 Good morning everyone and welcome to the 10th meeting of the local government and communities committee in 2018. Can I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones and as meeting papers are provided in digital format, that is the reason they signify mobile phones to turn it off. As papers are provided in digital format tablets may be used by a member during the meeting we'll get a full house today and no apologies have been received. We'll move straight to agenda item one which is the planning Scotland bill and the committee will take evidence on the bill at stage one. And can I welcome Kevin Stewart, minister for local government and housing, John McNeill, chief planner, Andy Cadeird, bill manager and Norman McLeod, senior principal legal officer, Scottish Government. I welcome all of you for coming along here this morning and can invite the minister to make some opening remarks. Thank you very much, convener and good morning to everyone. The planning bill is one element, a vital element of our full programme of review of the planning system. The bill's content and our intentions for the review as a whole are rooted in the findings and recommendations of an independent panel made up of users of the planning system. There have been a number of drivers for the planning review from the beginning. The need to deliver more housing, the need to improve the experience and influence of our communities, the effectiveness of development planning and leading positive change in our places, the need for more proactive management of development and the need for strong leadership and better management of skills and resources. We have maintained our focus on all of these drivers throughout and we are taking forward the vast majority of the panel's recommendations. We are not starting from scratch. Much of the existing planning system will remain, for example, the requirement for development planning to contribute to the principles of sustainable development will continue. However, we are proposing changes that will radically reform the way that planning is done in Scotland. The bill is certainly more than just tinkering. It will lead an essential shift in our planning services away from a largely regulatory function, stripping back unnecessary process, to facilitate the delivery of good quality development and the great places that our communities deserve. Our reforms for development planning, for example, will enable greater clarity for all about the future direction of development and free up planners and stakeholders from the continuous cycle of plan writing to working together on plan delivery. The bill pursues a continued drive for better upfront collaboration, involving people from the outset in the choices that need to be made about future development. Local place plans will give people a greater opportunity to come together to discuss, consider and express their aspirations and a chance to have real influence over the future of their places. I accept that there are mixed views about appeal rights. I have considered the issues, and I agree entirely with the independent panel. Stronger community engagement at an early stage is much more constructive than more adversarial appeals at the end. I want our reforms to remove conflict, mistrust and tactics from the system. Better early collaboration, by all, is the way to go. Scotland needs investment and good development for our communities and our planning system, should of course facilitate that. The bill should not bring further complexity, process and uncertainty to those who may want to invest in Scotland. The reforms must lead to improved performance and a more positive, proactive and confident planning system. Our proposals for increased resources, skills development and performance improvement will bring a supportive approach, encouraging the whole planning service to function well. While the legislation focuses on process, we will also progress work on national planning framework 4, incorporating Scottish planning policy following on from the bill. That will involve thorough collaboration and scrutiny over important priorities in national planning policy. I hope, convener, that this provides a useful context to inform our discussion today. I am looking forward to discussing the bill with you this morning and answering your questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, minister. That is welcome. I will move to questions now. Andy Wightman Thank you very much, convener, and thank you minister for coming along this morning. You have laid out at the beginning some of what you call the drivers of the bill. Our job as a committee is to scrutinise this bill and to report to Parliament on the general principles of the bill. What are the general principles of this bill? As I have said in my opening remarks, the Government commissioned an independent review of planning to look at planning as a whole, a route and branch review in 2016. The review itself looked at the system as a whole and concluded that the planning system is not broken but that change is needed to make it more efficient and more effective. The panel said that the vision underpinning the 2006 act remains valid that planning should be an enabler of sustainable economic development rather than a regulator. However, they also sought to strengthen the system with 48 recommendations for change. Many of those recommendations can be achieved through wider changes, for example from policy to practice, and we are taking those forward alongside the legislation. However, the planning bill itself also has an important role to play in setting the framework for the system as a whole. Building on existing legislation, the bill includes carefully targeted changes that may appear technical but will play a big role in supporting broader ambitions of planning reform. You have laid out the independent review and its recommendations. I am just wondering if, succinctly, you can describe the general principles of the bill. Your opening remarks could stand as that if you are content with that. My opening remarks stand, convener. Obviously, what we want to see is a planning system that works for people. I know, as many members do, from the case work that we have, that, for many folks, the planning system is a place that is rather confusing. We undertook to look at all of that following on from the review. I think that removing the processes that we have talked about already to a degree will be helpful in letting folk understand much better the current situation around planning. Obviously, one of the key elements of all of this for me, as I have said right from the outset, is to get to a position where we can intertwine community planning and spatial planning. Community planning has got a huge amount of folk involved in it now in many parts of the country. I want the same thing to happen for spatial planning, too, and I think that that intertwining of both can help in that regard. I think that the committee itself has had evidence and written submissions from a number of folk saying that some of the things that currently go on do not entice people into getting involved. I want that to happen. Beyond the bill itself, convener, there are a number of other work streams going on, including a digital task force, because I think that we can use technology much more to get many more people involved. Obviously, in this year of young people, I want to see a situation where many more young people are involved in the system, because I think that it is important that they have a say in planning for their future, rather than, in some cases at the moment, where those folks who are involved in the main are mainly oedder and settled. Can I just check, then, because, Mr Wightman, I thought that you were going to just push a little bit further in relation to— I think that we are only here for two and a quarter hours. If it is where I think that you are coming in, if it can be very helpful, you can just come in and follow-up in a little bit of that. Thank you, convener, and I remind committee that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Just to develop Andy Wightman's line of questioning, minister, so we can be clear, what is the core purpose of planning? What is the core purpose of planning? The core purpose of planning, as I see it, is the creation of great places. It is there to ensure that we serve Scotland's communities. It is there to ensure that we achieve sustainable economic growth. It is there to ensure that we have the housing that we need here in Scotland. It is there to ensure that we have the jobs that we need to ensure that our economy thrives. That, I think, is the purpose of planning. We have a planning bill in front of us that does not state the core purpose of planning, and we have heard from a number of witnesses that that would be a very sensible addition to the bill. We have heard that from the Royal Town Planning Institute, we have heard that from Professor Cliff Hague and others. We have been told in other countries that they have been able to see better succinctly what the purpose of planning is. Is that an emission from the bill? I do not think that it is an emission from the bill. We agree that the UN goals are a useful starting point, but it is more relevant to policy rather than primary legislation. There is also already a duty for planning authorities to contribute to sustainable development and exercising their functions, as was introduced by the 2006 act. There are many different ideas on the purpose of planning. Just last week—or the week before last, I think, convener—I was at a meeting of folks from people and places. I think that if you went round the room, you would have had different ideas from folks about what the purpose of planning actually was. Other countries set all of that out in policy rather than in legislation. I think that reaching a definition is always going to be extremely difficult. Getting agreement around that is always going to be difficult, but there are also a number of other situations in terms of legal aspects of that. If you do not mind, convener, I will take in Mr McLeod at this point to, obviously, as our legal expert, have a few things that he may wish to add. My only real observation is that, while we cannot set out no doubt what our purpose of planning is, it can be set in policy terms. Once it is put in legislation, it will have—or to have—legal effect. If it has legal effect, it can be used—maybe people will want it to be used, of course—in challenging decisions and in altering the way that things are worked through the planning system through all levels of its process. We need to be very clear as to getting it right to the purpose of planning was what we wanted it to be, and it would be much harder to amend that than it would be through a policy document. Is the situation that we have here that there is not a clear, agreed definition of planning? Professor Cliff Hague, who is renowned as an international academic, said, what is the alternative to having a purpose? There are presumably two possibilities. One is that there is no purpose. In which case, why are we doing all of this? The other is that there is a purpose, but we are not prepared to say what it is. That is not a great piece of administration. Is there a legal impediment to linking the purpose of planning to the UN's sustainable development goals? Is that not a sensible place to start, Mr McLeods? I outlined what I see the purpose of planning as being. I do not think that many other folk would disagree with many of the things that I have said. It is whether the situation should be in legislation or in policy. Mr McLeod has outlined his way. What is the purpose? How do we get to that point? What is the situation if that is challengeable? All of that, as Ms Lennon is probably aware, all of those discussions arose during the scrutiny of the Planning Wales Act 2015. An independent advisory group recommended the need to introduce a statutory purpose that the Welsh Government resisted during early scrutiny. I think that they had some difficulties around about that. The Law Commission in Wales is currently undertaking a review of planning law in Wales with a view of providing recommendations and consolidating and simplifying the law. Its consideration of that section of the Planning Wales Act and the proposal relating to the need for a statutory purpose is set out in a detailed consultation paper issued in November last year. The commission suggests that setting out a purpose could cause unnecessary and unhelpful duplication and possible conflict. I think that the last thing that I want to see and others want to see is conflict because a huge part of what we are embarking on is trying to remove conflict from the system. This has been described as a centralising bill. I have to say that going through it does appear to be the case. Can you point to any part of the bill where powers don't flow to you? I do not think that powers flow to me at all, convener. I have said previously that I am not the kind of person who goes for a power grab anyway. That is about getting it right for the people of Scotland here. That is why we have ensured in the bill the opportunity for local place plans. It is why we have looked at removing often confusing processes from the system so that we can involve more people in the planning system at very early stages. I think that we are on the right track here and I would dispute that this is a centralising bill. I will bring in, if I may, Mr McNair. Thank you. In terms of looking at the system as a whole, which is what we do, and to try to ensure that it works more effectively, I would simply reflect that the introduction of local place plans, the alignment of community and spatial planning, the co-production of the national planning framework, the strengthening of local review bodies from their principle is about returning powers to local government, from central government, and the day-to-day scrutiny of planning cases. You would see that ministers take very few cases, just now, on planning decisions, but those are examples of the direction of travel away from centralisation. That was a very long way of not answering the question, which was, can you point to any part of the bill where powers do not flow to you and you have not answered that. I will give you another opportunity before moving on to another area. Maybe Mr Simpson would like to point out areas where powers do flow to me, convener. Let's just... I heard the same answer as Mr Simpson. It's not for me to arbitrate between the flow of questioning. If there are specific examples that you want to give where power flows to local communities, it would be good if you put that on the record minister. Then, if Mr Simpson wants to follow up in relation to that, absolutely. I think that the key one where power flows to communities is that we have outlined, and Mr McNair has outlined as well, is local place plans. One of the things that I have said right from the very beginning of this, and I am being repetitive, I know, convener, is that I want communities to have a say. I want spatial planning to be intertwined with community planning, which I think allows communities to have that greater say in their neighbourhoods, in areas. That's one that I would highlight. Thank you for that. Do you want to follow up in relation to that, Mr Simpson? I don't seem to be getting anywhere on that line of questioning, so I'll move on to simplified development zones. If that's okay, convener? Yes, go for it. Good. That actually does flow on rather nicely, because in the bill, paragraph 6 of schedule 5A means that Scottish ministers can at any time direct and set out the terms by which a planning authority must make or alter a scheme, a simplified development zone, which seems to be pretty centralised to me. I know that you have been asked this at another committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. One of the concerns is that the bill, as it stands, does not specify where those zones cannot be set up. I know that you've committed to correct that oversight. That's assuming that it is an oversight. I wonder if you can give us some more details of your thinking on that today. Convener, I wrote to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on aspects of questioning in that regard. Mr Simpson points out parts of the bill on powers and simplified development zones. We do not envisage at all using the power frequently. It will be an option to consider when we prepare the delivery programme for NPF and how best to ensure that key sites or projects of national or regional importance are managed and brought forward for development in a co-ordinated way. There may be cases where ministers might think that simplified development zones could support housing delivery, for example. The strategic development zone approach in Ireland, where the Government makes an order requiring the planning authority to prepare an SDZ scheme and bring it forward with two years from the date of the order, has there allowed quality neighbourhoods to be created to address housing shortages, but I reiterate that we would not envisage using that power frequently. In terms of the Delegated Powers Committee and the letter that I wrote, I think that we have agreed with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee's suggestion that types of land that may not be included in a simplified development zone should be set out on the face of the bill, with a power to add or remove entries by regulations. I undertake to bring forward an amendment to that effect at stage 2, convener. That's helpful, Mr Simpson. Yes, you did undertake to do that. That's absolutely right. I just wonder if you could tell us today what types of land might be included in your amendment. Convener, I will look at all of this very closely indeed. I have given that undertaking that I will look at all of this at stage 2. I will continue to have discussions about this, convener, and we will let you know what we plan to do as we come closer to stage 2 around that. Is it okay to ask another question? Yes, it is. Going back to the powers that you would have to set up a simplified development zone, if you say that you don't see yourself using them very much, why do you need them? I think that there may be issues that arise, as has happened elsewhere, where there may be the necessity for ministers to become involved in simplified development zones. I find this all quite interesting in terms of some of the debate that there has been around about this, because some folk, including Mr Simpson, have been wanting ministers to become much more involved in the establishment of new towns, where legislation currently exists under the 1960 act anyway. A new town, being a huge amount of development, Mr Simpson and others want ministers to become more involved in those situations. Mr Simpson seems not to want us to have the ability to intervene to deal with a simplified development zone, which might be in the national interest, which would be a much smaller development than a new town, for example. Minister, just because I asked you a question, you should not assume that I have a particular point of view. We are here to scrutinise. Can we deep personalise it? Can you just ask the question that we have got a lot to get through? I am afraid that the minister mentioned me a number of times, so I am just putting him straight, really, if the committee asks you that. Mr Highland, Mr Simpson, we have generally got a lot to get through. We want to get through all the nuts and bolts of the bill, and we want to do it in a respectful, straightforward manner. That goes to everyone around the table, including myself, so if you could ask your question. It has been us, convener. Convener, if I can just clarify a roundabout simplified development zones and this power. This is a reserve power for ministers in effect, and I would expect the vast bulk of simplified development zones to be led through local development plan commitments. Okay, a couple of supplementaries on that. I think that that is a very reasonable and valid line of questioning. I think that a few of the members in this committee would like to bring to life how the simplified development zones would be used. For example, was it your anticipation, minister, that each local authority will, next time they look at their local development plan, you would expect all local authorities to have given detailed consideration as to which parts of their land could be, should be and will be used as simplified development zones? Is that an expectation that you have on the passage and delivery of this bill for every local authority? I would expect every local authority to make decisions for themselves about whether they think that simplified development zones are required in their particular area. Excuse me. Convener, at this moment in time, as members are well aware, we have some pilots going on around about simplified development zones. I think that simplified development zones themselves offer up opportunities in urban and rural areas to ensure that the right development takes place in the right place. I apologise for cutting across your question, minister. We have a lot to get through the specific question. Is there an expectation that every local authority will, at the draft of the next development plan, have in it—here is our simplified development zones, here is why I have selected it or a detailed explanation as to why they have not selected it? Is that your understanding of what this bill will deliver? I would expect local authorities, as the developers and the makers of local development plans, to come up with what they think is right for their particular area. It may be that some local authorities do not see simplified development zones as the way forward for them. It may be that other local authorities will choose to move along the simplified development zone way of doing things. I think that simplified development zones themselves offer up a huge amount of opportunity. I think that the pilots themselves will prove that to be the case. We have seen situations in the past with simplified planning zones, where Hillington and Glasgow springs to mind, where we have seen real moves in terms of sustainable economic growth, because that has been in place. It is up to local authorities themselves to look at what is best for their particular area. I am pushing it at the same question again. A local authority decides that we are up for a simplified development zone. It is going to be at place A or B on the map. There is a delineated area. Do ministers have to give approval? They have to say that we think that they have got the right place or not. I have got the powers, as Mr Simpson was suggesting, that we have picked the wrong place and we are going to impose it in another place. I am just trying to bring to life what would happen. As long as the local authority decides where the simplified development zone is, is that completely in its democratic gift without government interference? We would not have to approve simplified development zones. It is up to the local authority in that regard. We would have to be notified if there were objections. Let me be completely and utterly upfront about here. I would expect that local authorities would engage with communities for preparation of any scheme for an area, rather than the community having to react to that. We have built in various opportunities for the public to be involved in the preparation of simplified development zone schemes. We will set out more details of the community engagement requirement on the preparation of those schemes in secondary legislation, which will include early engagement, consultation with key agencies and opportunity for formal representations. Ministers may, if there are objections out there, prescribe certain cases where a hearing should be held. I hope that that is helpful to you, convener. I am trying to do the converse. The expectation is that, for local authorities, proactively seek a simplified development zone, they should anticipate detailed community consultation ahead of confirming that. Other than notification, they should anticipate ministerial or government involvement at that stage. It seems to be what you are suggesting. The converse is that, where areas that local authorities do not go for simplified development zones, will the Scottish Government go through a troll of each of those areas to identify whether they have got that right or wrong and the need for ministerial involvement? Is that what we would expect on the passage of this bill? As I said, in answer to the initial question from Graham Simpson about Scottish ministers having the right to designate the need to designate a simplified development zone, I would not envisage using that power frequently. That would only be used if there was something in the national or regional interest. All of that, as far as I am concerned, if it is not in the national or regional interest, is a matter for local authorities and for them to determine. I will bring in Mr Mcmairney and see whether he has anything to add to what I said. I thank you, Mr Mcmairney. The expectation is that authorities will consider the role that a simplified development zone might have, including when they are preparing a local development plan. It is not intended that the Government would actively police that if an authority decides that there is not a role in that area for a simplified development zone that we would be questioning or trying to cut across that. Some authorities will want to promote a simplified development zone. At present, I think that there is limited appetite, but as the pilots develop and people see the benefits, it is a tool that is there to be used. The process for simplified development zones will be more straightforward. Currently, there is quite a lot of process around it, although both the current and proposed frameworks are about front loading. The interface of central government in this area would be, I think, quite limited. We see that there is potential for the national planning framework in certain cases to be supported by a simplified development zone, but that is still for consideration. That was the key part of the answer, Mr Mcmairney. I want to know whether the Government would be proactively policing local authorities who did not come up with simplified development zones. The answer seems to be that that is not the intent. That is what we are trying to tease out. We will get another supplementary on that from one of Helena. In instances where a request is made to a planning authority for a simplified development zone, and that is either refused or there is no answer within three months, the applicant or the relevant person can refer that to Scottish ministers. There would be a locus for ministers. You have talked about using your proactive powers sparingly in the national interests, but if a local authority has turned down a request because it does not conform with the development plan and then it lands in front of you because someone has an answer that they do not like or did not get an answer within three months, what tests will you apply or future ministers apply? I know that you are very keen to improve the effectiveness of development plans in a plan-led system. Is there not scope here for conflict in the system? Convener, I think that as planning minister, often things cross my desk where folk do not get their own ways, as Ms Lennon pointed out. All my predecessors have to wrestle with those kinds of things on a regular basis. Obviously, as with all other things that cross my desk, I would have to consider every single situation, any request, very carefully indeed. We will consult on how those procedures would work in practice. I have already said in previous answers, convener, about the level of consultation that I would expect to be carried out at a local level if there was a move to implement a simplified development zone. That would be part of the considerations that I would make if there were ever to be an occasion where something like that was going to cross my desk. Okay, so just to be clear, the introduction of simplified development zones into the bill is actually introducing another appeal mechanism where decisions can be referred to ministers either because SDZs requests are not granted or there is no decision within three months. Is that a yes or a no, minister? Is that another appeal situation? I suppose that you could consider it as an appeal situation. However, at the end of the day, convener, what we will do, as I stated in my previous answer to Ms Lennon, is to make sure that we consult on how procedures in that regard will work in practice. Another brief supplement on that by Mr Simpson will definitely move on, because as I keep saying, I will say it constantly through that there is a lot to get through and we are going to get through it all. If a council decides to set up one of those zones for whatever reason, you would still have the powers in the bill to alter a scheme. Why would you want to do that? Why can't you just leave councils to do what they wish in their own area? I'll take Mr McNair near me first, convener, and then I'll come back. So the local authority would prepare the scheme. They might have objections and disagreements. They might hold a hearing. It might then be that the scheme is notified to ministers, and some of the triggers for notification might be similar to those that are for case work. Something might have a local authority interest, but it is significantly contrary to the development plan, for example, and might be notified. There might be some other reasons why it is notified, too. Ministers would simply take the view that they should call it in or leave it back to the planning authority. That decision is really just about which level of government should take the decision. If ministers were to call it in, then you would expect that that would go to the directorate for planning and environmental appeals, and then the minister would get a recommendation, as he does with major case work. We do not envisage this to be something that is the norm, but you need to provide in legislation a framework that allows for all eventualities. Even if some of the powers are methods of the last resort, they need to be in the bill. However, as I said and I meant to say earlier, those are intended to be positive and to be also something that the community supports, so they will be front loaded. However, in the event where there is a dispute and triggers are met, we would expect notification to central government. I think that Mr McLearney has covered that in some depth. Anything to add, Mr Simpson? In the bill, in the section that mentions this, there is no mention of disputes. It is just a blanket power. Is that something that the Government may have to think about and consider to restrict or put criteria around that power? As I said in my earlier answer, maybe two answers ago, we will set out and consult on the procedures around about that. Those things will be open to scrutiny as they always are. I will take you later for that line of questioning. I think that we will move on to an area that our own Miss Go-Ruth and Mr Stewart are getting interested in. I take Jenny Go-Ruth first, please. I want to look in specific detail at the legislation as it currently stands with regard to local place plans. Obviously, the legislation in its current form says that we need to have regard to the local place plan. Therefore, it is the case at the current time that a local place plan could be created by a community, and then the community's needs could be completely ignored. That was highlighted in a previous evidence session that Dr Andy Inge said that there is a risk of the weak status for local place plans in decision making, is that communities and others can invest hundreds of hours and huge amounts of voluntary time and effort into producing one, only to find that subsequent decisions broadly have been disregarded. I wonder whether we need to revisit the wording of the legislation and consider putting that on statutory footing so that communities are listened to in the planning process. We want planning authorities to consider seriously the plans that local communities have put forward for their places, but they will not be bound to adopt them in full. Planning has to deal with the connections of places at all scales, so there has to be consideration right across the board. Of course, there also has to be account taken of the national planning framework. As I said, planning authorities have to consider the whole area that they represent and how they meet their statutory duties on issues such as equalities and climate change, which local place plans may not cover. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made on that point about wording. At the moment, we have regard. I have listened carefully, and I think that we should require planning authorities to take account of local place plans in preparing their local development plans. That would place them on the same level as the national planning framework and local outcome improvement plans, where the phraseology takes account is there. I see a lot of fellow members disagreeing here, so I want to follow up that line of questioning. In terms of taking account, again, I do not assume that that puts a statutory obligation on them to listen to those plans, does it? I think that the fact that it is a bemused look, rather than a disagreement from committee members. If you enlighten us, that would be helpful. We have a situation where I want to ensure that communities have their say in all of this, but there are other factors that come into play. There are factors that the local development plan needs to take account of as well. There are things that are required in terms of policy around that local development plan and delivering for an area as a whole, and not necessarily just that community. At some points, there has to be the ability for a local authority to place either its necessary policy objectives or national planning framework objectives into account. As members are well aware, the local development plan has to go through some substantial scrutiny before being adopted. That includes strategic environmental assessment and independent examination, as well as public consultation. If local place plans were to be automatically adopted, they would also need similar scrutiny. We want to reduce bureaucracy as folk are well aware, but we want to make it easy for communities to put forward their proposals and their ambitions for their places. Our approach here therefore allows the scrutiny to be undertaken when a planning authority prepares or reviews its local development plan, taking account of local place plans for the area rather than placing the burden on the community. One of the things that I have said elsewhere is about community planning in its very early stages. Communities went in, in the first one that I was ever involved in, and placed on a map of that area stickers of what they wanted to see in that particular area. We ended up in a situation in that particular exercise where folk wanted three swimming pools in four streets and there were no parameters set around that. There was no communication about that at all. People exercise good judgment when they know that there are certain things that have to take place in a particular area. If we get to that level of communication, people will formulate their place plans and take account of what is necessary for that particular place, again removing unnecessary conflict. That is the place where I would like to see us be in. As a supplementary to that, many of the organisations that we have taken evidence from have highlighted the capacity issues around developing local place plans. Many organisations that we have taken evidence from have suggested that there should be a cost associated with it and that the Government should support that financially. However, my concern is that poorer communities will be disadvantaged by the local place plan. If there is not already an active community council, for example, there is not an obvious body to develop it. There might not be capacity there because the community in the past may not have ever had the opportunity to feed into the planning process. Therefore, if you could comment on both of those issues. Can I start with some of the costs that have been put forward by some folk who have given evidence here and to other committees of the Parliament? One of the costs that has been put forward is the cost of about £13,000 for each local place plan. That £13,000 would be the total cost if a community itself had to pay for every single thing in terms of a charrette-type circumstance. I do not think that that is entirely necessary. I said that to the finance committee when I appeared in front of them a few weeks ago. We already have a number of places around the country that have formulated their own place plans with no real resource input from anywhere else. In some cases, I have heard said that folk did not want the resource input because they thought that that might mean interference from elsewhere. I have talked in the chamber previously about Lynlithgow and its local place plan, which they did on their own. The convener of the finance committee was talking about areas in his Stirling constituency where folk have done their own local place plans. The financial memorandum in the convener, which I went over in some depth in the finance committee, estimates for five to six local place plans over a three-year period in a medium-sized authority. The total estimate is around about 92 per year in that financial memorandum. I do not want local place plans to be too onerous or to even require necessarily a significant amount of planning expertise. We already have tools and templates that will help communities to understand and formulate what they think is required in their place. I have talked at the committee previously about the use of the place standard. I think that that is one of the ways forward. In terms of Mr Scott's point about more disadvantaged communities, I said at the finance committee that I would have an expectation that local authorities would prioritise and use resource to support communities, more deprived communities, who want to formulate local place plans with the help that they need. I hope that the engagement in formulating local development plans would look at being completely and utterly inclusive in ensuring that communities that are more disadvantaged get the help and support. Again, at the finance committee, I pointed out that there are also Government funds available in terms of the area of work. The £20 million in power and community funds invest in communities so that they can develop the resource and resilience to decide their own priorities and needs. I imagine that there will be applications into that fund from that. Of course, the Government has invested over the past number of years in terms of allowing communities to hold their own charrette. There are opportunities, but I certainly share Ms Gory's desire to ensure that some of the poorer communities are not disadvantaged in all of that and that I would expect local authorities to prioritise help to them in the first instance. Just as a final point on that, I suppose that it is more of a point than a question that you might want to comment on, the committee recently has taken a lot of evidence on the city deals and produced a report on what will be having a debate next week. We have heard evidence previously at the committee with regard to the disconnect between the city deals aspiration and the planning process, the city deals that were meant to drive inclusive growth. I thought that it was interesting, minister, when you alluded to local authorities' actions and that you would hope that they would listen to the aspirations of communities. In my experience, I have to say that Fife Council did not listen to the aspirations of some of the poorest communities in Scotland that I represent. Because it was not, I suppose, compelled—if Fife Council were not required to evidence how they had carried out community engagement, it was just hoped that they would. They just did not do it. There is a concern, I suppose, for myself, that local authorities, if they are not compelled to do something, just won't do it and will go forward with their own pet projects, as was the case certainly within the city deals in my experience, whereby the city of Edinburgh benefited hugely from that funding and Fife really did not. I have read the committee's city deal report, but that was a number of weeks ago. I can remember all the detail of your recommendations off the top of my head. The city deal scenario, of course, falls within Mr Brown's domain. I do not want to put words in Mr Brown or anybody else's mouth, but I think that there have been some frustrations at points in terms of the negotiating around about these and sometimes the quickness that things are done without opportunity. I will certainly convey Mr O'Ruth's remarks to Mr Brown about this, where there is the opportunity for consultation. I would always want there to be consultation. I know that Mr Brown and others will look carefully at the scrutiny that the committee has had on city deals at your recommendations, but I will certainly pass on Mr O'Ruth's remarks to Mr Brown, who has probably already heard them. I can confirm that he almost certainly has already heard them, minister, and I hope that he will give regard and take account of them. You have finished that line of questioning, Mr O'Ruth. You are calling Graham Simpson's got a very specific supplementary on this. If others have got supplementary on this, we will hold them back until Mr Stewart has exhausted his line of questioning, but just briefly, Mr Simpson. I mean, I am happy to allow Alexander Stewart in if it is on local business and he can come back in. It is up to you. It is a very specific point. It might be quick if you raised it now, because it is still fresh. You mentioned Linlithgow. A couple of members of the committee myself included visited Linlithgow and spoke to the people who had been involved in preparing that local place plan. I have to say that they were less than impressed with the process. They put an awful lot of work into it, produced a very impressive document, and then West Lothian Council decided not to adopt it. I think that this is the point that Jenny Gilruth was making in her line of questioning, that if councils only have to have regard to or take account of whatever form of words you want to use, that same outcome can come about. Do you not think that the bill needs to be a bit tougher to make councils do something? The take account aspect, as I said, would create equality with other aspects of planning. I am going to take Mr McLeod in on the use of the terminology take account, and then I will answer the specific points that Mr Simpson has raised. Mr McLeod? The distinction between take account and have regard to it, I do not think that I am going to spend much time discussing that. The important thing is that the words to take account of on the face of the bill, the legislative requirement, will be the same if the amendment was made. For local place plans, as it would be for the national planning framework, and for local outcome improvements plans, they would be treated the same way in terms of the legislation. I am not sure that you would want to put one higher than the other, so in terms of the requirement on local authorities when preparing local development plans to take account of various matters, it would be the same for the national planning framework as it would be for local development plans in terms of legislation. If I can come back to some of the more specific points that Mr Simpson has made, I have not had the opportunity to go to Linlithgor to speak to the good folk that put together the plan. I was sent, as folk are aware, an overview of their document, and I have to say that I was very impressed with what the community has achieved there. Of course, that has been done under the current situation. The provision in the bill will mean that communities like Linlithgor have a clearer role in the process, and planning authorities will be better equipped to take account of the engagement that is there. Obviously, convener, I want to see good practice taking hold across authorities, and I want to see, in other spheres of business, a community planning level, local authorities will take account of what folks have to say. In some regards, terminology in legislation can often be difficult, but, as Mr McLeod has pointed out, the terminology of take account is no different from what we have in terms of the legislation in the national planning framework and in local outcome improvement plans. I will leave it at that point, Mr Simpson, but I thank you for putting on record the concerns from Linlithgor, because this committee has to mirror the evidence and concerns that we hear in communities more than a lot of what is out of each work in relation to this. I thank you very much for doing that. I have a few supplementary questions on this, potentially, but Mr Stewart wants to explore a line of inquiry first. Thank you, convener. Minister, you touched on at the beginning about improving the experience and ensuring that communities could have their say, and local place plans may well be a vehicle to achieving that process. Why have you chosen to go down that route when, in some cases, if you had looked at improving the engagement at the drafting of the local development plan, that could have been achieved? I want folk to be involved in planning much more than they currently are. It frustrates me that a huge amount of the engagement that takes place is at the end of a process, and that is normally objection to something coming forward. I want folk to, at an early course, play a part in shaping their communities. In particular, I want young folk to play a role in shaping their futures, because they are the folk who are least involved at this moment in the planning system, and they are the folk who are going to be most affected by decisions that we are taking in the here and now. We are not introducing local place plans alone. I want to see further engagement during the drafting of local development plans. We want to do both. As part of the wider planning review, we will bring forward proposals to ensure that planning authorities consult more widely on their development plans, including with children and young people. I have been mightily impressed by a pilot that has been taken place at Galashio's academy. The Government has put some resource in to allow pass to carry out a pilot there, using the place standard that I mentioned previously. To begin with, it was using the place standard in paper form, but that has been developed, which, of course, has meant even more excitement about the project. It would be fair to say that how the young folk of Galashio's envisage of their place is much different from those folk who have currently been engaged in the planning process, because they see things much, much differently. Participation is one of the six key themes in the year of young people, but I want this to go beyond this year. I want this to be permanent. Beyond the pilot at Galashio's, I have a group, a digital task force, looking at planning as a whole and how we can use new technologies to simplify the current system, but also to get more folk engaged, because I think that it is key that we get much more people engaged in the situation. However, I would say that this is not just about local place plans, but also about improving communication and getting more engagement in local development plans. It is not one or the other, it is all. I think that having that engagement and that aspiration to achieve that ambition to have young people involved are all good and well. We would all probably want to see that, but it is making that happen. It is trying to ensure that that does take place. That is the big issue here, as to how you manage that. In communities where they have an engagement and a structure, that could be achieved and expanded, but it is ensuring that communities that do not have that structure are not disadvantaged in the whole process is the most important. Will we end up having a slightly two-tier system where communities that do have that process can engage and do engage and others do not? I agree completely utterly with Mr Stewart on engagement there. I want to see priority in resource, given to communities that may struggle to become engaged. I want to ensure that planning authorities themselves, when it comes to the formulation of development plans, widen the communication that is currently going on. I, without doubt, want to see more young folk involved in the system. I think that, convener, planning itself has been described by some folk to me as being rather dry. I want to make it a bit exciting. I think that, with technology, we can do that. That is why all of this review is not just about this bill. We are on a journey here in terms of the results of the independent review, now the planning review, the planning bill, the NPF Scottish planning policy, but we need to continue on that journey to make sure that we get more folk involved. Convener, if you excuse this expression, rather than being seen as being dry, I want planning to be seen by folk as being a wee bit sexy and something that they want to get involved in. That might be a very good time to interject, minister. I am just conscious, a very lengthy reply that you have given there, and we are grateful to that. We have scheduled two hours and 45 minutes, which is a huge amount of time to spend with yourselves. That must be exciting, as I meant. I hope that you are giving me a half-time break, convener. We can do that. I could be up for taking a brief break at 11am if that would be welcome. I would be grateful for that. I appeal to MSPs, and I am about to ask a question as well, and to MSPs about a bit more focus and brevity in questions and answers, and we will get there, and we will get the comfort break, and we will have it done and dusted by 12pm, so that is an appeal to everyone. Alexander Stewart, do you want to follow up on any of that? Convener, I think that the minister has identified where we all want to try to achieve, and that is very much the case. The bill itself will enable that to happen if it is resourced and if councils are resourced and communities are resourced, but if they are not resourced, it will fail. My question would be, how are we going to bridge that gap? Convener, in the financial memorandum, it shows that the freeing up of folk from doing a huge amount of the bureaucratic stuff saves a fair amount of money. I do not have a number off the top of my head, it will come to me, but I would expect local authorities to use that freed up resource to deal with the changes that we are bringing forward, and investing in helping communities, have their say, whether that be through local place plans or whether that be through greater engagement. There is a huge opportunity there to be able to do that. On resourcing itself, convener, I recognise that you and others committees have heard a fair amount of resourcing about resourcing. One of the things that we have seen over the past few weeks is that in some local authorities, in their budgets, they have put in additional resource for planning, and I am pleased to see that. Craig from RTPI said that currently 0.44 per cent of local authority budgets go to planning, and that their expectation is to drop to 0.4 per cent. I hope that some of the changes that we are seeing will actually see resources increase. I have also said previously that, in terms of resourcing itself, I would like planning points to become cost neutral, so that the fees that are coming in cover the costs of the service completely and utterly. However, I have also said that I am not willing to increase planning fees again until we see increased performance. In a number of authorities, we are beginning to see that increased performance. What I will not do is that I do not really want to dictate to local authorities how they should spend their money, but you can be assured that I will be keeping a very close eye in terms of resourcing over the police and performance over the police, so that we can get to that point in the future, where we have a service that pays for itself. I am going to follow up on some of that myself, but I will note that I have yet to get Jenna Gouris from Monica Lennon for supplementaries in relation to that as well. The resources will be an issue. One additional area of complexity with local police plans, of course, is that, if it has to fit in, if it has to complement or dovetail with local development plans, because I fully accept that if the local police plan goes off in one direction and the local development plan goes in another direction, then how can they mesh together and how can one be adopted by the other? There has to be a lot more closer articulation between the local police plan and the local development plan. I am not sure how that happens when it has got to account of the national planning framework as well, so there is a degree of meaningful expertise required to develop local police plans that will have added weight and value to influencing local development plans. That costs money. If an area does not have an active community development trust or it is not a particularly affluent area, the skillset that exists might not be there for that or the resources. Any reflections in relation to how you might target resources going forward, not just local authorities but also government might target resources going forward would be helpful. I do not have the financial memorandum in front of me at this moment and off the top of my head I cannot remember some of the numbers. I will write to you. I have already given evidence that you are well aware to the finance committee around about resources and the figures. However, if you do not quote me, I think that we have got a— Minister, can I just for your own safety hear warning you that this is a live session? If you do not hold me to this, there are a number of millions—I am not being specific here—which the financial memorandum sees as coming into play with the changes to the local development plan system, which will free up that resource. I would expect local authorities to look at using that additional resource at their disposal to invest into local place planning and to ensure that communication of local development planning is right. Obviously, convener, I do not want to dictate to local authorities about that, but I think that that gives them a huge amount of opportunity in ensuring that that freeed up resource goes into ensuring that they get those areas of business absolutely right. In addition to that, after the bill itself, it will consult again on the fee structure and enhance fees, including discretionary charging, to ensure that the development is coming forward and that it reflects the development. We will undertake a full impact assessment on the implications of the changes for users of the system. I apologise for not bringing the financial memorandum with me, convener. I think that you have answered a really good question, but it was not specifically the one that I asked. The point that I am trying to make is that I think that you are appreciating that there could be an intense resource required to be targeted to certain parts of a local authority area in certain parts of the country. I am hoping that that is maybe the sense as your reply was in relation to what local authorities could do for many efficiencies that they make to target some of that money in their own area. You also mentioned national funds that exist that could, in theory, be used. I suppose that my contention might be that separate from existing national funds and separate from what local authorities might do is that some form of pilot fund may be really beneficial to target some of that work proactively and some of our deprived communities across Scotland. I am decoupling that specifically from the financial memorandum in relation to making the bill work, but to bring to life this act as and when it has passed, that community capacity building and a standalone fund, I think, would be very welcome. I know that you do not hold the purse strings, minister, but is that something that you would give consideration to? What I would consider, convener, is targeting the funds that planning and architecture division have at this moment into certain areas to see what the benefits of that are. I am certainly, convener, not promising any additional funding that would be going against what is in the financial memorandum and, of course, you wouldn't expect nothing less. I think that Mr Mackay would be extremely unhappy with me if I were to promise additional monies which I do not have at my disposal to do that. However, I will consider targeting the funds that we currently have into ensuring that community capacity and resilience is there in certain places. Again, I would reiterate the point that my expectation would be that local authorities themselves would use the freed up resource to get this absolutely right in their areas. As I said in my response to Ms Galruth, my expectation that they would see more disadvantaged communities as being the priority. Okay, and you can give us more information on that. I better mop a couple of things and then take to our further supplementary. Mr Stewart was also talking about development plans. It was not just local place plans that we were referring to, and we are talking about that early community engagement, not as a one-off but as a recurring exercising community engagement, whether there is a local place plan or not. However, there is not a duty within the bill for stakeholder community engagement in the development of the evidence report within development plans or during the gate check exercise. Are there missed opportunities that the Government would reconsider in relation to that community engagement at those stages? Our intention is that communities should be closely engaged in the preparation of the evidence report and that the gate check should examine how the engagement has taken place and the areas of agreement or dispute with different stakeholders. There are powers for ministers to prescribe matters to be included in the evidence report and the procedures and matters to be assessed in the gate check. That is section 16A inserted by section 34 of the bill. We intend to include the duties for stakeholder and community engagement through that secondary legislation. However, I understand the concerns of the committee that our intentions for greater community engagement in development planning are not visible on the face of the bill. There are a number of ways that that might be strengthened and I will consider what amendments we might bring forward in that respect at stage 2 of the bill. I think that that would be very welcome. I think that it would give some other members the opportunity to find some supplementaries in relation to this. I will take gender papers and then work on them. Thank you, convener. Just a brief supplementary. Minister, you spoke about planning becoming exciting. I will not use the other word that you use, but in your letter to the committee you say that it is not always the case that community groups represent the views of their community as a whole. I suppose that going back to my line of questioning previously with regard to local place plans, if you think about community councils make-up, there are often people of a certain demographic, perhaps people of a certain gender as well, so there might be a disconnect there in terms of who those organisations are actually representing. I heard you speak about Gallashield's academy. On Friday, my colleague Andy Wightman and I met with pupils from Gallashield's academy. There are a fantastic group of young people and they are completely engaged in the process in their area, but when you start going through the specifics of the legislation with them, they looked at us with blank faces, as you might expect members of the public to, but when you actually said to them, what's your school like? What would a new school look like to you? They suddenly came alive when they started talking about it, so I think that there is an opportunity here to get the voices of young people into the planning bill. Now, when we were talking to them about the legislation in its current form as to whether or not it listened to communities, they thought that there should be some sort of statutory requirement for young people to be spoken to and the community. Now, this is obviously an opportunity for the Government, year of young people, should it not be an opportunity for the Government to signal its intent about how important young people's voices are and mandate councils to listen to the views of young people in any planning system, so that, for example, when they are designing schools, they have to listen to the people who populate our schools, pupils and young people. I am glad that Ms Galruth and Mr Whiteman were excited by the opportunity to meet the folk from Gallashield's and to hear their views, because they are somewhat different from the views that many of us hear on a regular basis. I want everyone to become involved in the planning system, and I do not know if mandating particular groups is necessarily the right way forward, because then we would have to go through an entire gamut, and it may well be that that adds to bureaucracy. Certainly, the regulations for local development plans will set out engagement requirements, and I want to be pretty strong on those requirements. I will reflect on what Ms Galruth has said about mandating, but we have to be careful about that. I will reflect on what you have said, but what you can be very assured of is that I want young people to be involved in the system, and beyond that I want many more people who are currently disengaged from the system to become involved. If we get that, we will have much, much less conflict in the system. My point is that, if we get that generational change, people are far less likely to think that planning is something that is done to them, as opposed to it being something that they are part of, and it is more of a bottom-up approach. That is certainly the views that we were getting from Gallashield's academy, and it would be great if other schools and other young people felt that they had the capacity to engage in the system, or if the system could adapt to engage with a wider audience of people, as opposed to a select few who sit on community councils. That wider audience is not just necessarily through schools or any other formal process. I think that in order to get the complete and utter buy-in of folk, we need to change the way that we do things. I think that technology gives us that ability. It is quite something where you are able to see a 3D visualisation of a place from an iPad as you walk round, a blank space seeing what is proposed in an area. Those kind of things, not just in a building scale, but on a place scale. If we can do that, we will ensure that we bring new folk into planning and becoming involved in the system itself. That is the area that really excites me. I will certainly be doing all that I can. It is not just because it is secure of young people or that I can to make sure that young people are involved in the system, because I think that it is vital. I am trying really hard not to cut you off. I am trying to move to the last hour, hour and a half. From being a laid-back chair and letting you expand your answers, you are going to find me having to start to cut you off. I am just pre-warning that just now. In terms of young people and being able to effect change through the bill, has the Government given consideration to giving young people statutory rights? That could be in terms of a scale community being able to bring forward a local place plan. That could be in terms of pre-application consultation. That member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, for example, could be a consultee, could have formal rights in the way that community councils do. That would be a way to embed rights for young people as key stakeholders, rather than just reminding people they have the opportunity to take part and encouraging local authorities and ministers and others to take them into account. Can we not just embed rights into the bill? I think that, in some regards, the move that we are making in terms of local place plans should ensure that many folk, more folk, are involved in the formulation of local place plans and getting involved in planning as a whole. In some regards, what Ms Lennon is proposing is a situation in which I have absolutely no problem with schools or young folk or anyone else becoming involved. I have just probably got overexcited in answering Ms Galreith. I want to see that to happen. However, I do not think that that is necessary on the face of the bill. I was asking about rights to be consulted and rights to bring forward a local place plan. Is that something that you are willing to consider at this stage? I would expect local authorities, as they do with almost every other consultation that they do, to involve as many people as possible in that consultation in that community engagement. Local place plans will work best when the entire community becomes involved. I want that to happen, but prescribing different groups on the face of the bill is not necessarily something that I would agree with. We are now going to move on to another line of questioning, and then we are going into a comfort break at that point. Thank you very much, convener. I want to explore the national planning framework and strategic development plans. Before I do so, I have a brief question going back to the questions about sustainable simplified development zones. Section 7 of the new schedule 5A says that our request is valid if the requirements prescribed in regulations have been met. Those regulations do not make any reference to the kind of person who could make a request for a simplified development zone. The request, as it stands at the moment, appears to be able to arise from anybody. My sister lives in Switzerland. Could she make a valid request for a simplified development zone? Mr Whiteman's sister is going to win the Christmas card less soon. She has made a few PMCs at the committee. Minister, could you address that question? I do not know if I will be on our Christmas card list or whether she will be on mine. I will bring in Mr McNearney first, convener. There is not a restriction on the basis that proposals might emerge from a private land owner, for example. You are correct in the bill that there is not that restriction, and we would need to rely on regulations to define in more detail if there were specific connections with a locality or any other restrictions. I suppose that is my question, because 7.3 says that regulations may in particular include requirements as to how a request may be made and steps that must be taken before a request may be made. Can I take it then that, when it says that it may in particular include that that does not preclude some elements and regulations that would say something about who would make a request? I would say yes, but we have our lawyer with us, so Norman, if you would like to take that question. I am not sure that the idea of individuals from Switzerland making requests was considered when we did this, but the basic trust of this is that there is no limitation set out, and the filter ultimately is the quality of the plan that comes forward. The request is made for the plan, and it goes to the local planning authority, and they will consider the merits of that proposal, rather than the identity of the person who has made it. That is helpful. I apologise that I want to explore that further, but can I urge, just for time constraints, that the minister would be helpful if he could write to the committee with greater clarity over the intent within the bill and subsequent regulations in relation to who would or should or could or maybe precluded from bringing forward a simplified development zone, or else we are going to reopen up this entire line of questioning again, and we are moving on to a new area, minister. We will certainly write to the committee around that. I do not know if Mr Wightman wants a copy for his sister. I am sorry for you. That would be helpful. I am just concerned that the regulations do not appear to include provision for that, and the system could get clogged up with all sorts of questions. I am not going to finish the appointment, Mr Wightman. I will stick in a time case. Absolutely, no, I am very, very conscious of that, convener. Thanks for that indeed. On the national planning framework, the bill makes important and significant provisions and changes to the national planning framework and how it is handled and how it is regarded. It is, for example, to be combined with the Scottish planning policy, and important is to become part of the development plan. I would just like to reflect on earlier comments on the idea that local authorities would take account of local place plans and would put local place plans on the same footing as the taking account of the national planning framework. That, of course, literally is correct, but it forgets the fact that, of course, the bill proposes that the national planning framework become part of the development plan, so that it has a massively enhanced status compared with anything else. I wonder why you felt that it was necessary to make the national planning framework, which historically is a kind of light-touch spatial expression of ministers' policies, and why it is necessary to make it part of the statutory development plan? The independent panel made the case for this. Many stakeholders have called for an enhanced role for the national planning framework. Incorporating the Scottish planning policy into the national planning framework is a big opportunity to streamline local development plans across Scotland. I am not particularly concerned about merging planning policy in the national planning framework. I am asking about why it does not need to be part of the development plan. Well, one of the things is that there will be no need to repeat policies in 34 different local development plans. Unlike, of course, there is a need to tailor them to local circumstances. We also intend to use the NPF to provide greater clarity on the requirements for housing lands to reduce some of the conflict that exists in the system at this moment. Development plan status will help in that regard. Instead of current situations, local development plans themselves can focus on achieving outcomes places in which future development should happen. We believe that, by reducing duplication, that could significantly reduce the amount of time that people and organisations have to spend on contributing to development plans. Mr Whiteman, to explore that a little bit further, the significant differences between the situation that we have at the moment under the 2006 act, which is to recall that the planning authorities must have regard or take account of the country model, which is of the national planning framework. I will take Mr McNearney first, please. Thank you. Just briefly, the strategic development plan and the local development plan are in that combination. The bill clearly proposes that we no longer prepare the strategic development plan. A key reason why the national planning framework should become part of the development plan is to take account of that strategic element, which currently exists, albeit only around the four largest cities, so that we have that conjoined development plan. It is different, but it allows there to be a strategic overview, part of the development plan, over the whole country. That is helpful. I will come on to the strategic development plan because that presupposes that we get rid of it and that it becomes part of the development plan. On the basis that it becomes part of the development plan, I can ask a few questions about how the national planning framework is agreed. At the moment, ministers publish the plan and it is laid before Parliament, and other committees have a look at it. Indeed, if I remember correctly, the minister himself was a convener of the committee that perhaps scrutinised the last one in 2014, or maybe not. That went to a debate of Parliament in March 2014, and Parliament passed a motion stating that the reports of the committees were Parliament's response to the Government on its proposed national planning framework. Parliament does not approve the national planning framework, yet it is becoming part of the development plan for all 34 planning authorities in Scotland. Is there a case for improving the scrutiny and the sign-off on the approval of the national planning framework in Parliament to enhance its democratic standing? As Mr Wightman points out, Parliament was fully involved in national planning framework 3. The lead committee took evidence from the minister at an early stage during the scrutiny. Four committees heard evidence and produced reports on MPF3. We are at an early stage in designing the process for national planning framework 4, but we are taking into account recommendations made by Parliament when they considered MPF3. For example, the report on MPF3 asked that we build in early debate by Parliament on the national developments, and I think that that would be extremely helpful. As other witnesses have said to the committee, there is a good track record of taking into account the views of Parliament in finalising the national planning framework. You can be assured, convener, that I will consider the delegated powers and law reform committee's recommendations on amendments of national planning framework further. I fully accept that previous Governments have taken account of Parliament's views. That is perfectly proper. The difference now is that the national planning framework is going to be part of the statutory development plan. That place is on a very different footing from what happened before. It provides—perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong in this—the possibility that a future minority Government could put things in the national planning framework to express their preferences that are against the wishes of committees in this Parliament, that are opposed by Parliament and yet will become part of the statutory development plan for planning authorities, because Parliament cannot say no to the national planning framework. I understand where Mr Wightman is coming from. I have already said that I have the delegated powers and law reform committee report here. I will consider the recommendations on the amendments of national planning framework further. Mr Wightman has a very specific point in relation to that for all of his reasons. I am encouraged to hear that. I wonder whether you can go a bit further. One of the recommendations of the delegated powers committee was that the Government should amend the bill so that significant amendments to the NPF, resulting in a change to the overall policy, become subject to specific public and parliamentary consultation requirements, and that should be set out on the face of the bill. Are you saying today that you are willing to do that? What I have said today is that I have noted the recommendations of the delegated powers and regulatory reform committee on the issue, and I will consider them further at stage 2. We are significantly enhancing Parliament's ability to scrutinise the national planning framework. I have not had this document very long, the recommendations from the delegated powers and regulatory reform committee, and I will consider them further at stage 2. I will move on, but before I do so, I want to note that the recommendations of the delegated powers and law reform committee in relation to consultation are not what I was asking about. I was asking about Parliament approving the national planning framework, putting it on a more democratically accountable footing, given that it is to be part of the strategy development plan. As Mr McNearney has noted, the bill gets rid of those. It is fair to say that you reflect in the policy memorandum that there have been mixed views on that. As a committee, we have to think carefully about what kind of recommendations we are going to make to Parliament on that. We have had people like Clyde Plans who have come in and very successfully produced regional plans and are very keen that they are being maintained. In principle, there is no reason why they could not continue under voluntary arrangements, but there is a worry perhaps that if strategic planning, which is a long-standing feature of the planning system, is to be moved on to voluntary footing, there will be less incentive obviously for planning authorities to engage in it because of resources and all sorts of other reasons. In that context, it is quite notable that research that Kevin Murray associates did for the Scottish Government in 2014 effectively said that the report has addressed the core question of whether the strategic development planning system in Scotland is fit for purpose. The answer is that the system is still bedding and it is not yet broken, nor is its potential yet fully optimised. I wonder if you could reflect on the evidence that we have heard about the value of strategic regional planning, the high regard in which it is held outside Scotland and whether, in fact, voluntary arrangements will deliver the same quality of strategic planning as has been the case today? I will start off with the Kevin Murray associates report and then I will bring in Mr McNearney. Although the report itself did not recommend removing strategic development plans, its conclusions and recommendations raised very similar points to the issues that we are now seeking to address around about stronger collaborative leadership, greater alignment of vision strategy and delivering mechanisms, improved community engagement, awareness-raising, a more streamlined process for housing needs and demand assessments, better coverage of infrastructure, stronger links with wider community planning, improved action planning and a focus on delivering outcomes. The bill as a whole, together with the wider planning reform, will ensure many of those recommendations can happen. Before I bring in Mr McNearney, from an entirely practical point of view, is a constituency MSP. One of the things that frustrates many folk who are or have tried to become involved in the planning process is that shift from the local development plan to the strategic development plan and they do not understand all that put together, which leads to confusion and they cannot understand why they have been consulted on one plan and suddenly they are being consulted on another plan. Again, in terms of simplification and getting rid of confusion, that is the right way forward. I will bring in Mr McNearney, convener, and if he will allow me to come in at the end with a few other reflections I would be grateful. Thank you. I would say that we strongly support strategic planning. The national planning framework is a form of a strategic plan, albeit that it is national. The changes both reflect the findings of the independent panel and, as you have reflected, there are different views around the country on that. Strategic development plans are currently focused on four areas, but there are other parts of Scotland that have cross boundary issues. It is also the case that the partnership working in different regions of Scotland might change over time. At present, Highland, Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Falkirk, for example, are not part of the STP network. We have sought to provide a stronger regional focus. There is already a regional perspective in the national planning framework 3, which moves us on considerably from earlier versions. Our proposals are that we simply strengthen that and that we co-produce the national planning framework with planning authorities working over different geographies to ensure that it can give regional perspectives more information regionally about infrastructure, housing and so on, in a way that reduces some duplication and complexity from the system. There is also a feeling that I would share is that, for a country of Scotland's size, we are approaching having too many plans. We have a national planning framework, SDPs, LDPs, community planning, integrating with those and now local place plans. That comes with some baggage of consultation, if it is going to happen in a way that is really inclusive and effective. The focus is drifting towards just making plans. What you see here and the root of your question is a rationalisation. We think that things can work more effectively with a stronger national planning framework, not imposed necessarily. It has to be co-produced and has to have a strong element of what different authorities working together want to influence. I will take it for one final supplementary in a moment. Minister, do you need to add anything? That is fine. Mr McNair has covered everything. Just to conclude, that was very helpful. I suppose that the worry is that, by getting rid of strategic planning as a statutory thing, there is a concern that we are hollowing out the process. We are producing local place plans at the local level, but they do not have much statutory effect. We are having a national planning framework, which does not have much democratic scrutiny, but is part of the development plan. Those are the issues that we have to grapple with, but I understand the rationale that Mr McNair has laid out. The other thing is that, in changing circumstances, Mr McNair rightly pointed out that strategic development plans that cover the four city regions in many areas do not have anything like that in place. That is the opportunity for more co-operation at a strategic level between authorities. Ayrshire is probably a good example of getting the hopefully soon Ayrshire deal right. It would require strategic development co-operation across Ayrshire. Some of the situations that we have seen as things have developed means that we now have different things at play to what we had when strategic development plans were introduced. The city deals are a prime example here, which Mr Goreith pointed out earlier. I think that there are opportunities still for the level of co-operation in strategic planning without us being prescriptive and without being overly cumbersome on folks out there who are often confused about the amount of planning that is going on. Just before we all get that comfort, minister, the contention was made that the national planning framework does not have democratic scrutiny. My personal view is that it has a huge amount of democratic scrutiny. Massive, I would say, is whether or not it should go to a final vote in the Scottish Parliament, which is connected, but they are different beasts, I suppose. What are the benefits of putting it to a vote in the Scottish Parliament and are there any downsides? The point that I was supposed to make in relation to downsides would be—I say this with full self-awareness—the budget process, where there is a degree of cost trading in deals to be done to sign up or not sign up to an agreed budget in this place. Might that be something that we put the national planning framework privy to if it goes to a full vote in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament? What would you see the benefits of that being and what might the drawbacks of that be? From personal experience, convener, I think that the scrutiny of national planning framework for the Scottish Parliament was particularly good. As I said, a number of the committees of this Parliament were involved. Obviously, I think that that level of scrutiny is grand. I would expect that level of scrutiny to continue. I think that the Parliament, as it stands with what we have and what we propose, has a huge amount of oversight to look at national planning framework for it. I thought that I would draw you on that without any success. We are now going to go for about a five-minute comfort break. After that, it is an hour, and that is wrapped up, so we will just have to framework questions appropriately before we suspend for a few more minutes. We are done on agenda item 1, and we are considering the planning Scotland bill that is before us, and we will continue with some questioning. Minister, can I perhaps move us on to the infrastructure levy, which is, to a degree, contained within the bill. That is as far as provisions to impose an implement, and infrastructure levy are contained within the bill, but no detail. So, from the Government's point of view, the jury is still out whether or not this power should be exercised or not in consideration has still been given. It has been contended that it will not raise a significant amount of cash in the greater scale of things. I am just wondering what the latest considerations in Government are in relation to why it is there, if you might not use it, and in relation to the amount of cash that is likely to garner in. I am well aware of some of the evidence that you have taken. I know that infrastructure delivery is one of the biggest challenges facing local authorities at this time. It is important that the opportunity of introducing an infrastructure levy, which could facilitate development, is not missed. The infrastructure levy itself is not intended to fund all infrastructure requirements, nor would that be possible for the scale of infrastructure requirements across the country. Although receipts are likely to be small compared to total public sector infrastructure spend, they would still have a positive impact on infrastructure delivery, for example, through levering other funding. We have done an amount of work on that and had an independent report on the levy itself and how it could possibly work. All that information is available on the Scottish Government website, and I am sure that many of you have trod through that. I think that there is a number of things that we need to still do to get this absolutely right, and that is why we are asking for the powers to introduce one, but not necessarily do so at this moment in time. If I could bring in Mr McNairney for maybe some more of the technicalities around the work that we have done around the levy itself, convener. Just before you come in, Mr McNairney, because that is a technical response, but just again for the time constraints that we have, is it a fair summation to say that, in principle, the Government believes that an infrastructure levy is the right thing to do, but in practice you want to make sure before it is implemented that you do get it right? Is that a fair summation of the Scottish Government's position? Correct, convener, absolutely correct. Okay. Mr McNairney, do you want to add that? Okay, I'll be very brief. The levy was also a recommendation of the independent panel. We've looked at it in the context that we recognise section 75 as limitations. It's focused on restricting and regulating. Necessarily means that there has to be a very strong connection between a strong connection between the improvement and the site. As we've seen from at least one court case, as you stretch the boundaries of section 75, you can fail to meet the tests. The infrastructure levy is an opportunity that we don't want to just close our minds to, and that's why we've focused on research, but recognising that more work needs to be done. Okay, I think that that is helpful. It might also be worth just seeking the minister's views in relation to something that's not in the bill. It could, in theory, be in the bill at the same section, because there's a lot of work going on just now with the Scottish Land Commission in relation to land value taxes. Again, I'm just keen to tease out whether, if that's a direction of travel of the Scottish Government, although we're not quite sure how that might work in practice yet, if there's an opportunity to seek the powers to introduce through secondary legislation the idea of a land value tax within that section. If the principle would appear to be a good idea, wouldn't that allow us to roll this out without having to go back to primary legislation to achieve it? Is there a potential there to look at some of that? Convener, the bill is not the place for that, and I think that we have got to allow other work to continue on in that area. The Government has already said that it will enhance compulsory purchase orders and refresh compulsory purchase order powers. We will look to introducing compulsory sale order legislation during the course of this Parliament, but probably more importantly, convener, we have got to allow the Scottish Land Commission to have a real hard look at land value taxes that they are currently doing. The committee will have seen the Land Commission's report last week, which calls for the state to lead in major public interest development. Although we are still considering all of that, we have got to allow them to do that work again to get that absolutely right, just like infrastructure living. I accept that as the Government reason minister, and you're not persuaded that the provision to implement land value tax should be within there, but the distinction, of course, would be that infrastructure levy is not good to go yet, but that is going to be good. The difference between all of that, convener, is that we have consulted on the infrastructure levy. We have not consulted on land value capture or compulsory sale orders or compulsory purchase orders, and that would have to be done, convener, and that would have to be done absolutely right. It is vital that we look at what the Scottish Land Commission comes up with as a regard, and then we move forward doing the right and appropriate thing in terms of consulting on any propositions that we put forward. Okay, final question is back to the principle of it again, minister, and I accept what you are saying there. It is always dangerous to give a local example, but I stay in the summer part of my constituency in Mary Helen Springburn. We are all the fields across the road, and I know somewhere in the houses where it used to be a field a few years ago. All the fields across the road were green belt up into the latest iteration of local development plan. That has now changed, opening the window for development there. Forget about the rights or wrongs of that, whether it's nimbistic or whatever, forget about all those things, but I would suspect the land value there has substantially went up considerably because of that redesignation within the local development plan. In principle, should some of that be captured for the public purse? I am not going to speculate about your area or any other in that regard, convener. As I have said, we have consulted on infrastructure levy. We are moving forward in that. We think that there is still a little bit of work to do, but in terms of land value capture, compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sale orders, we have not consulted on that. We would have to get that absolutely right, and I think that those are discussions for a later date. Mr Simpson has got a supplement on that. Yes, and I will come back again to the report of the Delegated Powers and the Reform Committee on infrastructure levy. They make the point that the powers are drawn very widely. They inhibit the Parliament from conducting line-by-line scrutiny policy. Among three recommendations is that an enhanced form of scrutiny called super-affirmative procedure should be on the face of the bill, so, if you decide what you want to do, the Parliament can properly scrutinise it. I gave my answer to the committee that Mr Simpson convenes. I am happy to look at the affirmative procedure for that. Beyond that, I was questioned around this at the finance committee following an appearance at Mr Simpson's committee. Basically, I was asked the question, is this a way for the Scottish Government to attract further resource for itself to which I responded to Mr Simpson's colleague Murdo Fraser. No, this is not the ability for Mr Mackay to add to his budget. Only because of time constraints, Mr Simpson, so you have that on the record now, hopefully we can move on to the next line of questioning. Yes, regarding planning authorities' performance, a number of stakeholders have raised concerns about the length of delay in applications that are being processed. I wonder how you can monitor the performance, for example, should it be on the quality of outcome or should it be the speed by which the planning application is processed or, hopefully, a combination of the two. I thank Mr Gibson for asking some questions. He is clearly cool with us this morning, so thank you for persevering. Thank you, convener, and I wish a speedy recovery, Mr Gibson. In terms of planning authorities' performance, Mr Gibson is absolutely right. It is something that comes up on a regular basis all over the place, I have to say. Planning authorities, of course, lead the delivery of the planning service in their areas. They have the primary responsibility for managing the operation of that system. I acknowledge, convener, that sometimes applicant behaviour plays a part in planning performance, too, as do the parts that are played by other stakeholders involved in the process. We have commissioned research on barriers to decision making to get a more rounded picture of where delays actually lie. How we view performance has moved on a little bit in recent years. Speed of delivery is still a vital element of good performance, but there is more to it all than that. The planning performance framework and key markers already recognise that planning performance is about whole-service delivery. The policy memorandum of the bill states that the bill will increase scrutiny of the full extent of planning authority performance and how authorities carry out their functions and deliver their services on their quality of decision making and on the outcomes for their area. That sets out how I see that going forward, a holistic approach to managing and improving performance across all of planning. As I have already said, we have commissioned research on all of that, and I intend to keep a close eye. The form and content of performance reports will be defined following consultation and will continue to work with the high-level working group on planning and other stakeholders to develop that. How will the performance monitoring blend in with the performance monitoring that is already in the system? What real differences will it make? Will there be any overlap, or will it be as seamless as one would hope it would be? The bill's provisions will complement other things that are already in the system. I expect that it will formalise, improve and replace current arrangements. As folk are well aware, we have talked of appointing a performance coordinator in the bill. Some folk see that as a massive threat, or again me trying to exercise authority or power. The role that I see is to ensure that best practice is exported across the piece, to help authorities who may have particular difficulties. For those who think that that might be an additional burden, what I would say is that in terms of the requirement for authorities to report what is going on in their areas, that is already there in their annual report and performance, and I would dispute that that was an additional burden. In terms of the planning performance coordinator and the performance assessor, why is it that their functions are not included directly in the bill, whereas in other pieces of legislation such roles have been included, for example, in terms of prison inspection? The general functions of the coordinator are set out in the face of the bill, and the regulations will provide further details of a technical and administrative level, for example, on how that performance is to be monitored and how often reports should be prepared. The coordinator is a separate role from a person appointed to conduct an assessment of a planning authority's performance. The assessor can be appointed to carry out an in-depth assessment and make recommendations on any particular aspect of an authority's performance, or of its performance generally and the scope of all that to be tailored as appropriate. I will bring in Mr McNairney for some of the more technical aspects of this convener and also to save my voice a bit. Some of this is agreed informally, but it is not before and now being put in legislation. The coordinator will essentially look to improve performance to help to share good practice and report to ministers on how performance is improving over the course of the year. The assessor is, of course, entirely different and is looking at a particular issue about performance and reporting to ministers. The direction of travel is to ensure that we can improve performance and that there are some teeth on the face of the bill as we approach thinking also about improving the resourcing of the system. There is a connection between the two. Some bids for supplementaries in relation to this are name checks so that people know that I have my attention. Monica Lennon, Graham Simpson and I think Alexander Stewart. On performance, the Scottish Government expects planning authorities to use processing agreements for all major applications and for other complex local developments. Minister, are you happy with the uptake of processing agreements and does the Government have any evidence as to how they might be improving performance or delivery? I will bring in Mr McNair in terms of processing agreements. I know that he has opinions on all of this and I will add to that. I think that there has been a slow take-up on processing agreements. Initially, Edinburgh, I think, was at the forefront of that. It was clear from their experience that, in terms of dealing with difficult major applications, as a project management tool, processing agreements were very positive. I think that they generally are positive and so we have continued to try and promote them. It is not something that we can compel developers to enter into because it is an agreement. Or local authorities. I think that take-up has, over the last five years, has improved from a very low level. Is it 1200 now, annually? I have the latest figures in front of me in terms of processing agreements. In 2015-16, there were 680. In 2016-17, there were 1,503. From that data, minister, are you able to tell for what reason the clock is being stopped? Is it lack of information from developers? Is it delays with other consultees? Do you have that kind of information? I will bring Mr McNair in and then I will make some comment myself about clock stopping and the level of attention that I have been paying to this. We do not have information in every case. The information that we have relates to returns where there are particularly lengthy cases and the authorities will provide us with reasons. Sometimes it might be a staffing issue, workload, it could be an agency's delay, it could be information sought during the process not yet provided. Those are common reasons, as is section 75 delays, which probably accounts for about 50 per cent of the overall processing times for major developments. We do not scrutinise every case, but where originally agreed timescales are not met, there should be agreement by both parties to what the extended period would be. My understanding is that between 60 and 70 per cent of processing agreements do meet the timescale. That is one of the ingredients in taking a view that they are overall a good thing. I can just add to that, because I have been paying particular attention around things such as clock stopping. I have been receiving regular information, although sometimes that information is a little bit scant. I have concerns that it is sometimes far too easy to blame the local authority for something when it may not necessarily be the local authority that is at fault in terms of their performance. It would be fair to say, convener, as I said, that some of the information is scant. It would be fair to say that there is probably not enough being done in that area. That is why we have commissioned research on reasons for delay and to explore the barriers to decision making. I am sure that the committee will want to have a look at that research once it is complete. I do not have the timescales for that off the top of my head. I am looking at me. I do not either, but I think that it is within— We will keep it in the looper. I think that it is perhaps unfortunate that that research was not commissioned earlier, because we have heard anecdotally that planning is a barrier. Planning is a slow process, it is bureaucratic, and often the problem lies with planning authorities and with planners and people who work in that department. We just do not really know what is causing delays. There are complexities out there that are sometimes unavoidable. There is data that is reported back to government. There is going to be research, but I wonder what that research will tell us, because we are making— I do not know why we are having that research. Some significant changes. We are not going to look at a planning bill, where we are tinkering and making quite transformative changes, but we just do not know what is causing delay in blockage. Is there a question in there? On that research, it would be helpful. If we look at what I said at the very beginning, we are on a journey here. The bill is not the be-all and end-all of all of this. We have commissioned a huge amount of research in various areas, as we have progressed from the independent planning review all the way through to all the stakeholder engagement, and we will continue to ensure that we have all of the information available. One of the reasons why we have commissioned that research is because I have not been particularly happy with all of the information that we have. I do not think that it is enough. That is why we are doing that. We will send a note about the timeline, and, obviously, we will share that research once it is complete. Thanks. It follows on from what Mr Gibson managed to get out earlier. Basically, in the bill, when it talks about assessing a planning authority's performance, it says that ministers, presumably yourselves, would appoint someone to look at a planning authority's performance. They would look at the functions to be assessed, etc., but it does not spell out in any detail what is meant by performance and what kind of things you would be looking at. Do you think that that is something that could be sorted out at possibly stage 2? It could be wide. We have not specified that. The instance that I gave earlier, around section 75, there can be particular themes that are at the root of delay, but it could also be around how stakeholders are dealt with, particularly community interests. It is not intended to be focused on speed of approval, for example, but on the holistic way in which we want to look at performance. It is very wide. It is a very wide power. That is my point. Perhaps you could spell things out more in the bill. That is a substantive question. I am not trying to take the question off your toes. It is a time constraint. Will there be more information available at stage 2 in relation to the substantive point? We can provide the committee with more detail about that. It has to be said that, in terms of communication that I get as minister and others probably receive as members, issues around performance can be wide and varied. They are often raised by members of the public, rather than by any other stakeholders around the performance aspect, but we will get you more detail. That would be helpful. I apologise for that, Mr Simpson, just to allow Mr Stewart that question. Performance is vitally important. Everyone understands that. As we have already touched on the pressures of work within a planning department, the resources implications, the workforce planning, customer satisfaction with the developers and individuals, they all come into this mix about performance. It is how you manage that to ensure that what you intend to put through in the bill becomes a reality. There is an apprehension that there is a sanction or a control coming through on this and how that will be perceived by councils themselves. Depending on which planning department you are involved in, you may have thousands of applications or you may only have a handful. You will have to try to engage in how that is best worked. However, my question is about the whole idea of control and sanction. Is that the intention for that? I will take Mr McNair first and then I will come in, convener. The intention is that there is some control. In practice, we work very positively with stakeholders in the system. It might well be that some of the elements, the assessor and directing authorities are very much instances of the last resort, but they are there. When there were provisions in the 2006 bill around assessment, they were not implemented because things moved on and we moved to a performance framework and a collaborative approach to improving performance. However, as we move into the territory of significant fee increases, we need to have some mechanism to ensure that those who are paying for full-cost recovery can expect a reasonable service in return for that. A value for money situation? It is not just about that. I think that one of the things that can be frustrating at points is that I will get crossing my desks as we all do from time to time. This is a problem. How are you going to deal with it? At this moment, there is nothing at our disposal in terms of dealing with performance. I always prefer carrot rather than stick. I prefer a light touch where that is possible. I would prefer those roles to be seen as positive in terms of trying to ensure that we export best practice right across the country. I think that we will see what occurs here. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but the bulk of things that cross my desk are not necessarily the things that folk would expect. In terms of performance, it would be fair to say that, in recent times, most of the complaints that I have had about performance are from community groups around certain authorities, which I will not name here. Andy Wightman will give you a heads-up. If this was the NHS and we are monitoring performance, one of the things that has been brought in is a patient opinion. The name escapes me. It is a care opinion where good, bad and indifferent experiences of the NHS are almost in real time to be put out there and captured and garnered. One of the things that I found was that you do not necessarily get to hear about the good stuff as well as the negative stuff. In relation to monitoring performance, to have a positive side to that, what is there in relation to planning opinion that can be captured about whether there is an individual person who sought to build an extension to their house and had a supportive and seamless planning process or a community group that made representations and pre-consultation and felt that they were listening to when the substantive planning application was put in? Is there a whole depth of data out there in relation to get a flavour of performance that we are maybe missing? Is that something that we could act on? In this life, convener, sometimes we hear the bads rather than the good. I am in the position where sometimes I hear the good as well as the bad. There is good practice going on out there in many places. We celebrate that good practice on a regular basis. Just recently, I had the good fortune to be able to attend the planning awards. Beyond that, that provides the opportunity for folk to network and to share the good practice that is going out there. Throughout the review, we would look at 360-degree feedback as part of monitoring. Maybe Mr McNairnyd would like to add more in terms of data that we have. On care opinion, that is run by an independent organisation. I think that it is kind of useful. I am not trying to bounce to the Government. Are you sympathetic to that kind of platform? I am sympathetic to the monitoring that I have talked about. Authorities will take feedback from their stakeholders. They will include that at present in some of their planning performance returns. There is an indication that there are 15 markers in the performance framework. It is quite wide, but we probably do not celebrate the good things enough or promote them. There are tons of good practice in the planning system across a wide spectrum of activity. I will reflect on what you have said about care opinion. That is a pretty should, Mr Whiteman. I want to raise some equality issues. In gender of drawn to our attention, the fact that, if the planning system is to be fully inclusive, it must be that. Planning is a very gendered issue. They cite examples from Vienna, for example, where they have incorporated gender equality in urban planning. The equality impact assessment needs to critically engage with gendered issues, but they argue that the planning bill does not achieve that. They say that, in terms of gender, the planning bill's equality impact assessment is, and I quote, exceptionally bad. They will also go on to say that, at present, it does not meet minimum standards set out by law and thus cannot assist the committee in adequately considering equality dimensions of the bill. I am just wondering what your reaction to that is. I have only just recently seen the engender report. As in this morning, I will have a look through that and reflect on it. Obviously, convener, I am someone who believes completely and utterly in equality. I will have a look at that and reflect. The committee has only just had an opportunity to look at it ourselves. We wanted to make sure that we would put that on the record. I am moving on now to bring in our deputy convener, Monica Lennon. I would have been more reassured to hear some defence of the equality impact assessment, but we look forward to getting more information from the Government. We have heard a lot in evidence about front loading. It was an aspiration of the previous planning bill and it remained an aspiration in this planning bill. Can you tell us, minister, what is front loading and why are we not yet in touching distance of it? I do not agree with Ms Lennon, because I do not think that front loading has failed, but I think that it can be improved and, in some cases, dramatically improved. We talked about the celebration of where we get things right. We have seen extremely good examples of public engagement to capture the views and opinions of local people in places such as Aberdeen and Dundee, Highland and Taplan have been recognised for their work with communities, including children and young people, which we talked about earlier. The charret programme has been a very good example, and we touched briefly on place standard earlier on, which in my opinion has been very successful. More can be done, without a doubt, to embed front loading through our proposals for the national planning framework, development planning, local place plans and SDZs and pre-application consultations. I think that more can be done in that regard, but I do not agree with the concept that front loading has failed, because in many areas there have been success stories. It was interesting that you gave Taplan as an example of success, because Taplan will be abolished, I believe, under the proposals. However, we have heard in evidence that public confidence and trust in planning is quite low. We have heard examples of how communities feel disengaged and not listened to. If we focus on pre-application consultation for a second, we have heard in evidence that community groups feel like some developers approach those exercises, such as a tick box exercise, and the way that the notice is given of public meetings in terms of what happens in the meetings, what is reported back to the council. People do not really feel that it adds value and that it changes anything. Do you recognise those concerns, minister? I think that, in some cases, we have seen some good practice in terms of pre-application. In a lot of cases, we lose sight of the fact that many developers do a huge amount of work in terms of consulting and bringing community views into play. A few examples off the top of my head are Craig Inch's prison at Aberdeen, which is housing for key workers development by sanctuary housing association. At the cutting of the ground there, I had the opportunity to talk to local residents who were also there, who felt extremely included all the way through that process, including a number of the original plans were changed to take cognisance of their views. In many cases, what we are seeing is a change in attitude in that regard. There is still a way to go in some places. I think that a wise applicant will take cognisance of the views of the folk in the area where the application is. In evidence, we have heard from a range of stakeholders, particularly community groups, that they do not feel that there is a level playing field that they cannot match developers in terms of resource, expertise and legal rights in the process. That brings us to a point where 12 years on from the last planning bill, there is a growing debate and demand for equalising the system and an equal right of appeal. Minister, you did right a couple of days ago to put on record that the Government is firmly opposed to an equal right of appeal. Is that totally in principle against equalising appeal rights? We have made it clear that we agree with the independent planning review panel who did not put forward an equal right of appeal. I think that an equal right of appeal will add conflict at the end of the system. I would rather concentrate on the beginning of the system to try and get people together to iron out differences and to have a situation in which agreement, in many cases, can be reached, like I outlined with the sanctuary development at Craig Inchers. I think that that is the much better way of dealing with us. If we end up in a situation with equal right of appeal in many places, what we will see is a situation in which communities and developers, right from the very beginning, will be concentrating in the conflict at the end, rather than sitting down and discussing what is required for a community. You mentioned the independent panel. We have written evidence from Scottish Environment and Link. It says that the issues around equal rights of appeal were not fully explored by the independent panel. The issue was touched on briefly only, and not given the depth of consideration such a fundamental issue requires. I will take in Mr McNairney after that. Mr McNairney was in post when the independent panel was carrying out the review. I was not planning minister at that time. You must have a view on the pan's work. I have a view, and if you would allow me, I will give you that view. I think that it would be unfair to say that the independent panel did not take views of people, all people in that regard. I will take in Mr McNairney who will have more information on exactly what the independent panel did around the country in that regard. Just before you come in, Mr McNairney, there is a lot of interest from MSPs for supplementaries in relation to the issue, including myself. I want to afford everyone the opportunity to come in. I am just signalling to everyone to get my attention now if he wishes to come in, because if he does not, we will run out of time in relation to that. The panel issued a call for evidence, and they took written and oral evidence. There were a number of questions that they set out. I do not have all of them in front of me, but one of them was around the general area, around the balance of rights and can improvements be made. That was part of the context against which people offered views. There were people who offered the view that there should be a third party or equal right of appeal, and there would be others that took a different view. It is not that the review panel did not consider it, but having considered it and provided its four-take recommendations, one of which was not to have a change to the appeal rights. We did not pursue that actively, so we did not have a separate consultation on rights of appeal, but we set out our position in the consultation that was issued last year. Again, people have throughout the process made their views known, but following the recommendations of the independent panel, ministers set out their statement following that, and it was broadly supportive, including that there should be no significant change to rights of appeal. A couple of weeks ago, we heard evidence from Petra Beiberback, as you know, was on the independent review panel. We know on the record that she is not in favour of equal rights of appeal, but in the discussion, she accepted that there should now be a debate about it. Why would there need to be an on-going debate if it is firmly not the right thing to do? She recognises people's concerns and frustrations with the system, and that there should be an on-going debate. I recognise people's frustrations. The last thing that I want to do is to add to those frustrations. If we look at the response from the Scottish Alliance for People and Places, they say in their response to the committee, that we are concerned that the introduction of this measure will create further conflict between communities and other stakeholders in our places and undermine the collective ambition for a positive front-loaded planning system that incentivises participation at the very beginning and throughout the process. I agree with that. I would much rather that we deal with that at the very beginning, because at the end of the day, if we were to reach a position of equalisation of right of appeal, I can foresee a huge amount of conflict at the end, and not many folk speaking at the very beginning, when it is time to speak to one another. I think that stakeholders focus on a particular issue. The whole system is relevant to this issue, so a lot of frustration at communities see that they do not have the certainty that we want them to have about what sites will be developed. The development plan changes to the development plan is really key here, because if we can get better information from developers about how deliverable sites are, that these are carefully considered at the gate, the gate check and beyond, we get everything right, we will have a plan that stakeholders generally can have some confidence in. The problem at present is that shortcomings in say effect of housing land emerge at the end of the process, and that causes tension for all stakeholders. That sounds very persuasive, but the bill is also proposing that ministers can come along and designate simplified development zones, even though a development plan has been adopted and the community might not want it. That brings in more conflict, so it does not seem consistent that you are bringing in other processes, but you are firmly closing the door to communities having anywhere near the rights that developers have. I am not going to go back to simplified development zones, because all of what I have said is on the record in that regard. My great fear is that there is already too much conflict and mistrust in the system. Equal right of appeal, third party right of appeal, can only add to that. Developers and communities in some cases would be much more likely to adopt a tactical approach aiming to win an appeal rather than to engage at the outset. Initial engagement is absolutely vital. That is why the emphasis in the bill is dealing with all of that at the very beginning. As I have already said, we are following the recommendations of the independent panel. I think that it is unfair to say that they did not discuss the issue in depth, because they did. Even so, we have made it clear from the beginning that the Government was not in favour of that. Those discussions have still taken place at many of the fora that I have attended and many, many more that Mr McNearney and his colleagues have attended. I will bring in Mr McNearney. As I said, we did not do a separate consultation on rights of appeal, but people have made their views known throughout the past two years. I bring other members in a moment. I think that it is reasonable to say that whether or not anyone, including the committee, will call for evidence in relation to planning explicitly asking for views on equal right of appeal. We will get it anyway. That is the reason why we have substantial evidence in favour and against equal right of appeal. It is reasonable to make reference to your letter. I think that you are trying to make a point to your minister in relation to the fact that, since 2014, around 5,500 housing units have been approved in developments because of a developer's right to appeal. Some of the proponents of equal right of appeal say that that could be by taking away the developer's right to appeal. Does that mean that you have concerns in relation to meeting national house building targets, for example? I have the dilemma, but I also have the huge opportunity of being in the post that I am in. That leads to different conversations with different people or sometimes very strange conversations about some of those issues. I will give you an example, because I spoke to a woman—I am sorry if I am going over old ground, I may have told this story before—but I spoke to a woman who said that we need more housing in this area. We desperately need more housing in this area. The next line was that you cannot build them here, here, here and here. There is a balance to be struck around what the housing needs of an area are and planning for that properly. As I pointed out in my letter, there are also other things that can often be seen as controversial, but are entirely necessary that have been decided upon in an appeal situation. I am not sure, Minister, of whether or not. I am trying to be helpful, given that every other set of witnesses have the opportunity to put on the record what their views are in relation to this issue. You mentioned in the annex of your letter the five and a half thousand households, so five and a half thousand families staying in houses just now that may not have had those houses developed and not had the right to appeal. Do you have concern over that or not? You have talked about an inbestic approach from some people, but do you have concerns over national strategic targets if we move to withdrawing a developer's right to appeal? That is a possibility that if you have a situation it may not be a national problem, but you could have a problem in a particular area where the decisions taken are not to build any homes, when there is quite clearly housing need and demand in that particular area. If there is not the ability for appeal in that regard, does that mean that we are not going to build homes in those areas and not meet the needs of the people in those areas? One final question, I want other members to come in. I am trying to interrogate the letter that you sent. One of the suggestions is that recognised community groups should have a right to appeal, so that might deal with Mr Whiteman's problem about his sister in Switzerland. I do not think that she is part of a recognised community group, but you never know. The point that I am trying to get to is that, if we were to go down this road, it would be quite difficult to identify what a recognised community group would be or what that would look like. I know from my local experience, and sometimes I agree with folk who say that I just do not want development here. I am one of those people sometimes. We all have our own self-interest along with that awareness, but there is maybe a feeling that I am sensing from your letter that there will be some people who are just always against things. An equal right of appeal would almost automatically trigger a number of appeals, because that is the position that some people take. Sometimes I am in that position in relation to local development. A bit about what a recognised community group would look like, how that could be defined or would it just build resistance to developments at the outset of the process if we were to go down those roads? I think that defining a recognised community group would be very difficult indeed, and there would be arguments around what a recognised community group actually is. That is why I am not in favour of this. The Government is not in favour of this. You could argue about definition forever. Some folk have suggested that a recognised community group should be a community council, for example, but we all know that many of the community councils across the country are not reflective of the views of the communities that they purport to represent. I can only talk from my own experience as an elected member. In my course of years over the time of being a councillor in a parliamentarian, I have come across folk and groups who have said that they will oppose any development in a community, even though that development is included. I have come across a community council that was formed initially to oppose changes to a park, which again was not reflective of the views of the community. I think that having a situation in which designated community groups have the right to equal right of appeal opens up a can of worms that will create even greater conflict and may lead to a huge amount of community division. We have a supplementary relation to that from Monica Lennon. If I can just explore that point, because if community councils are in a lot of places unrepresentative, why do they have statutory rights in the planning system and why are you giving them the power to bring forward local place plans? We are where we are in terms of legislation and community councils have those powers from the 1973 act. Obviously, we are embarking on a local governance view in co-operation with local government and community partners, and we will look at all aspects of those things during the course of that local governance review. Are we saying that community councils can be trusted to bring forward local place plans but they cannot be trusted to make judgments in on whether they are not just making appeals? I am saying that bodies can bring forward local place plans. I do not think that it necessarily has to be community councils, convener. In terms of some of the responsibilities of local authorities, they are from the 1970s. Like all the other aspects of what we are embarking on in terms of that local governance review, that will be looked at as well. I will give a time check where we will close this session at 12.20. Andy Wightman to follow up on a line of questions. I have heard the questions that the independent review panel asked on their consultation. I do not see any that ask a question on rights of appeal just for the record. There was one question about do we need to change a system to ensure everyone has a fair hearing, et cetera. Minister, you said that on this question you are following the recommendations of the independent review. The independent review only talked about third party right of appeal. In recommendation 46, for example, it recommended that there should not be a third party right of appeal. It did not ask any questions about appeals. It did not say anything about the applicants right of appeal. Can you confirm that, on the question of whether an applicants right of appeal should remain unreformed, the independent review did not say anything? I have not got the report in front of me, so I cannot say ye or nay to that. In your letter to the committee, you said that, for example, the idea that rights of appeal could be tied to consistency with the local development plan, compliance with the local development plan, you said that it would be very difficult to determine. As I understand it, prior to 2006, local planning authorities were required to notify ministers of decisions that represented a departure from the plan. There are a number of other, in planning policy 1, required planning authorities to notify ministers if they were minded to grant permission for a planning application where proposals represent a significant departure from the approved structure plan. Can I suggest that planning authorities are well used to making such judgments? I think that they did some of that in the past, but I will take Mr McNair and Ian in terms of some of that. I would also like to come back, convener. All that you say is true, but in arriving at the judgment whether authorities would advertise, for example, a development has been contrary to the development plan, it was certainly not clear cut. Particularly for major developments, you could find that the development is contrary to some policies in the plan, but generally consistent with the allocation, is it contrary to the development plan or not? I think that it is not the case that you can always make a straightforward judgment, so the reporters will have seen cases where an authority has refused an application because it is contrary to the development plan and found perhaps that it is not really contrary to the development plan, taking a different view. It is not a clear cut judgment that is black or white, and so that is another element of potential complexity around us. For the record, I would just like to say that the Government is not favourable to equal right of appeal, or composes for limited right of appeal. Beyond that, we are not in favour of removal of the applicant's right of appeal, as I outlined in my letter to the committee. Time is pressing, and I am hoping that members will follow up on that. We are about to close. I will just check, then, because our committee will have to sit down and look at the balance of evidence and decide what we decide in relation to this in more stage 1 report. If the committee does not favour an equal right of appeal, how do we know that there has been success in front-loading in relation to this bill, like we have ever made the point of the 2006 act? I mean not if I did everything that it wanted to do in relation to front-loading. We asked this to other witnesses as well, so in 10 years time that would be the new length of the local development plan. In 10 years time, how would we know what success looks like in relation to front-loading rather than equal right of appeal, and how would that be monitored if this bill is passed? No matter what we put into play, there will still be instances where people do not get the results that they want from planning. However, we will continue to monitor very closely how planning is operating and how our proposals turn out in terms of performance management, stakeholder satisfaction and how engaged people become. In terms of some other aspects of all of this, I think that the committee should also be made aware. If you move to a situation where you were to recommend limited or equal rights of appeal, you are going to have to look at how that will be resourced by local authorities, because there will be added costs to them in that regard. I have no idea what that resource burden would be, and that would divert resources as well from the up-front planning and collaboration that I and many others would like to see and could lead to a further gumming up of the system. On the issue of cost, what information can you share with the committee about the cost of developer-led appeals at the moment? We heard from industry witnesses a couple of weeks ago that developers, in terms of major applications, are spending £10,000, if not £100,000 on appeals, and sometimes legal costs are awarded against local authorities. The DPA reporter makes a decision on that, and I know in North Lanarkshire that that has run into £100,000. Have you looked at the cost-benefit side of that? I do not have those answers at the top of my head. I do not think anybody would expect me to keep that at the forefront. I will talk to the DPA and others and see what information we can provide on that front. Perhaps after three hours we can forgive you for not having that at the front of your head. It has been a marathon session. I think that it had to be ministered. Quite frankly, there is a lot in the bill. We have to scrutinise every part of it. I thank you and your officials for attending here today. We look forward to your response to our stage 1 report at one draft. I appreciate the opportunity, convener. Thank you very much. We now move to agenda item 2. We have some important legislation in front of us. The committee will consider negative instruments 46, 63, 64, 65, 74, 75, 76 and 77 as listed on the agenda. Those instruments are laid under the negative procedure, which means that their provisions will come into force unless the Parliament votes in motions to annul them. I can inform members that no motion to annul have been laid. I invite members whether they will get any comments in relation to the instruments before us, Mr Whiteman. I want to put on the record once again my dissatisfaction that we deal with important orders about tax and particularly the non-domestic rates of Scotland order 2018, which sets a rate of £48, and is the second highest tax-raising power that this Parliament has that we deal with via negative instruments, which I do not think allows for sufficient scrutiny. That is a consistent opinion that you have had, Mr Whiteman. You have put that on the official record here, what is now this afternoon. That said, I am wondering if the committee unanimously or otherwise, are we still going to agree to make no recommendations in relation to these instruments? Are we agreed to that? Of course, Mr Whiteman's points are now on the record. We now move to agenda item 3, which is in private. We now move into private session.