking at health. Amendment 323, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, deals with the provision of specialist toilet facilities in large developments. Convener, the amendment is a thing of beauty, much like Mr Balfour. We initially thought that this may be something that would sit better in building regulations, but on reflection we think planning can help. We can also support Mary Fee's amendment to this, which adds to the list of buildings covered. Convener, I strongly support Alex Cole-Hamilton. It's not often I've been able to say that. Here's amendment 208. We can help to regain trust in our planning system by ensuring that development takes place on Brownfield instead of previous Greenbelt where this is feasible and this amendment helps to achieve that. An application to build on Greenbelt would not be able to be approved unless there's a statement by the applicant setting out why the proposed development can't be achieved on Brownfield land. As you know, I had a Brownfield land amendment that I didn't move, but assuming Mr Cole-Hamilton presses his, he'll have our support. Turning to Mark Ruskell's quality zone amendment 318, it has presented this with the best of intentions, but despite him rewording it, I do think that there could still be unintended consequences. I think that if the amendment went through then almost any road, any large industrial development, large retail development, restaurants, housing development could be rejected on the grounds that they might cause some pollution. We do want to protect the environment. I've mentioned that previously, but I think it's a question of balance. John Finnie's amendment, certainly. Thank you, Member, for taking an intervention. All the amendment requires consideration of adequate mitigations. If there was a road that was being built, fine, but there has to be consideration of what the mitigation is in terms of air pollution. That really does reflect what we already have in terms of law, in terms of the requirements set in our quality management area and to take decisions that are consistent with that. It isn't about stopping things, it's about ensuring that we mitigate the impact of things that have been constructive. I think that his question of unintended consequences could be used to stop things that would be desirable. I would simply urge Mr Ruskell, if this is defeated, have no idea what will happen, to think again for stage 3 and have further discussions. John Finnie's amendment 294 says that planning authorities must not grant planning permission for development if it involves knocking down a building that should have been repaired. I can see where he's coming from, but I think that he should perhaps have been a bit more flexible. A better form of wording would be may not, as that allows for some flexibility, so we can't support the amendment in its current form. Claudia Beamish's amendment 230, which I questioned her on previously, about providing community open space of developments of four or more houses. I think that it's, frankly, if I may use the word ridiculous on achievable, on a development of that size, a development of four houses is small, and I can't really see how every single development of that size could possibly meet Miss Beamish's demands. I haven't had a chance to speak to Claudia Beamish in detail about her proposal, but I'm thinking there could be situations, because in the committee we've talked about trying to encourage smaller builders' small-scale developments. I'm not sure if Claudia Beamish is thinking about that cumulative impact, where she could have in smaller settlements the small-scale developments of four units, or maybe under 10 units, and that could be the way to fill in gap sites. I suppose that what Claudia Beamish has in mind is that if she has a grouping of small developments, there could be a risk that there's no contribution to community open space, and it's a way to, you know, maybe increase that provision. But I think it's not without his challenge, and I think Claudia Beamish has recognised that. I think she's accepted the challenge, is that, at the moment? As he can, he gives himself his faith. I don't know if he wanted to come in, but I think it's good that we debate these things. I completely agree with what you said through the convener. I mean, I'm thinking about my own communities, and I think there's a lot of gap sites that have been filled in. Some of them have been delict for years, and people have come in and put five, six, seven houses in, and frankly, if there was a need to put it in these community spaces that have been discussed, they simply would not have went forward with these developments. So it's just a deterrent to actually fill in a lot of gap sites in towns and in cities. I think the thing about, you know, what Monica is trying desperately to do to try and rescue Claudia in this particular thing in terms of small villages is something that I do think we're really taking it seriously, Frank. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. Back to Graeme. Okay. So I can see... Enough time on that one. It's actually a valid point. Okay then. Can you make it? Well, you have to. Yes. Actually, it's interviewing on me. Are you looking to intervene? Yes. I haven't even spoken yet. That's always the best time, Graeme. You can intervene. I would like to intervene on that. Graeme, you're happy to take it. Yes, I'll take the intervention. Thank you. Thank you, convener, that Graeme Simpson has already raised, and this was a probing amendment. I think there may well be other ways of doing this, and Monica's raised that. It actually is not ridiculous to look at people's mental health and at the possibilities of green spaces where... Of your possession. But I am, convener, with respect. It is important that we have green spaces in our communities. Now, it may be that it might be that there could be a funding in the local authority on the stage 3, which others have discussed with me since I put in this amendment. It may be there are other ways of doing it, but we cannot go on having people crowded in together without space for immunity. Claudia, you made those points in your previous comments, and we will get a response from the minister very shortly. Graeme, are you still to continue? Very briefly. Good to spark a debate, convener. I think for Claudia Beamish to mention green spaces and mental health, where I think every single member of this committee frankly is in favour of green spaces, every single member of this committee sees the value and the value in helping to prevent mental health, but we have to look at the wording of the amendment, and it deals with potentially tiny developments. Claudia Beamish represents a rural area where you could have, for example, small courtyard developments of four, five properties where there just would not be the space to provide community open space, however valuable that may be. We will certainly not be supporting it if she presses it. Also, sadly, we cannot support Claudia Beamish's amendment 331. It will be impossible for a planning authority, in my view, to assess the likely impact of the developments in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions on achieving national greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets. I just think that that is far too onerous for councils. I shall leave it there. Thank you. Mary Fee to speak to amendment 323A and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning, everyone. I will speak to my own amendment 323A and also in support of amendment 323 in the name of Jeremy Balfour. Amendment 323A and 323A both serve to strengthen the Planning Scotland Bill by including a statutory provision for the inclusion of changing places toilet facilities within certain new, large developments. Changing places toilets are essential for people living with profound and multiple learning difficulties, as well as other disabilities that severely limit mobility and people who are unable to use standard accessible toilets, disabled toilets. In February 2009, the British Standard 8300 code of practice was published. That code of practice provided guidance on the design of buildings to ensure they met the needs of disabled people and outlined the specifications for changing places toilets. Amendment 323 attempts to enshrine in legislation the recommended British Standard dimension for changing places toilets. As the amendment outlines, changing places toilets should be a minimum of 12 square metres to allow two carers to assist an adult to use the toilet. My amendment 323A supplements and strengthens amendment 323. The British Standard 8300 recommends nine categories of larger buildings and complexes that should provide a changing place toilet. Amendment 323 covers four of those categories. My amendment adheres to the British Standard recommendations to provide standardisation of the provision of changing place toilets by making them a legal requirement in cultural centres such as museums, concert halls and art galleries, stadia and large auditoria, major transport termini and interchanges and motorway service facilities. At present, the provision of changing place toilets is sporadic and inadequate, as there is no legal requirement for large buildings and complexes to provide facilities that comply with the British Standard 8300. To give one small example, at present there are only two changing place toilets on Scotland's road networks, with both located on the M74 at Cairn Lodge services near Lesmahego and Anandale water services near Lockerby. There is a growing awareness around the necessity of changing place toilets, and it is estimated that over a quarter of a million people across the UK need changing places toilets to enable them to go out of their house and go about their day-to-day activities. I believe that the Scottish Parliament should lead the rest of the UK on the issue of changing places toilets. From an equality and human rights perspective, the passage of amendments 323 and 323A would ensure that our public buildings our shared spaces and the wider-built environment are more accessible, more inclusive and responsive to the basic needs of all members of our society. Changing places toilets are vital and potentially life-changing facilities. Their introduction in new developments would ensure greater accessibility and inclusivity for carers and for individuals who require these facilities. The reality is that without access to a suitable changing bench and hoist, many people with complex disabilities are forced to choose between lying on an unhygienic toilet floor or becoming trapped in their own home. I would urge the committee to support both amendment 323 and amendment 323A. Thank you very much. Now, the minister to speak to amendment 263 and other amendments in the group. Convener, I'll start by explaining amendment 263 in my name, which is largely technical, and then move on to the policy issues raised by other amendments in this group. Section 58 of the 1997 act deals with when planning permission expires if development has not begun. The default is three years from when permission is granted. Subsection 4C provides an exemption to avoid a temporary planning permission with a very short life, having a default requirement to begin development by a date after the permission itself has expired. However, these days, even large-scale and long-term developments can have time limits or decommissioning strategies or reinstatement requirements specified in planning permission and, thus, be technically temporary. The risk is that the exemption may also apply to some of those permissions or that there is uncertainty as to whether it does or not. That would mean that such permissions could exist permanently with communities and planning authorities not knowing if or when development might be started. The amendment therefore removes that exemption so that temporary planning permission is subject to the normal rules and when it expires. I hope that the committee will support the amendment. The remainder of the amendments in this group all seek in one way or another to limit the ability of planning authorities to determine applications for planning permission according to the circumstances of individual cases. Mr Simpson mentioned unintended consequences. I think that a number of those amendments very certainly do have unintended consequences. I have made clear throughout that I do not agree with centralising and inflexible approaches. Above all, it does not allow authorities to balance the different issues that arise against one another to arrive at the best overall decision. I am going to make exceptions, though, for amendments 323 in the name of Jeremy Balfour and Mary Fee's amendment to that amendment. I recognise the importance of changing places, toilets to the lives of people with profound and multiple learning disabilities and to their families and carers. I thank Mr Balfour for raising the issue, supported by Mary Fee. I thank Mr Balfour for working constructively with officials to ensure that we have the best possible amendment. I certainly want to make sure that any new large public building is provided with those facilities, but we must be proportionate avoiding anomalies such as every new classroom extension requiring its own changing places toilet. Amendment 323 provides for regular relations to refine the developments to which the requirement would apply and the specification of the facilities required so that it can be kept up to date with changes in technology and standards. That is very helpful. The Scottish Government, under my instruction, has already been working to introduce those facilities through building standards system with a working group set up to develop proposals for public consultation. We will need to work through how the two regimes should interact, but I would ask the committee to support Jeremy Balfour and Mary Fee's amendments today. I also support, in principle, the principle behind John Finnie's amendment 331, relating to the protection of Ramsar sites. Of course, I cannot comment on any live planning application that may have inspired this amendment from Mr Finnie. Can I make some progress and then I will take you in? I think that it is clarification. I will take you in a wee bit. However, minister, I think that it is clarification about the amendment number. Okay, on you go. John Finnie. The particular amendments that I proposed, Minister Walsh. I beg your pardon, 335. Thank you, Mr Finnie. The Government has already confirmed that its policy is to give the same level of protection to Ramsar sites as European protected sites. The amendment would mean that this is not a matter of policy but a legal restriction. However, for technical reasons, I cannot support the amendment as drafted. First day, the approach is not ideal as European sites are supported through regulations rather than primary legislation. The majority of Ramsar sites in Scotland are also European sites, so I am concerned about duplicating assessments unnecessarily. Furthermore, the language and terminology will require technical adjustment. I wonder if Mr Finnie has fully considered whether transposing the wording that was drafted for European protected sites will technically work for Ramsar sites, given that they are designated in a different way. I also think that we should ensure that any definitions are consistent with those elsewhere in the legislation. I would be happy to work with Mr Finnie on this matter and would ask him to withdraw the amendment to allow for further discussion. Amendment 80, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, demonstrates the difficulties of attempting to set a new basis for determination of applications without making it clear how that might fit in with the existing duty to determine applications for planning permission in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It does not set out what is considered to be housing that is suitable for older people and those with disabilities or even how old is older. Not all disabilities require physical adaptations to a house, so this assumption could potentially apply to all housing as it would be suitable for some older people and some people with disabilities. Even if some accessibility standards are applied, the houses could be completely inappropriate for the location. In what circumstances could the planning authority override this presumption in favour of agreement? It's not clear. The committee has agreed a range of amendments that will ensure housing for older people and disabled people has a prominent place in the development plan, in addition to existing policy. Decisions based on those plans and policies should therefore deliver appropriate housing for older people and disabled people, balancing all the other material considerations that may arise. It is not helpful to disrupt that system, and I ask the committee not to support those amendments. Mr Cole-Hamilton would like anyone applying for planning permission in the green belt to identify some brownfield land that is not suitable for their development and explain why they didn't choose to develop there. That would not only apply to new development but also to anyone wanting to extend their existing home in the green belt or perhaps to create facilities to help people to enjoy the green belt. Scottish Planning Policy states that it is up to planning authorities in preparing local development plans to decide whether to have a green belt in their area and what policies they should have to support it and define appropriate development within it. That will include appropriate protection for the natural or cultural heritage value of the land as they themselves see fit. A decision based on the development plan will therefore give those issues appropriate weight. Where a development plan promotes the use of brownfield sites over any green belt land it designates, one would expect the applicant to provide a case for why they have gone for development in the green belt if alternative sites were possible. Where a planning authority goes to the trouble of designating a green belt and having policies to protect it that fits the needs of their area, it seems inappropriate to fetter the planning authority's ability to decide whether to grant planning permission or not in the way proposed by amendment 208. I turn now to Mr Finney's amendment 294, which appears to be trying to use the planning system to protect tenants. However, if a landlord decided not to comply with their repairing standard enforcement order and to demolish the building instead, having planning permission is not a green light to do so. Planning permission would not in itself override tenants' rights, although in some cases an intention to demolish the building, even if it is in perfectly good condition, may be grounds for eviction. The amendment also refers to work required under a repairing standard enforcement order not being completed. It is only the housing and property chamber of the first-tier tribunal for Scotland who can determine whether such works have been completed. Procedurally, this leaves the planning decision dependent on a determination of the tribunal and could potentially create a situation where planning permission could not be granted to demolish a building that was unsafe, for example, or which was blocking other needed development. Amendment 294 meddles in a complex area where decisions really need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, with regard to both the planning issues and the relevant tenancy provisions, and I will take Mr Finney in at that point. I note the minister's comments and I concur with him that it is a very complex area and that it is an area that involves the housing and property chamber and a decision ultimately with local authorities. Would he accept that this is not some academic—I am not drawing him into a particular case—but, as things stand, a rogue landlord can circumvent housing legislation by applying to demolish the property, and that is simply unfair. I will speak to Mr Finney further about this issue, but, as I have said on previous occasions and at the very beginning of this, there are unintended consequences to this amendment, as there are to many others here. I would ask Mr Finney not to press this amendment, but I am willing to talk to him about this further. The other amendments in this group likewise deal with important issues, but they are much broader ones that may have a range of solutions and therefore are more appropriately dealt with in policy and by planning authorities' judgment. Many of those amendments, as drafted, would have significant impacts, which I hope are unintended, but which highlight the difficulty of such prescription. My view is that the review of the national planning framework and Scottish planning policy is the best place to consider the issues in more detail and with the flexibility that they need. I hope that members will agree to work with me on that approach. Can I start with Mr Simpson's amendments 3, 2, 4, and Ms Beamish's 3, 3, 1? The environmental impact assessment regulations already require an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of relevant developments and consideration of any measures to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset those effects. Those regulations have their own criteria for determining which developments need an assessment. They do not align exactly with national and major developments, but they do ensure that relevant projects are covered, including some local developments. Requiring a separate assessment through planning legislation risks duplicating rather than streamlining procedures with no opportunity for screening to allow authorities to focus on development that will have significant impacts. Both biodiversity assessment and measurement of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are highly specialised areas that can quickly become very complicated and could introduce significant cost and delay. That time and cost will fall to applicants to provide additional supporting information with their applications. It is important that significant development projects support our targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are resilient to the impact of climate change in the long term. EIA includes an assessment of impacts relating to climate. There is not a specific requirement to undertake a life cycle analysis and methods can vary, but it is normal for them to cover all phases of development. I do not want to duplicate that, but perhaps we can arrive at a more proportionate solution. For example, I agree that it would be useful to undertake such an assessment of all the proposed national developments to be included in the national planning framework 4. I would be happy with an amendment in those terms so that the most significant long-term infrastructure projects in Scotland would be assessed in this way. However, I am more cautious about major developments where consideration may not always be relevant or add value to existing assessments. Scottish planning policy states that the planning system should seek benefits for biodiversity for new development where that is possible. Mr Simpson's amendment has no doubt been informed by the UK Government's approach to net biodiversity gain. However, the apparent simplicity of the amendment belies a complex policy area. On the basis that every proposed development may have an effect on biodiversity, however slight, the amendment would require measurements to ensure net positive effects on biodiversity for every development. That is every home extension, every illuminated sign, every equipment store, and if such measurements could not be secured, planning permission would have to be refused. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, fundamentally it could seriously risk stalling development of all kinds and undermining economic growth across the whole of Scotland. I believe that primary legislation is too blunt an instrument to reflect the complexities involved in that issue. I will take Mr Simpson. Thank you. That is the second time that the minister has referred to house extensions in his arguments. If I was to build an extension on to my house, I can assure you that there would be no biodiversity effects. I think that he is going a bit too far in his objections. Convener, I talked about unintended consequences. A number of those amendments today have unintended consequences. I am not going too far, I am not scaremongering here. Those are the consequences of those amendments on some very small developments. The committee has to take cognisance of that. Again, I am willing to have further discussions. I have already said that in terms of the national planning framework for and national planning developments, I think that we can work together on some of that. However, I do think that there are unintended consequences to a number of amendments in that group. I hope that folk will recognise that I am pointing those out to them, because those are the realities. Mark Ruskell's amendment 318 on air quality could effectively ban major development in some of our larger urban areas and limit the ability of a planning authority to use a range of solutions to mitigate or offset the effects of new development. We know that a major source of air pollution is from transport, which is why Scottish planning policy sets out a framework for decision making on new development that is designed to reduce the need to travel and encourage sustainable transport or options, therefore reducing transport emissions. Arguably, that amendment could lead to perverse effects where major developments are forced to locate in less sustainable, out-of-time locations to avoid air quality zones, even where action could be taken to mitigate any effects on air quality. The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommended that air quality should be considered in the review of the national planning framework. We will work to ensure that MPF4 aligns with the package of measures in Scotland's strategy on cleaner air for Scotland, the road to a healthier future. I am glad that Ms Beamish has said that she will not move and withdraw amendment 141, because, effectively, that amendment would have given SEPA the powers to be decision maker and give it a veto in a number of cases. Let me turn to amendment 230, again from Ms Beamish, which again removes flexibility from planning authorities and is not clear enough about what it requires. The Scottish Government previously commissioned research and carried out a detailed consultation on setting requirements for open space at a national level. That highlighted a number of practical barriers to implementation, including the differences between urban and rural areas and the amount of community open space that is already available. There are differences in opinion over how the amount of open space that is required should be calculated and wider concerns about the impact on development viability, as Mr Gibson and Mr Simpson have pointed out. Research carried out for Scottish Natural Heritage on developing green space standards found that many of the earlier open space standards have been implicated in the creation of poor spaces and developments with little sense of place. The amendment does not address those concerns. It does not say how much open space would be required and it would not allow off-site provision or improvement of existing green space in the area. Those are often good solutions for urban development, especially flats, where open space cannot be provided on-site. I recognise that, since we last consulted on the issue, there has been renewed interest in a national standard for green infrastructure and some potential models have been developed. I strongly believe that policy is the appropriate place to include detailed but flexible requirements to ensure that open space truly enhances our places. I ask the committee to support amendment 263 in my name. I urge the committee not to support the other amendments in the group. The minister has talked about unintended consequences. I am sure that members will listen to his views carefully and those moving amendments will take a view as to whether they wish to move amendments or not. If they do move amendments, I am sure that, as the minister said, he is open to discussions about how they might be refined at stage 3. I support Mark Ruskell's amendment 318. In my view, it is proportionate. The minister argues that it could not allow for mitigating measures, but, with pre-application procedures and good conversations with the planning application, the question is that it prohibits planning applications being granted where, in the planning authorities' opinion, it would have an adverse effect on the achievement of the limit value in an air quality management zone. Those can all be resolved prior to submitting the formal application. I think that it is quite a proportionate amendment to ensure that we are not in breach of the law. Mark Ruskell's amendment 80 cannot support. It invites planning authorities to proceed on assumptions that applications will normally be granted for two very worthy types of development, but, nevertheless, I think that there are risks that that could override valuable provisions in the local development plan. In extremis, it could provide that such developments, as are contained in the amendment, would be built in the middle of parks, for example. In 2.30, Claude Beamish's amendment, I understand which it is coming from, but the Edinburgh North Leith constituency, for example, which is in Lothian, where I represent is the most densely populated part of Scotland. There are many gap sites that need to be filled and there are tenement properties, and tenement properties, by definition, cannot provide community open space within the footprint of the development. Although I know that the amendment talks about community open space means space within or on the edge of settlements, so, in theory, one could provide an application to build some tenements in Leith and the community open space is five miles away in the Pentland hills. I think that there is important stuff in here, but I do not think that I could support it at the moment in primary legislation. It is just a clarification, because I think that the minister said in respect to amendment 2.30 that it was talking about the footprint of sites and it did not allow for off-site provision, but Andy Wightman has helpedfully pointed out in Claude Beamish's amendment to provide some definition of what community open space means. I think that there has been a misunderstanding, but I agree that there is work to be done on the amendment. I clarify, because the amendment does not say how much open space would be required and it does not allow off-site provision or improvement of existing green space in the area. I think that I am pointing out these things. I have had legal officials and others working on this, looking at the purpose and effect of all of these amendments. I have shared purpose and effect documents with committee members around about this. These are the situations. There are unintended consequences to those things. I am pointing those out. Those are the effects of those amendments. I thank the minister for his intervention. Finally, in John Finnie's amendment 294, I understand the points that the ministers made here. This is a loophole that has been attempted to close. It is a conflict that needs to be resolved and I hope that John Finnie will be moving amendment 294. I will be supporting it. The work that needs to be done to give it full legal effect, I am sure, can be done before stage 3. Thank you. I just briefly speak to the record about a couple of those amendments. On Mark Ruskell 318, I strongly support that amendment. I agree with Mark Ruskell that it is important to embed air quality into development plans. Andy Wightman's point about air quality management zones brings some perspective and proportionality to that. On Jeremy Balfour's 323. Monica Lennon, please, convener. Convener, Ms Lennon just talked about embedding air quality in development plans. The amendment is not about development plans. It is about individual applications. I think that that point needs to be made. It is not about development plans, it is about individual applications. No, I do not dispute the clarification. I think that I misquoted Mark Ruskell because I have been told to be brief here but I think that we understand that it is about assessing planning applications in air quality management zone areas. If I move on to Jeremy Balfour's 323 and Mary Fee's 323A, I would echo that the minister's remarks would really commend Jeremy Balfour and Mary Fee for bringing forward those amendments. I think that the committee has discussed at length that in public health terms access to toilet facilities is absolutely crucial and it should not be an afterthought. We have heard that at times, equality impact assessments are not robust enough. We know that the quality impact assessment for the bill has been criticised. That is a bit of a weak link that we need to look at. I support those amendments. Mary Fee's work, particularly on changing places, has been tremendous. I also congratulate the minister for his commitment on that issue. It brings me back to a previous amendment in Alison Johnson's name, where we did have another lively debate. In Alison Johnson, again, we are trying to make sure that planning authorities consider how the provision of public toilets is addressed in their areas. She was proposing that a statement would go into local plans. She was successful, I think that the vote was vote 3, but I recall that the minister was arguing against that. I hope that there has been a change of heart because that would be positive on amendment 8A. Maybe just to save time, I won't be moving amendment 8A today. I do think that there is some work that I could hopefully do to clarify the situation at stage 3, but maybe just to save a few words, I won't be moving amendment 8A this morning. I welcome that that is sensible. I think that we support the spirit of it, but I think that there are some problems in the way that it is being framed, certainly around the language assumptions and normally I think that that is quite difficult in development management terms. Alex Cole-Hamilton, I will just briefly say that support amendment 208, well done. On Claudia Beamish's 230, I didn't expect there would be so much discussion about it. I think that Claudia Beamish has set out that it is indeed a probing amendment. I think that it shows some of the difficulties and perception around what would be a reasonable contribution to community open space, which, based on my reading of the amendment, is not about necessarily what is in the footprint of an application site, but the wider contribution within a town, within a settlement, particularly when we have perhaps a number, as an accumulation of smaller developments, if they were all quite high density and none of them making a contribution to community open space, that could lead to difficulties. I wasn't desperately trying to salvage Claudia Beamish's amendment. That's the matter for Claudia Beamish, but I welcome the discussion that we've had around that. On John Finnie's 294, it sounds like there's quite a serious case behind it, but I think that it does need some further work. If John Finnie is pressing, I don't think that I'd be able to support that one today. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Mark Russell to Wayne Dock and Chris Woodrow. Thank you, convener. I will resist speaking to every single amendment in the group. Thank you, Mark. I tend to desire them, but I'll perhaps just briefly reflect on John Finnie's amendment around Ramsar. I do vaguely remember the discussions in session two with Alan Wilson at the time. It's important that we revisit our international environmental obligations, particularly now as we head towards a post-Brexit environmental governance arrangements in the UK and Scotland, so I welcome further discussions with John and the minister around that. Turning to 318, my amendment on AQMAs and air pollution, I'm disappointed that our legal obligations under European law continue to be seen as just part of the balance of issues that needs to be discussed at local level in relation to individual planning applications. I think that that misunderstands the importance and the purpose of European law in protecting human health, and I'm sure that the exchanges today in this committee will give food for thought for those considering further legal challenge about the UK as a state inability to adequately embed European law around air quality into plans and programmes. I mean, notwithstanding that, I think that the minister's point around mysterious unintended consequences is one to reflect on, and I'd welcome further discussion with him and his officials between now and stage three if that was something that he was minded to engage in. The purpose of this amendment is, as I said, not to stop development per se. It is to push for further options around mitigation to be discussed at the earlier pre-planning phase. That's the purpose of this amendment. It does apply to individual applications because it's at that level at which environmental assessment takes place, traffic impact assessment takes place, and we have a good, evidential basis to consider the impact of the development and the mitigation options that may flow from that. With that in mind, I would be minded at this point stage two not to move the amendment pending further discussions with the minister, and I'll consider what options we can put forward. I'm more than happy to have the discussions with Mr Ruskell. Well, I think that's the last word then, isn't it? So can I just clarify then, Mr Ruskell-Mark, that you wish to withdraw the amendment? Wish to withdraw the amendment. Thank you. Mark Ruskell wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? Thank you. In that case, the amendment is withdrawn. I call amendment 80 in the name of Jeremy Balfour already debated with amendment 318. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. Call amendment 141 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 318. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. Call amendment 208 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton already debated with amendment 318. I would like to move. The question is that amendment 208 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 208. Those opposed, three. The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 294 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 318. John Finnie, to move or not move. I am able to comment. No, you are able to move or not move. I will not move. Thank you. I call amendment 324 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 318. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 324 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of amendment 324. Three. Those opposed. Oh, sorry. Four. The amendment 324 falls. I call amendment 258 in the name of Lois MacDonald, already debated with amendment 2. Lois MacDonald, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 258 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 258. Four. Those opposed. Three. The amendment 258 is agreed to. I call amendment 331 in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 318. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 1 in the name of Adam Tomkins, already debated with amendment 2. Is anybody moving this on behalf of Adam Tomkins? Thank you. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 1. Four. Those opposed. Three. Amendment 1 is agreed to. Are we okay there? No. Okay. I call amendment 323 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 318. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 3. Oh. I call amendment 323 in the name of Mary Fee, already debated with amendment 318. 238. That's what I said. My apologies Mary, Mary Fee to move or not move. Moved, Commander. The question is that amendment 323 be agreed to. 238. Again. I'm going to say it's not in my sheet, but I'll be lying. The question is that amendment 323A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Jeremy Balfour, to press or withdraw amendment 323. Move. Okay. The question is that amendment 323 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 2. I'm glad to get that one out the road. I call amendment 2. Three. Oh in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 318. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. Therefore the question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. We'll now have a short break. Five minute comfort break. I call amendment 259 in the name of the minister. Group to the amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 259 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Through out the review of the planning system our consultations and stage one of the bill I've made clear that following the passage of this bill we will consult on revising the structure and levels of planning fees and charges in light of the new structure of the planning system. This is in recognition of the fact that there is a need to move towards full cost recovery to be able to appropriately fund the reformed planning system. Income from planning applications does not currently meet the costs of processing those applications. A number of possible changes to fees have already been suggested. The bill includes a number of adjustments to the powers to make regulations about fees and ensure that we are able to implement those suggestions if they are supported in the consultation that will follow. My amendments in this group add to those adjustments. One suggestion that has been made is that applicants should be able to pay a higher fee for a fast track service. An authority would probably need to provide a dedicated staff resource to provide this service without detriment to other applications. We already have sufficient powers to charge a different fee for such a service. However, currently applicants can only agree an extended timescale for determining an application and only after submitting their application and paying the appropriate fee. This timescale relates to when the applicant can bring an appeal or request a review on grounds of non-determination. Amendments 259 to 262 would allow an authority and prospective applicant to agree a timescale that is longer or shorter than the standard period and do so before submitting the application. If the application is to be fast-tracked, the authority will then be able to charge the appropriate fee. Section 217 of the bill amends the powers on fees regulations to allow a surcharge to be imposed over and above the normal fee where a planning application is made after the development has been carried out. Retrospective applications create a lot of frustration where people are felt to be flighting the planning system. There has been substantial support for charging higher fees in this situation. However, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that there should be some form of restriction on how or the circumstances in which this power could be exercised. In those particular circumstances, we agree that a limit would be appropriate. Amendment 266 provides that the surcharge cannot be more than the standard fee for the application. In other words, the retrospective charge cannot be more than twice the normal fee. Our consultation on fees will consider what the level should be within that limit. The bill provides for the Scottish ministers to charge fees for their own planning activities. It also allows for provision to be made in the fees regulations for planning authorities to be able to waive or reduce a fee. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers Committee for pointing out the discrepancy that the ability to waive or reduce fees did not apply to the Scottish ministers. Amendment 264 and 265 corrects that oversight. Amendment 332 from John Finnie makes provision to charge fees for monitoring compliance of planning conditions. However, the Scottish ministers already have the power to set such fees and regulations under the provisions of section 2521b and have in fact exercised that power. The town and county planning fees for monitoring surface coal mining sites Scotland regulations 2017 provide for fees to be charged for site visits to monitor whether planning controls are being complied with. I do not support the amendment because it is unnecessary. Amendment 321 by Monica Lennon suggests some circumstances in which regulations might provide for fees to be waived, where the development would contribute to a social enterprise or nonprofit organisation or where the development is likely to contribute to improving the health of residents in the area to which the application relates. Those are both areas that I would be happy to consider in the consultation although we need to look carefully at the definitions. However, I would prefer to leave the options completely open until we have that consultation so I do not support the amendment. Amendment 16 would restrict ministers' powers to set out circumstances in which a planning fee could be refunded for unreasonable delay. It would require ministers if they use those powers to provide that the fee must be fully refunded if an application remains undecided after 26 weeks. The Scottish Government has maintained over many years that any increase in planning fees must be linked to improved performance. However, I do not think that Mr Simpson's approach is the way to go about it. When we consulted on the option in 2010, less than a fifth of the respondents supported the proposal. Recent research has shown that there are many reasons for delays in deciding applications and not all of those are within the control of an authority. In a large number of cases, the main reason for delay was waiting for additional reports or information from the applicant. I do not think that introducing refunds as a matter of course would resolve those issues and lead to the improvement in timescales that Mr Simpson might suppose. It certainly would not address the problem of under resourcing facing planning authorities as they would be processing an application without any payment. I am happy to include the question of when refunds might be appropriate within the forthcoming consultation on fees, but I do not believe that this blanket approach is helpful. I would ask the committee to support the amendments in my name in this group and not to support the other amendments, and I move amendment 259. John Finnie to speak to amendment 332 and other amendments in the group. I will restrict my comments to the particular amendment that I have here, which is to introduce fees for monitoring complex developments. I hear what the minister says in relation to that, and indeed, in my notes here, I have about the surface co-mining, but this is about extending that to other development types. Monitoring complex developments is essential to ensure compliance, not simply with planning conditions, but particularly in relation to mitigation, restoration and aftercare plans. Indeed, there may be significant repercussions if such schemes are not appropriately monitored. The proposals that I have here would allow for cost recovery for planning authority monitoring input and would accord, importantly, with a polluter praise principle. John Finnie to speak to amendment 321, another amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. As the minister has already mentioned, amendment 321 in my name would waive fees and charges for development, which is the main purpose of contributing to a not-for-profit enterprise or contributing to improving the health of the residents in the area to which the development relates. I have had some recent experiences of charities in my region in central Scotland, particularly a rape crisis centre that had to make a planning application to get a change of use at their premises, and they had to pay the planning fee for that. In that particular case, we have a six-month waiting list for people to access rape survivor services. I know that the Government is taking some additional money, but we still have those waiting times. It seems that when we have such services and they are having to find money for planning applications, we could do something about that. On the social enterprise part of it, what I have said here is that we have talked a lot in the past about bad neighbourhood developments. I am trying to think about good neighbourhood developments. What are the kinds of uses that would help to rescue our town centres, which would have positive impacts on public health, tackling social isolation and loneliness, but often for those kinds of organisations or start-up businesses, the planning fees can indeed be a barrier? That is the reason or the rationale behind the amendment minister. I hear what the minister has said, but I will press this today and hopefully I will get some support from other members of the committee. The amendment would ensure that, if planning applications are not dealt with within 26 weeks, there should be a full-fee refund unless agreed otherwise between parties. The intention behind it was to incentivise councils, but I have heard what the minister has to say and what stakeholders have to say. Indeed, other members have spoken to me and I will not be pressing this particular amendment. I do welcome the fact that there is going to be a consultation. Turning to other amendments, we can support the Government amendments 259 to 262 as well as 264 and 265. I am pleased that the ministers responded to the DPLR committee and 266. We can also support Monica Lennon's amendment 321, which allows councils to waive fees for social enterprises. This could be a big incentive to get these up and running. What I have just finished, I am supporting you. I hope that you will find it a helpful intervention. I appreciate what you have just said. I am grateful for that. It was just to put on the record in the previous vote on 324. I voted against Graham Simpson's biodiversity effect amendment in error, because I got my notes muddled up. I apologise for that. I would like to put on record my support for the amendment and Graham Simpson brings it back at stage 3. I would be happy to correct that. I appreciate the comments. For people watching, it can be a confusing experience, even for MSPs. Monica made a mistake. Minister, would you like to wind up? I am glad that the amendments that I have put forward seem to be relatively uncontroversial. I am pleased that Mr Simpson has indicated that he will not move amendment 16, because I think that that was too prescriptive. If I was a developer, my ideal timescale for my planning application to be approved would have been 27 weeks if that had gone through. I would ask Ms Lennon to look at not moving her amendment. I think that we can deal with all of these issues in the consultation. We can deal with all of these things in the round. I think that that is the best place to do it all in a winner in the consultation. I would ask her not to move, but I move the amendments in my name, convener. Ms Lennon would like to ask you. Just on the consultation, forgive me, Minister. What is the timescale for the consultation when would that end? We have to pass the bill first. I am unable to give you consultations times until we deal with the bill. I apologise. I thought the minister would talk about an additional consultation that might be running in parallel. I would be concerned about waiting that long. The question therefore is that amendment 259 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 268, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 259. Minister, to move formally. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 268 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Amendment 261, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 259. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 261 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question therefore is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 15, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 144, 22 and 142. Graham Simpson, to move amendment 15 and speak to all amendments in the group. With me. Thanks, convener. I've lodged amendment 15 because I think it's imperative that there are limitations on the powers of Scottish ministers. Ministers shouldn't have the uninhibited ability to override and undermine local democracy through the ability to call in any application. We also don't want to see ministers authority undermine through their ability to be open to allegations of being influenced by third parties. I don't think that ministers should have carte blanche to call in any application. There must be checks on their power. My amendment would mean that they could only call in national developments. On reflection, convener, I think that that's too strong. It would have prevented, for example, the call-in of the Cool Links application. I think that it was right that the minister was able to call in. I won't move this and I'll come back to it at stage 3. I will, however, support Mark Ruskell's amendment 22, which allows ministers to make regulations around call-ins. Claudia Beamish's amendment 142 says that ministers must review applications where there is a flood risk. There would be applications in which the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has ejected two on the grounds of concerns in relation to flood risk. I think that it's possibly going too far. We have to trust councils so that the more proportionate word may could have been better. Monica Lennon's amendment 144 helps to prevent the Scottish Government intervening in a planning application before a decision has been made. That will prevent ministers sweeping in too early to impact how an application is decided or be supporting that amendment. Monica Lennon's amendment 144 and other amendments. I'll begin by saying that I accept that there are situations where it is essential for ministers to have the power to call in applications. I wouldn't support plans to remove that power completely. To pick up on where Graham Simpson left off, there has to be a balance. When a planning application comes before the planning authority, there should be a reasonable period of time to allow the planning authority to do its normal business in terms of public consultation and to allow the neighbour notification period to take effect. To clarify what Graham Simpson said, it's not about having a situation where the planning authority has to make a decision before ministers can intervene. It's about making sure that that period is protected. Under regulations, planning authorities have to make a determination within a certain time period. It doesn't mean that that decision will be taken, but when I've been looking at this, what's been keeping in mind is what's happened in Cackenze, where I believe that that application was called in prematurely, very early on, I think, around three or four weeks after the application was lodged. I think that that starts to get in the way of local accountability and the democratic rights of the local planning authority to properly scrutinise applications. I think that it's only fair that local authorities are guaranteed the maximum amount of time set down in legislation to consider and properly scrutinise decisions. Mark Ruskell, please speak to amendment 22 and all other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. I'll be brief and move and speak to 22. Ministerial powers to issue a direction to call in an application for determination are important. I think that we can support those. But they're also powers which, if they're used without transparency, they can undermine faith and certainty in the planning system and, indeed, confidence in the role of ministers within that. So the purpose of this amendment is not to remove the availability of calling powers or restrict it, but merely to allow government to bring clarity as to the circumstances whereby these could be used and then allow Parliament to scrutinise these regulations under the affirmative procedure. Thank you very much. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 142 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I do not intend to move amendment 142 today. There has been robust and useful discussion, in my view, on flood risk in relation to my amendment 140, and there are ways in which these issues can be taken forward. As this is a consequential amendment, I will say no more about it. Thank you very much. Minister. Thank you, convener. Scottish Minister's discretion to call in any planning application from a planning authority for their own determination is a well-established and important aspect of our planning system. It has been exercised over the decades by successive Governments to call in a wide range of applications across Scotland. That Government does, however, recognise that planning is primarily a matter for local authorities and values their key role in the system. In 2009, we announced a more proportionate approach to ministerial intervention in planning cases. We greatly reduced the circumstances in which planning authorities had to notify applications to ministers to consider calling and made it clear that we would exercise our right to call in applications very sparingly and only where matters of genuine national interest were involved. That has been borne out in our actions. Applications notified to ministers dropped from around 200 cases each year before 2009 to an average of 24 now. The number of planning applications called in has dropped from around 25 to 30 annually to just 3 to 5 each year now. For a bit of context, over 35,000 applications were decided across Scotland last year. I will do. I will do. Thank you, the minister for taking intervention. Does he appreciate that those moves by the current administration are personally welcome? The law says about the level of discretion and there is nothing to stop a future administration operating their discretion far more liberally than the current administration. It is about providing greater clarity and certainty and fettering the discretion to a degree of ministers to use this power. I will talk further about discretion and come to some of the points about the law, because some of that is not as easy as members may think. I respect the role that is played by our planning authorities, but circumstances can occasionally arise where it is more appropriate to further scrutinise and decide an application at the national level. I am regularly asked by members of this Parliament, including members of the committee and visitors to the committee here today, to call in applications all over Scotland. Sometimes it is appropriate for me to do so, but in many cases people have been disappointed where I have chosen not to call in applications. I do not intervene where I consider it appropriate for the planning authority to make the decision. As a very current example, and it was touched upon by Mr Simpson, I recently called in a planning application from the Highland Council for a new golf course at Coole near Embo. It is a live case and I will have to make the final decision, so obviously I am not going to make any comments about the merits of the case itself. However, I had received a request to call in that application from 14 MSPs across parties, one MP and also from bodies such as RSPB Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Marine Conservation Society. We also received a great number of letters of concern and some of support from the public. Ultimately, I considered that it was appropriate to call in that application for a decision at a national level because the proposal raises issues of national importance in relation to natural heritage issues. I am glad that Mr Simpson is not moving amendment 15 because, if that had been passed, I would not have been able to do that as it is not a national development within the national planning framework. However, it is not only national developments that can raise issues of national importance. Even small developments can have a significant impact on our natural and historic environment or important infrastructure, and those are just a few examples. There are circumstances where planning decisions ought to be made nationally and many people would not want to see that power of additional scrutiny lost. Amendment 22 lodged by Mark Ruskell in itself recognises that there are circumstances where planning decisions ought to be made nationally and that therefore sometimes ministerial calling can be appropriate and I welcome that sentiment. I also understand the sentiment behind the amendment to bring more certainty to how and when calling is exercised. However, I do not think that we can reasonably set out in legislation an exhaustive set of circumstances under which applications may or may not be subject to calling. Although the amendment would not remove Scottish ministers' discretion entirely, it could raise expectations and become unduly restrictive. Earlier this year, I issued a notification direction for an application for proposed residential development on a site next to Edinburgh Zoo. My decision to intervene was in light of possible negative health impacts for the giant pandas as advised in representations by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. The issues raised are of national and arguably of international importance but it seems unlikely that any regulations would have covered the conditions required to take cognisance of panda love and romance and this shows the value of a responsive approach. However, I recognise that it may be helpful to bring more clarity to the Government's approach to calling and I am prepared to look again at our guidance to seek to bring greater clarity to the approach that this Government takes in considering calling. For those reasons and with this commitment, I would ask Mr Ruskell to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 144, in the name of Monica Lennon, would prevent a calling direction being issued until after the period prescribed for the planning authority to issue a decision notice has expired. However, once a decision notice has been issued and there is no live application to determine, the Scottish ministers cannot call in the case unless the applicant seeks a local review of the decision. I will take an intervention from Ms Lennon. I have taken some advice from the Parliament clerks on this because other members had asked me the same question and the amendment is not designed to require the planning authority to have made the decision because I get the minister's point about the minister then would effectively not be able to call it in. However, it is still now that time period to pass so we are talking about that two month period because the earlier example I gave about Cwcchensi, the call-in direction came very early in the process and I think to go back to my earlier remarks I think it is right that there has to be a call-in process. I think we need those checks and balances and it has to be proportionate but the example that the minister gave in terms of cool links, the local process was able to cover run its course and we were able to then see that this indeed was a case of national and actually international significance but we can see that body of evidence, that body of representation, I think it is very healthy that many MSPs and members did make representations. That is about not trying to bypass local democracy so I just wanted to make that point clear to the minister and if I can give a question to the minister, I wonder about those three to five call-in cases that you are looking at annually. Do you routinely visit those sites? I just wondered if that is part of your assessment, do you visit all of those sites? We once again have a situation where a member is trying to say that their amendment does not do a certain thing when quite categorically it does. This is one of the things about the unintended consequences of certain amendments that have been lodged. I have spoken with a number of members around amendments and it has led to better drafting and not all of those amendments do I agree with necessarily. Ms Lennon has had the opportunity to come and speak to me about a number of those amendments and a meeting was arranged but that was cancelled by Ms Lennon. I would say again to members that I am more unwilling to speak to anybody around their amendments and I am willing to have my officials speak to members about their amendments but what I cannot do is sit here and have a situation where members put forward an amendment but says that the amendment is not designed to do that when the amendment quite clearly does that thing. I will take a brief intervention from Ms Ewing. I am just in the interest of clarity having been on both sides of the table. I hear sort of muttering at this end of the table that they feel that their position is absolutely, that is the advice that they have been given. Can the minister perhaps clarify why the minister takes the view that he does? Presumably, this is advice from officials that his interpretation that he is putting forward of the consequences, perhaps unintended, of Monica Lennon's amendment, are nonetheless, as he says, further to the advice that he has received. I have got, as folk could well imagine, a number of officials working on this bill, including legal lawyers, solicitors, looking at all of these and the consequences. I have been quite open in giving the committee purpose and effect documents to try and show exactly what the purpose and effect of amendments are. I cannot do that for folk's individual amendments but can I just finish this point, Mr Finlay, and then I will take you in? I am more than happy, as I have said, in a number of members of taking advantage of either meeting with me to talk about purpose and effect or meeting with officials to talk about the effects of their amendments. In some amendments, we have seen one today with Mr Balfour, where the work that has been done there has led to an amendment that is much, much better for all concerned, including Mr Balfour and the folk out there who are interested in this issue. I will take Mr Finlay. I am grateful for the minister taking the intervention. I appreciate the Scottish Government sharing the purpose and effect on other committees. I wonder whether the minister accepts that some things are a matter of opinion. Everyone is here acting in good faith. We have all come with pieces of proposed change that have been certified as competent, but what does not sometimes come out in some of the discussions is the purpose and effect of not doing some? I agree with Mr Finlay in some regards in that point. Those are the kind of discussions that could happen if those discussions were taking place. I welcome members coming to speak to me about the bill. A number of members around the table have had numerous meetings with me. A number of members around the table have chosen not to meet me, and that is their prerogative, but they have spoken to officials around about that. I am quite happy for that, convener, because no matter what, I want the best piece of legislation that is possible. Mr Finlay is right. Often there are different opinions, but the legal advice that I get, I have to look at very carefully indeed as he could well understand. If I could carry on with this particular thing, as I said, once a decision has been issued and there is no live application to determine, Scottish ministers cannot call in the case, unless, of course, the applicant seeks a local review of the decision. In the normal course of events, we would only consider issuing a call in direction where the planning authority had processed an application and was intending to grant permission, and that triggered a requirement to notify ministers of their intention. There are general notification directions, which apply to cases where, for example, an agency or neighbouring planning authority has advised against a grant of planning permission or planning authority interests cases that are contrary to the development plan. Intervening early in the planning process is extremely rare. However, there have been and may be again instances where early intervention by ministers is considered necessary in the national interest. For example, to make sure that a decision is made before other deadlines expire, and that was the case in Kikainsey. It would not be helpful to lose that ability. Amendment 142 has said that she is withdrawing, and I am grateful for that. I would put SEPA at the forefront of decision making, which I do not think is the right thing. I am very grateful to Ms Beamish for the comprehensive conversations that she has had with her officials about that. I have given commitment to look at those matters in some more depth, as she is well aware. I would strongly urge the committee not to support the amendments in this group. Sorry, have you asked for intervention? I am happy if you are. Sorry Alexander, you are too late. Okay, that is fine. Okay, thank you. Graham Simpson to wind up and press on withdrawal. I will not be pressing this earlier, but I think that it has certainly raised an important issue, and that is the issue of how much power should be divested in the minister. An intervention at that point, convener? Certainly. I think that Mr Simpson raises a point about where power lies. There is always debate around that. Some of the amendments that have been put forward in this bill were to give ministers more power than they currently have in a number of issues. I think that there is always a fine balance to certain of these things. I understand completely and utterly that people want some clarity on a number of issues, but I think that designating in primary legislation some of these things makes life extremely difficult. Again, there are unintended consequences. I am more than happy to have further discussion with Mr Ruskell, and I think that that is right to do so. I would ask him not to support his amendment today. I ask everybody who is either making an intervention or responding to an intervention to be as short as they can be. Interventions are meant to be brief, and if people are going to make interventions that are lengthy, then they are not likely to get a future one. I am not quite sure why the Minister felt the need to make that intervention. He has just repeated himself, and given that I have said that I am not going to be moving amendment 15, it was slightly unnecessary. This is about ministerial power only on call-ins. That is what we are dealing with here. When is it right to call in an application? This Minister may not call in very many. Good for him. He is not going to be the Minister forever. This Government may not be a Government forever, but we have to deal with the law as it stands. You could have another Minister in future who takes an entirely different approach. It is quite right that we set out the boundaries of what ministerial powers should be. I said earlier that my amendment 15 goes too far. It does. Mr Ruskell is way at the other end of that scale, giving ministers the ability to set their own regulations. I cannot see why the Minister would oppose that. You wish to come in? There are a couple of interventions that I am happy to take. Do you agree with me, Mr Simpson, that the Minister has almost already accepted the notion of creating a framework and guidance around ministerial call and decisions? You just do not want to see it in affirmative regulation, which I think is disappointing. I would entirely agree with that. Ms Lennon wants in. Briefly, I just want to reflect on the fact that I think where people have been afforded opportunity to meet with the Minister and his officials that that has been productive. I was quite disappointed with the Minister's remarks that I cancelled a meeting, and if it did not bother to pursue that. I have to put this on the record. I have to put this on the record because I was offered a date if I can finish briefly. As convener, I decide if you can finish. You can write to the Minister if you are unhappy with his comments. You can put it on the public record after that. The Minister has been very unfair on the business of the day. We have got the email chain to prove that, and I will write to the Minister. I would be more than happy to have dialogue and have a meeting with the Minister. It is finished. Graham Simpson wishes to withdraw her amendment. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 144 in the name of Monica Lennon. Already debated with amendment 15. Monica Lennon to move or not move. The question is that amendment 144 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of the amendment? Yes. Those opposed? Three and one abstention. The convener's casting vote means that the amendment falls. I call amendment 22 in the name of Mark Ruskell. Already debated with amendment 15. Mark Ruskell to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of the amendment 22? Yes. Those in favour of the amendment 22? Yes. Three. The amendment is passed. I call amendment 142 in the name of Claudia Beamish. Already debated with amendment 15. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Not move, convener. I call amendment 164 in the name of John Finnie in a group of his own. John Finnie to move and speak to amendment 164. Thank you very much, convener. First, I would like to thank the Minister for the Offer of Talks in relation to this particular issue. Unfortunately, diary clashes meant that that's not being able to take place. As with other previous amendments, I'd be very keen to continue discussions. This is my second term in Parliament. In the last term, I was in the Equal Opportunities Committee, which produced two very strongly worded reports on a cross-party consensual basis. They were about the conditions that Gypsy travel their community after put up with both in relation to accommodation and health conditions. I don't doubt people's commitment and there are people's sins that the Cabinet Secretary Angela Constance, for instance, I know was steering. I know the minister himself is involved with various aspects. This particular amendment covers the issue of permitted development. I suppose we could argue that we've already had that passed today with Mr Balfour's amendment. Importantly, that would only be considered where it's in accordance with the development plan. Some examples, in fairly recent times, have been permitted to develop rights for alterations to shops, schools, colleges, universities, hospital, office buildings, off-street recharging of electric vehicles and disabled access ramps and one that's specifically applied to private ways, commonly known as whole-tracks, which I know the committee will go on to discuss. We'd have to ask what's come of those reports and I suppose the argument to what extent it relates to this legislation. It's certainly my personal belief that there's a willingness, both centrally and locally, to do things, but there is that tension that we've heard in relation to a number of other amendments between central directs over local autonomy. There's no doubt that sites struggle to gain permission. That's often down to local pressure and it's fuelled by prejudice. Some of the language and I welcome a recent debate that we had on a change in language away from housing and it being viewed as housing to being viewed as accommodation. For instance, in fairly recent weeks I've dealt with a situation where someone was shut out of their accommodation. This was a centuries-old location where travellers were unable to go because a farmer had dug a trench around this site. I stress this particular group of travellers for centuries. The language of the day, of course, is that that would be an unauthorised encampment and it begs the question how authorised provision is afforded. As I say, I acknowledge all the efforts and if a sound a bit frustrated it is because I'm extremely frustrated at dealing with this in the disregard that there is for this community. There's barely a week that's passed that there isn't examples in the most fun one fairly recently in this very city here. So this may seem a very blunt instrument, I mean no apology for it being a blunt instrument and I move this amendment in my name. Thank you very much, John. Minister? Thank you, convener. I applaud Mr Finnie as members know he has been very active on the issues of rights for the gypsy traveller community. He raises an important issue around the accommodation needs of the gypsy traveller community. As I've explained to the committee previously, I'm absolutely committed to ensuring that gypsy travellers are properly involved in planning the future of their places. The quality of our places matters to all of us and planning has a responsibility to ensure the needs of all of our communities are understood and met. To do this, we are determined to break down any barriers that stop people getting involved in shaping the future of their places. The committee accepted amendments to part one of the bill that will ensure that community voices are heard when a planning authority is preparing a local development plan. Although I'm entirely supportive of Mr Finnie's motive and intentions, I'm unable to support this particular approach. The amendment would work against a key principle of our planning system of decisions being made by planning authorities in accordance with the current development plan unless material considerations would indicate otherwise. Planning plays a vital role in ensuring that gypsy travellers have safe and secure places to stop or settle. Currently, Scottish planning policy requires Kinsos to plan for the current and future needs of the gypsy traveller community and involve the community in planning and decision making which affects them. It states that development plans and local housing strategies should address any need identified through the housing needs and demand assessment, including those of gypsy travellers. We refreshed the HNDA guidance in October this year and the most significant change to the refresh guidance is the inclusion of an enhanced requirement for local authorities to consult with stakeholders in relation to specialist provision for accommodation and housing for all groups with protected characteristics, including the gypsy traveller community. Local development plans should make appropriate provision for gypsy traveller sites and where an application is in line with that plan, it should usually be agreed. Planning authorities must have the flexibility to make sure that the detailed proposals for the site are suitable, listening to the people involved and to refuse the application if not. Otherwise, we could end up with sites that do not meet the needs of the community and end up unused and that in itself does not help anyone. Earlier this year, the Government put together a 10-point action plan on gypsy travellers in planning and we are moving forward to deliver it, as I speak. I would be happy to provide the committee with a copy of it if that is of interest. As part of that, we have commissioned research to find out more about how the planning system currently addresses the need and demand for gypsy traveller sites. The results of the research will inform the preparation of the next national planning framework and we are also actively drawing attention to this issue with the heads of planning and planning committee conveners. I want to make sure that the gypsy traveller community has a stronger voice in guiding the future development of their places and that appropriate provision is made for them. I do not believe that we should do so by an approach that bypasses local decision making. I am more than happy to have further discussions with Mr Finlay, as he has already said, but I would ask him not to move his amendment here today. John Finlay to wind up. I thank the minister for his remarks. The term further is because we have had literally passing in the corridor very brief discussions. I would say that if we analyse some of the things that the minister said, he talked about the housing strategy and that is a very important document, except that gypsies and travellers do not consider housing an appropriate term. The housing needs is very important. The minister wants to say how we address the needs and demands. I can think of a local authority where, following some vandalism on a site without consulting with anyone, they decided that there was no need. I asked how you assess the demand. How do you assess the demand across authorities? We are dealing with a population that, by its very nature, travels. It is not for one authority. I apologise to people who have heard me on our rant about this previously. My particular frustration is not with the local authorities for whom we provide, but there are a whole load of authorities that have got their heads down and want nothing to do with it. The idea that we would leave this to local flexibility means inertia. What I would ask is in relation to planning for current and future needs. What has happened? Nothing has happened. Absolutely serious. Does any of that reinstate that traditional site? I was over in the sky. People have relocated from one lay-byte to another. People will know that it is a result of what the so-called New Age travellers, many of whom are comedians now working as merchant bankers in the city of London, lots of areas were cut off. Traditional stopping sites were dug off. I have repeatedly raised this and I have been told nonsense like there is health and safety issues. There is no health and safety issue at all. People make decisions on their own merits. The individuals who dug a trench and put boulders can get the JCB back, fill in the trench and remove the boulders. It requires action by government. Everyone is well-meaning. I do not doubt for one second the will of the minister and his colleagues to address something, but unless someone is going to grasp it and say, and of course, as a Green, I absolutely value local decision making, but there is no decision making. There is no decision making because you know that the local paper will have a protest, local members will follow the views of their community and it is very, very, there are considerable difficulties in the minister's own part of the world. There have been well-documented difficulties. I do not know, if the minister explained to me how the strategy has helped in the last five years, how the housing needs analysis, even the terminology. If Mr Finlay lets me intervene, I have already spout out some of the actions that we have and we are going to take. I do not want to go into a huge amount of depth here today around about that. I am more than willing to have that in-depth conversation with Mr Finlay about how we move forward on this and other issues. I think that Mr Finlay knows that I have shared his frustration around about some of these issues for quite some time and in particular where I was a local authority member myself. I will work with Mr Finlay to try and ensure that we can better the lives of gypsy travellers and involve them more in the process, but I have to reiterate that I do not think that this is the way of doing it by bypassing local decision making. I am more than willing to talk further with Mr Finlay. Thank you, convener. I thank the minister for that intervention and, of course, I will say again for the voids of any doubt that I do not doubt his personal commitment to this. I think that we will just make the diaries work and add that to the list of agenda and I will not press this amendment at this time. Thank you very much. John Finlay wishes to withdraw his amendment. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? The amendment effort is withdrawn. I call amendment 165 in the name of Andy Wightman in a group on its own. Andy Wightman to move and speak to amendment 165. Thank you very much indeed, convener. I move amendment 165 in my name. The amendment deals with a long-running issue in planning, that of private ways. Essentially, tracks built on land for private purposes, but especially at high altitudes in the hills and the lack of effective planning control. Tracks constructed for the purpose of agriculture and forestry do not currently require full planning consent. Tracks built for the purpose of field sports and shooting are, in theory, required to be subject to full planning consent, but all too often are not for reasons that I will explain shortly. In 2013, Scottish Environment Link published a major report called Track Changes, highlighting the widespread damage being done across Scotland's hills by poorly constructed tracks. Despite widespread support for such development to be brought under full planning control at that time, and as I understand a clear advice from officials to Scottish Ministers, the then Minister, Derek Mackay, instead introduced a system of prior notification as part of the continuing regime of permitted development rights. Last month, Scottish Environment Link published a follow-up report, Changing Tracks, which I understand is in the possession of members of this committee and minister and officials, that evaluates experience since 2014. Its conclusions include that the system is confusing, lacks democratic oversight and effective public engagement, and that the current system continues to allow damaging development. I commend Link and the author of this excellent report, Melanie Nicol, for all their hard work. I mentioned two reasons why the theoretical requirement for full consent for tracks used for the purpose of field sports is failing. First, it is not universally agreed that field sports are a distinct purpose from agriculture, and the legislation creating permitted development rights did not adequately define agriculture and forestry. Secondly, and this is the important one, in numerous instances, applicants are claiming that a track is for agricultural purposes, when in fact it is for grouse shooting or deer stalking, and they make that argument on the basis that there might be a few sheep grazing on the hill. It is virtually impossible for planning authorities to challenge or disprove such claims, and if they attempt to, they are likely to end up in the quota session. There is an important point to be made about amendment 165. The first part of this amendment merely restates the current law as it is supposed to operate. I would ideally be bringing forward an amendment that removed permitted development rights for agriculture and forestry as well. I have chosen not to on the basis that, for proportionality reasons, the major impacts that are occurring are in areas used for shootings where tracks are being built very, very often being claimed to be for agriculture. The major impacts are not coming from farming and they are not coming from forestry, albeit that I do believe they should come under full planning consent. That is not the purpose of this amendment. The second part of the amendment is new. It extends the current regime whereby full planning consent for private ways in national scenic areas are required. It extends that regime to cover national parks, a designation under the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004, and battlefields. At the Cairngorm national park authorities' latest park plan, which was signed off by Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary, contains a presumption against new constructed tracks in open moorland. The problem is that the authority can only implement this presumption in the 25 per cent of the national park area that is a national scenic area where full planning consent is required. Over the rest of the park, 75 per cent of its extent, applications for such tracks are permitted development subject to a prior notification regime introduced in 2014, and over that 75 per cent, the principle of tracks has already been considered through the prior development, permitted development regime, and effectively granted by them, qualifying for permitted development rights, notwithstanding that prior approval can assist in modifying some elements of design or routing. My amendment does two things. First, it requires tracks on land used for shooting in field sports, not on tracks used for that purpose because that's been the reason for the loophole, but it requires tracks on land used for shooting in field sports to be subject to full planning consent. As I said earlier, technically this is already the case, but as I indicated, this is being widely flouted by claiming that they are for agricultural purposes merely because there are a few sheep in the hill that are actually not for agricultural purposes at all, they are there to mop up ticks to try and boost populations of grouse. I am not singling out in the words of Scottish Land and Estates briefing or demonising a vital industry. I am focusing on the circumstances where most issues and problems are occurring. If members are concerned that I am picking on shooting in field sports, I would be happy not to do so and come back with an amendment that also includes agriculture and forestry and treat everyone equally. The second thing that it does is to require that the current... I hear what the member has just said to just one second to go, but does the member want to impinge on the activities of agriculture and forestry? I would have thought that agriculture and forestry is actually a good thing. I haven't said anything to suggest that they're not. Of course they're a good thing. Lots of things are good things. The planning system is there to make sure that developments are done with proper regard to local development plans and the environment and all the rest of it. There are many agriculture and forestry tracks that don't, but I am leaving them out at the moment for proportionality reasons. The second thing that the amendment does is to require that the current provisions that require full planning consent for any private way in a national scenic area be extended to national parks. Designations under the Nature Conservation Act 2004 and Battlefields. Such an extension to national parks and other protected landscapes was recommended in a government commissioned review in 2007. My amendment does not even go as far as that review recommended because, as I indicated, it leaves the PDR regime for agriculture and forestry untouched. It is totally acceptable in my view, unacceptable in my view, that ordinary householders are required to secure full planning consents for many quite modest developments, but miles and miles of poorly constructed roads in Scotland's national parks in particular can be built with no equivalent level of scrutiny and public consultation. If this amendment is not passed, then there will be continuing damage done to the natural heritage through the inability of planning authorities to effectively regulate the construction of hill tracks. Nothing in my amendment is banning hill tracks. It is merely providing planning authorities with the routine procedures that they have in place already, governing a wide range of other developments of which hill tracks should also be included. Thank you, convener. Graham Simpson, you wanted to come in. Yes, thanks a lot, convener. I really value the countryside. I think that most, probably all committee members, value the countryside. I've met with Ramblas Scotland. I've read the report changing tracks. It makes a compelling case for better regulation. I have to say that, but the current system has only been with us since December 2014. It does seem a little bit early to be changing legislation. The problem that I have with Andy Wightman's amendment is that it does single out land that is used for shooting and field sports. Will you take an intervention? Yes. Would the member, in those circumstances, therefore be willing to not single them out and instead include agriculture and forestry and remove them from permitted development rights? The problem is, Mr Wightman, that we are dealing with the amendment in front of us and it does single out land that is used for shooting and field sports. If Andy Wightman wants to bring in another amendment on stage 3, we can consider it. However, as it stands, it goes too far. I can't support it on that basis. I do. Well, just let me continue. I accept that there is an issue. There is an issue out there. I'm a keen hill walker. Anyone who goes out into the hills can see it for themselves. There is an issue, but I think that this amendment goes too far. Thank you for taking an intervention. Does the member agree with me that, as the law currently stands, tracks built for the purpose of field sports do require full planning consent, but that full planning consent is not being asked for because those applications are coming in mascarading as agriculture. Therefore, this amendment does little more than restate the current law in more effective terms. Does the member not agree? I have no idea if that's the case. I don't know what. I've had no evidence to suggest that. I do have a suggestion, though, because the minister is going to speak afterwards. I think that if the minister was to commit to reviewing how the current legislation is working and promised to issue guidance to councils if it's not working as it should, then that would be very helpful. Thank you very much. Minister. First of all, there are no current permitted development rights for shooting or field sports. If a planning authority is not satisfied on prior notification that a private way is for agriculture or forestry use, they should require a planning application for it. Very briefly. That is exactly the position as I set out. Does the minister agree, however, that for a planning authority to refuse such an application on the basis that they believe that the purpose of the track is for field sports is very, very difficult to make that case when tomorrow there might be a mountain rescue team using the track, when the next day there might be a shepherd going up to doze some sheep with insecticide? It is virtually impossible for planning authorities to make that case and use the law as it is intended. I think again, it is what actually is the outcome of an amendment and there is debate about that. Convener, let me turn to the key issue around about permitted development rights. They are set out in the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Scotland Order 1992 as amended over the years and are commonly referred to as the GPDO. I will refer to them as such from here on in. Development rights are intended in part to strike a balance between the needs of businesses to have a degree of certainty that they can carry out any necessary development required for the operation of the business while balancing this against other factors such as the impact on the environment, local immunity and so on. I understand that there are concerns around the creation of private ways and their potential for negative impacts on visual immunity and the environment. The Government sought to address that in 2014 when we introduced a requirement for any agricultural and forestry private ways to be notified to planning authorities and the design, layout and method of construction agreed by them. However, we must also consider the needs of farmers and foresters who need access to their lands for their regular operations, including planting and harvesting and reaching remote grazing areas. National parks, national scenic areas and SSIs cover something like 20 per cent of Scotland. Those areas are not empty landscapes. Removing permitted development rights in all of that land would impact on significant numbers of businesses. For that reason, I believe that the place to consider amending permitted development rights is through the GPDO after a proper consultation that gives all parties the chance to have their views heard. The Scottish Government is committed to a review of the GPDO following the completion of the planning bill. We will consider calls for changes to permitted development for private ways alongside other proposals for change and any proposed changes will be subject to a full public consultation. With that assurance to Mr Simpson that we will review these, I would call upon the committee to reject the amendment. Andy Wightman I welcome the minister's restatement that the permitted development rights are to be reviewed and I will certainly be making representations in that regard on agriculture and forestry. But agriculture and forestry are not the subject of this amendment. The subject of this amendment is tracks that are built on fieldsports and shooting where applicants are widely flouting the intention of the current legislative regime whereby they are lying, essentially, to planning authorities saying that these tracks are for agricultural purposes. One very good example that caused a lot of controversy two or three years ago was on the Ledgauan estate near Arknashin in Westeros. The applicant said that this was for agricultural purposes. Highland Council accepted that. Highland Council was in no position to be able to refute that because there were agricultural activities taking place on that estate. The evidence, however, that this was a mascarading came a couple of years later when the estate was put on the market with a very, very ugly and unsightly track built in the sales particulars. That is an attempt to get more money for the sale of the estate. I quote, accessibility to the majority of the hillground has been transformed by the construction of a network of hill roads. That significantly expands the scope of the stocking to enable those of all levels of physical fitness, et cetera. That is typical, absolutely typical of the circumstances in which those tracks are being built all over Scotland. I would just remind the minister that the intention of his amendment is to restate the current law that, as the minister pointed out, requires full planning consent in a way that is more effective and actually delivers the policy intent. I will take the minister. I understand what Mr Wightman is trying to do in terms of restating the current law but his amendment is not worded in that way. That is the difficulty in all of this because his amendment says, consists of the formation or alteration of a private way on land which is used for shooting or other field sports. Now, there is land which is used for a number of different things, including agriculture and shooting in field sports, forestry and shooting in field sports and this is the problem with your amendment because what you are doing here is not just restating what is currently the situation. You are going beyond that. The wording of the amendment is not right, which causes difficulty. I am willing to look at all of this in a review of general permitted development rights but once again we have an amendment with unintended consequences. I accept what the minister is saying. It is impossible to restate the law exactly as it is, otherwise there would be no point in an amendment. That changes the focus from the purpose of a track to the land on which the track is constructed. I accept, as in the case that I have just cited, that there are different uses going on. What the act does is act as a filter that where shooting or field sports are taking place and we can modify this language a bit, where they are taking place for the avoidance of doubt that requires full planning consent and that would overcome the current regime whereby the provision whereby tracks are required of planning consent is being widely flouted. I have nothing more to add. I have made the arguments for it and I invite members to support amendment 165. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 165 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of 165? Two. Those opposed? Five. The amendment therefore falls. I call amendment 316. This is going to be the last section. Okay, that's fine. Which I was just about to say, actually. Call amendment 316 in the name of Patrick Harvie in a group on its own. Patrick Harvie to move and speak to amendment 316. Other members, right? Thank you very much, convener, and good afternoon, colleagues. I hope this will take too long. One of the first major pieces of legislation that I had to deal with when I was first elected was the last planning bill that came through this Parliament, and it was so much fun that I couldn't resist the temptation to come back, even with one small, modest little amendment. It is smaller in scope than some of the much bigger issues that the committee has already been discussing today, but in communities which are threatened with the potential loss of a pub, which is an important social space in their community, it's a big issue. I'd like to draw my members' attention to the fact that I'm a member of CAMERA, the campaign for real ale, and of the cross-party group on beer and pubs of which CAMERA are the secretariat. I mentioned that, of course, because CAMERA have been involved in advising on the drafting of this amendment, which is designed to close a loophole, one that has already been addressed south of the border, but which could be addressed in Scotland, in which, while the change of use of a pub requires planning permission, in many cases the demolition does not. That has been used as a loophole, allowing pubs to be sites that are used for other purposes, such as redevelopment into housing or other purposes, without that initial opportunity for the community to say what it thinks of that proposal and to seek to make the case that a pub should continue to be a pub. That is less of an issue in the urban environment, where demolition is much less likely to be the course of action. Those kinds of premises, even if a big chain pub is moving out, are more likely to be re-used either as another pub, another business or a different kind of business. But in smaller communities in particular, especially where the pub acts as a really important social hub within the community, it can be a problem. What are the potential outcomes? In the best-case scenario where this is proposed, the community, because of the requirement for planning permission, would have the time to make its representations about what it thinks should happen. Even potentially the time to form the social capital to make a bid to take community ownership of that pub. Community-owned pubs are run very responsibly in terms of licensing laws. They tend to be very good employers. They tend to be very innovative about working with different services and other businesses within the community to create a genuinely social space, rather than just looking to extract maximum profits. They tend to need to be less profitable in order to be viable because they have the support of the community around them. That would be the best-case scenario. It is unlikely to happen in every situation, but we should give the maximum opportunity for that to happen because the requirement for planning consent would be one extra opportunity for the community to have their say. What is the worst-case scenario? The worst-case scenario is if a community loses perhaps its only pub without the ability to intervene and say what it thinks about that, and you end up with many more people simply drinking at home. We know that that leads to less healthy drinking habits as well as the loss of that social space. I hope that the minister, as the UK Government has already done, is willing to close that loophole. If the minister wants to do it in a different way, I would be very open to having the issue approached in a different way than that particular amendment, but I am grateful to have had the opportunity to flag this one up, and hopefully there will be some agreement around the intention of what I am proposing, regardless of the views on the specific text of the amendment. I move amendment 316. Thank you very much. Nobody else is wanting to intervene in this. Thank you, convener. Thank you to Patrick Harvie for his interest in the planning bill. I am sympathetic to what the member says about the role of community-owned pubs in terms of bringing people together, because drinking at home is something that we know is becoming a bigger problem. I am not sure that this approach is necessary. I am concerned that the amendment has been drawn too widely, because it is not just pubs, it is also wine bars and other drinking establishments, which could be practically anything that has an alcohol licence, so it could bring in other halls and other buildings. I am not convinced, even though Mr Harvie has been very eloquent in his statement, that I do not think that I will be able to support this today. I am also a member of the cross-party group on the beer and pubs, and I get fully where Patrick Harvie is coming from on this. However, I do agree with Monica Lennon that the way that this is drafted is too wide. It is not protecting the kind of establishment that Patrick Harvie wants to protect, which I think is the community local. The amendment uses the phrase, it also includes wine bars or other drinking establishments. That is anywhere with an alcohol licence, so I think that that is going too far. I would urge Patrick Harvie maybe to have a rethink for stage 3, but we will not be supporting it at this point. Minister. I think that it would be fair to say that I like a good local pub myself, but as with the previous group, I do not support the amendment. I do think that this issue should be brought forward when we review the GPDO with full public consultation. We want to see a thriving pub sector and recognise that a pub can be the focal point within a community. Pubs provide good employment opportunities, create economic activity and are integral to the tourism sector and to our night-time economy. I understand the concern that in some places a pub closure may mean the loss of a very important immunity. However, that is an issue about business closing, which may be for a variety of reasons. Preventing the demolition of a pub under permitted development rights will not in itself do anything to keep that venue thriving. The amendment would apply to buildings whose last lawful use was as a pub, even if the business ceased trading some time previously. In some cases demolition may be necessary if the building has become derelict, although it is worth mentioning that the permitted development rights for demolition do not apply where a building has been allowed to become uninhabitable or unsafe through neglect or deliberate action if it is practicable to make it safe. The material redevelopment or change of use of a pub's location would still require an application for planning permission. Furthermore, I have referred to pubs throughout everything that I have said here, as there is no definition of drinking establishment. It is impossible to consider the potential consequences if some others have mentioned this amendment on any location where a drink is taken, such as restaurants, coffee bars and the list goes on. I consider that this amendment is too sweeping, and I do not believe that it is the right way to support those pubs that provide a hub for the local community. I would ask the committee not to support it. I think that this is an issue that we can deal with with full public consultation when we review general permitted development order rights. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Patrick Harvie to wind up and address the withdrawal. Thank you, convener. Again, not to take too much time. I am grateful that the minister recognises that there is an issue here and that there may be other ways of addressing it. I would be happy to ask the committee's permission to withdraw the amendment for the time being with the view to either raising this again at stage 3 or in some other context, and I would be happy to write to the minister about how we might move forward with that. Thank you very much. Patrick Harvie wishes to withdraw his amendment. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? No. The amendment therefore is withdrawn, and that is the end of this public session. Can I thank the minister particularly for his use of the words panda love in the planning bill? It is something I never, ever thought I had heard say. His officials and all the other MSPs have attended today's meeting. Day 6 of stage 2 will take place on 7 November. Any remaining amendments to the bill should be lost by 12 noon on Thursday 1 November. I briefly suspend the meeting to allow the minister's officials and other members to leave the table.