 Ryfodwch i weithio gwlad â y ddiwrnod yn cael eu ddiogelol yn y Pwg Ffwrdd Gwrth никаких a rhefyd i gael yn 2018, yn gweld i'r cyfrannu cyfrannu i'r rhaglionr yn ddiogelol fel ddiogelol. Fy hyn yn cael ei gael yn gweithio ar gyfer gymfaenol yng Nghymru, mae defnyddio'n gweld yn cael ei gael yn ddiogelol ar gyfer pwg lleol. Mae ymddangos iawn y ffodolau ymddangol yn cyhoeddwyr yng nghyrchu, nifer o'r bwysigau a flynyddoch chi i gael cael ei wneud i'w fawr i ysgolwyr lleolion gyda'r fawr? Rwy'n fawr i'r fawr, nifer. Rwy'n fawr i'w ddechrau. Felly, mae hyn yn ystod y sgolwyr lleolion gyda'r bwysigau. Mae'n iawn i'r gael y Minister for Local Government i'r hwn Kevin Stewart, ac mae'n cyfnod o'r sylfaeneth i'r gweithio yr hynny. Mae'r SPSau i'r Gweithbryd, ac mae'n cael ei ddylu i'r gweithbryd. again be an attend us today, and I welcome Ali Rauley a willy at this point. To start off, I'll call amendment 58 in the name of Andy Wightman grouped with amendment 58A, Andy. To move amendment 58 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 58. This amendment is connected with amendments y next group on appeal rights that we will discuss shortly. However, the trigger for such appeal rights in my name in the next group on amendments 59 and 60 depends on the answer to the question in that is posed, umens цеau 58, namely that are both an application according to the development plan or not. Those are the key criteria that determines the eligibility of any determination to be appealed on the provisionsben of agreements 59 and 60. Ewaen nhw ddatblygu cymdeithas trefiau mwy o'r ddiogelwus gyda'r d mineswyr yn h�roion ond mae'n ddafol i'r ddif Stevieworth, nid ddysgu gぶ amser o'r ddin yn ddafol, a ddiblair amser rydw i'n oes i y ddifrwynt wgeisio. Gall fynd i chi, celaen nhw'n ddiges ensuite fel y cyfraffio'r ddifuq i'r ddifuq i ddimu'n compares a'u achos traffol o'r ddifuqio a'i ddifuq i ddifuqio Foundation hwnnw, yn ymddiwch i gyd, ac yn ymddiwch i gael y dyfyniadau, yn gyrfaith y maesiaid. Ceisio 37 yng Nghymru 97 ac yn oedd y cyfnoddach yn ddau'u cyflwyfiadau i'ch gwneud, oedd y cyflwyfiadau yma yn cael ei prydegyrdd o'r prydegyrdd, oedd i'r cyflwyfiadau i'r cyflwyfiadau a'r cyflwyfiadau i'r cyflwyfiadau. Mae cyflwyfiadau i'r cyflwyfiadau i'r cyflwyfiadau i'r cyflwyfiadau, ac yn gweithio i'r cyflwyfiadau i'r cyflwyfiadau, wrth gyfleu'r hyd o'r yn ôl y bwysigiedig sydd bynnag yn fawr arall yn gyfweld y maenau i gyfleu'r hyn. Dychwm ymddeg mwy o deimlo gyfoesbyddiant, Maureen Fyliadau 58A. Maureen Fyliadau 59A ac amser uchydigon wrth gyflwrs. Drygu'r ddydd, mae'n ddiwylo cyfieithio gyda diwylo cyfieithio. Maenai Ilepheithol Cymru, wrth gyfer amser, amser a chyfwyno cyfieithio gyda y maenai i gyfieithio. yn gwneud o amser nifer o lleolio gyda A&M 58. Felly, nadiad, mae'n mynd i'n mynd i'n eithaf, yn ddefnyddio'r ddangos cyhoeddwydau i'r ystafell oherwydd ac yn cerdyn o'r ddebelydluqué collection, y ffordd 58A ddebryd yn cyfrcomo'r ddegwp yma, ond y cyhoeddwydau yw hi'n cerdyn, ac nid oedd ystafell yn cael ei ddweud i gyfrcomodau ac ydw i'n rhan o'u gwirion gwnaeth, felly mae'n ddegwp ddag oeddwod ar gyfer aethau yn y plant oedd, i fi wneud g infecto ddechrau'r tympio. Gw瞮 yn ddychiwch hwnnw nesaf o fryw. Rhyw o'r ddechrau iechyd yn oedd yn ddiolch dros sydd eich cymdeithasol, ac mae'n angen i ddopeth cigain. Rhyw o'r hanghau ddechrau o fathlau, ac yn gorff 19 ymdoeikodau ddod eich cymdeithasol, mae'n unrhyw o ddechrau o rhai datblygu ddychrau, rhyw o ddowswyddiad, mewn hygrifetio we've got access to information like that. For example, if there are lots of applications coming forward for development that are approved for housing, for example, for sites that are not in the plan, this could also be a useful indicator or tool for planners to drawing up the development plan about where the plan needs to be amended. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Does anybody else want to go to the camera? Dнес vídeo? Thank you, Andy, Mike jo and Monica Lennon. If you just take these two amendments by themselves will come on to appeals but the two amendments by themselves do not mention appeals. They merely mention making a statement on whether i'w cymryd cwyselfau ni'n ymweld iawn y cefnod. Mae'r cyfynidol yw'r system am y cyfynidol, rŷ i gyd, a'i mi fan gweld, ac mae'r iawn i'r cyfrwysau yma i gyfrwysau yma i'r mwyaf yn gwybodaeth. Mae'r gwybodaeth yn gwybodaeth yn gwybodaeth yn gwybodaeth. Ac, os ydych chi'n gweldiaeth o'r cael ei ddufennol, mae'n eithaf nhemd argynneidio gydigol i'r gwybodaeth. Fy enw rwy'n deall, mae'n meddwl i'r cyllidiaeth o'r unig ydych yn dweud, felly byddwn i'r dweud o'r dweud o'r dweud, mae'n cael ei ddweud o'r dweud o'r dweud o'r dweud. Mae'n ddweud o'r dweud o'r syddau i ddweud o'r dweud o'r dweud i'r dweud o'r dweud. If, by supporting those two amendments, I think it will add to that trust, and that has to be a good thing. Okay, thank you very much. Minister. Good morning, convener. Superficially, amendments 58 and 58 seem fairly minor and straightforward, setting out what a planning authority must state in its decision notice. However, there are two important reasons why I do not support those amendments. First of all, section 37 of the 1997 act requires a planning authority to have regard to both the provisions of the development plan and any other material considerations when making a decision on a planning application. This is a long-standing requirement of our planning system. It is at the very heart of the system. Section 25 then provides that the decision on the application is to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Every decision on every application involves the decision maker reaching a conclusion about whether and how the proposed development accords with the development plan. The decision maker also has to consider that alongside an assessment of other material considerations and then decide whether they, individually or collectively, outweigh the position with development plan conformity. Authorities are already required by section 43a of the 1997 act to give reasons for their decision in the decision notice. In addition, the planning authority must place a report on the register of applications, setting out the provisions of the development plan and the other material considerations to which they have had regard in making their decision. The full basis and context for a decision must already be recorded. Conformity with the development plan is only part of the picture. Secondly, I am concerned about the way that is being proposed, including in those amendments that we will discuss in the next group, that a pure right should be linked to whether the development is in accordance with the development plan. While in some cases it will be relatively clear whether a particular proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, in many others this will not be the case. In those cases, whether a proposal accords with the development plan can involve complex and finely balanced interpretation and professional judgement, and different parties can reach different yet both entirely reasonable views. While the development plan is key in guiding and directing future development, it cannot anticipate or allocate land for every possible scenario for future development. Sometimes very reasonable proposals can come forward that have not been considered or led through the plan. Development plans may contain broad statements of policy, some of which may lend support to a particular development, while others may do the opposite. In that particular case, one must give way to another. In addition, the provisions of a development plan may be framed so that their application to particular circumstances requires the exercise of judgement by the planning authority. There may reasonably be a difference of opinion on the question, and that may be the key point on which an appeal turns. It cannot be appropriate to use the authority's judgment on that point, on the criterion for whether their decision can be appealed. As Ms Lennon is well aware, planning is both a science and an art, and decisions are often complex and multi-factored. It is not a simple tick box exercise with a pass or fail mark. I want to see good planning decisions being made thoughtfully and transparently, taking into account all the relevant issues, and respecting the professional judgment of planners and the democratic remit of elected members. I am happy to look at how we can improve transparency and to help people to understand the basis on which decisions have been made. However, those amendments are based on and contribute to an oversimplified understanding of the process by focusing on just one part of the story of any application and the decisions made on it. I would ask the committee to reject those amendments. Thank you very much, Andy. The minister has just concluded by saying that they focus on one part of the story. They absolutely do focus on one part of the story. They focus on the part of the story that is incredibly important, and that is the development plan. We are trying to pass legislation here that strengthens the role of the development plan. I and some of my colleagues would also like to see quite a big shift towards a much more plan-led system with much less discretion. The minister points out correctly that decision makers make their decisions as to whether an application should be granted or not, with respect to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. That is absolutely correct. He is correct to say that those other considerations play into the decision. That is absolutely correct. There is nothing in this amendment that suggests otherwise, although amendment seeking to do is place a duty on the planning authority to include a statement. A statement as to whether their decision, whether the application, whether their decision on an application accords with the development plan, which is one bit of the story but an incredibly important bit of the story, leaves that judgment to them and them alone. As Graham Simpson said, it helps, assists the public to understand the perfectly reasonable cases that the minister cites where, for a variety of reasons, a departure from the plan may be well in order. Because it is linked to appeal rights, it is precisely those circumstances where effort has gone into making a plan. Departures are made, possibly for very good reasons, and that is the trigger, as I will get on to in the next group, for having a second look at it. I think that it is not one part of the story, but it is a very important part of the story, and I hope that over time an assessment of the extent to which applications are in accordance with the plan will help the plan-led system and help the process of developing development plans. Monica Lennon, to wind up the press or withdraw an amendment 58A. Thank you, convener. I agree with Andy Wightman. I think that this is really simple. It is about being able to, when the part of the planning authority, provide a statement of facts. It is not about rehearsing all of the arguments again about an individual application. Once that decision has been taken by the planning authority, it is a simple statement of facts. Was that decision in accordance with the development plan or not? To provide a reason, that commentary will be set out, usually in a committee report, but rather than having the public scour through dozens and dozens of sheets of paper and go on planning portals, it is to have a simple point of reference that says whether or not something was in accordance with the development plan or not. I fully appreciate that there is a lot of skill involved in professional judgment, and not everyone will accept the decision or the reasoning, but this is about the planning authority being accountable for a decision that it has taken and to give a simple statement of facts. Does it accord with your development plan or not? In a lot of occasions it won't, and we have to accept that in a highly discretionary planning system. However, this is not, as others have said, Graham Simpson's remarks. This is an onerous on planning authorities. It is probably a neat way to provide a bit of closure to any given application. I will be moving the amendment, convener. In that case, the question is that amendment 58A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 58A is four. Those opposed, three. The amendment is agreed to. Andy Wightman to press or withdraw amendment 58. Press. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 58A is four. Those opposed, three. Amendment 58 is agreed to. I call amendment 262 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 259. Minister, to move formally. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 262 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 262 is agreed to. I call amendment 51 in the name of Alec Rowley, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Alec Rowley, to move amendment 51 and speak to all amendments in the group. Alec? I move amendment 51 and also speak to amendment 92 in my name. In terms of the planning process, I heard the minister say that it's a science and an art. It has to be transparent and people have to have confidence in that system that that system does deliver. And whilst these amendments will need tidying up if we go to stage three, the principle that sits behind these is based on experiences that I've had first-hand, but also experiences that many, many people have told me. There is an argument that says that if the planning system is front-loaded and set up in a way that is transparent, then communities will have the opportunity to input, have their say through a democratic process that will then go to councillors as members of the planning committee, councillors more generally, and that system will then produce a local development plan that's come out of what people wanted to say, what people have inputted to, communities have inputted to. So we've all had our say and we then have a development plan that sets away forward for our communities. However, in my recent experience with the development plan in Fife, the ink was hardly dry on the paper of that plan when the developers started to put in applications for housing development that was out with the local plan, that land that had not been included, land that initially the developers and landowners had tried to get in, but through the consultation process, front-loaded communities had held local consultation meetings with the planning authority, had been able to put their views forward, the local council had then been able to area committees and then council had been able to have their say in that, and yet that all just seemed worthless. It seemed like it had meant nothing because at the end of the day, the developer makes a different kind of argument, even though the authority then refused the application on the material grounds that it's not within the local development plans, it's able to be called in by the Scottish Government reporter and it's able to be approved. We've seen that in Invercaden, we've seen that in Aberdor, we've seen that in many parts of Fife, and I'm sure we've seen it in many parts of Scotland. What that says is that if the argument about front-loading the consultation is the correct one and people are involved in that, and then despite that, the developer comes in with an application either as 92, the amendment 92 would say, there should be no right of appeal for development that's not on land allocated for development within the development plan, 51, which would say that if the land has not been included for consideration within the development plan, then equal right of appeal should apply to those who have put their objections in, have been part of the process but seem to be ignored at the last point. That really is the main argument here. If you accept the principle of front-loading, you accept that and you argue that people will have the opportunity to be involved, they will have the opportunity to shape the development plan for the future, then surely it cannot be right that that plan can just be ignored even when the ink's not dry. The developer can come in and apply regardless and that they have the right to appeal but those who've been involved in that process have no rights. That's the principle of argument upon which I'm putting this forward. Andy Wightman to speak to amendment 59. Thanks very much, convener. As members know, there's been a long debate about whether to reform appeal rights in the Scottish planning system. Current appeal rights date from 1947, 70 years ago, when applicants who are typically landowners themselves were suspicious of the ability of public authorities to make decisions about development that they themselves had hitherto made. The right to develop one's own property was being removed from the owner. This was the nationalisation of development rights. It was a radical step, a very welcome step. But because that happened, it was conceded that a right of appeal should be granted against any refusal to grant planning consent. Today we have a highly developed plan-led system and there's no requirement for appeals to be universally available to applicants. Equally, there's a strong argument to provide a limited right of appeal to third parties. The debate on third-party right of appeal has moved on considerably since the debate around the 2006 act and is now focused on equalising the rights of appeal by firstly providing a limited right of appeal to third parties and by restricting the existing right of appeal to applicants. In a proper plan-led system, there should be no right of appeal at all. The plan should make clear what's permitted and what's not, but we're still in the world of discretion, material considerations and unallocated sites. My amendments 59 and 60 mirror each other. Amendment 59 provides that we're a planning authority given notice that an application is not in accordance with the development plan under the provisions of amendment 58 just debated. Then the existing appeal rights of applicants should be removed. In other words, there's no right of appeal on an application that violates the development plan, the instance that Alec Riley indicated. The right of appeal remains open to applicants where a planning authority refused consent for an application which is in accordance with the development plan. So such a move will strengthen the plan-led system and provide greater clarity and certainty as well as eliminating confusion and delay at the end of the process. As Malcolm Fraser, the architect, told us in his stage 1 evidence that, as an architect, I've been told many times by planners that they're going to turn something down but I will win on appeal. That is simply unacceptable. It extends the process, allows developments to become worse, allows lawyers and consultants to make money out of the tail end of the process and holds back development." Amendment 60 introduces a similar right to third parties to appeal determinations in the circumstances set out in 2B, most particularly where consent is granted to an application that is not in accordance and where a decision is made on land in which the planning authority has an interest. Such rights of appeal are open only to those who made representations on the application or a community council. Now, this debate has matured over recent years and in conversations with members, I'm aware that some people are still regarding this as framed in the terms it was 10 years ago. It's abundantly clear that the current system of appeals is undermining local democratic decision making by allowing legitimate decisions to be appealed against the wishes of local communities whose planning authority is upholding agreed plans. It's time to grasp this nettle. The proposals outlined in 59 and 60, as well as in Monica Lennon's amendment 143, represent a proportionate, a limited and a logical framework within which to modernise appeal rights. With regard to Alex Rowley's amendment 51, I won't be voting for this because it leaves open the possibility of anyone who made representations on an application appealing the decision if, in their opinion, the decision breaches the local development plan. Leaving it up to the opinion of individuals is not appropriate and risks undermining the legitimate decision making process of the planning authority. Finally, I want to speak briefly to amendment 325, which I'll not be moving. It's a probing amendment. There are several undeveloped elements of it, but it's complete enough to serve its purposes to explore what might be done in relation to planning determinations where those are subsequently found to have been made by persons found guilty of criminal offences and connection with the decision making process. I would welcome in Mr Rowley's comments on that. Thank you, convener. Monica Lennon spoke to amendment 143 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The committee has debated the planning bill. I have referred to my register of interests in order to stick to the Parliament's rules. The relevant interest is that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I started studying to be a planner over 21 years ago, and I didn't expect that I'd be sitting here in our national parliament helping to shape our planning laws. You could say that my gravitation into politics is an unintended consequence of what attracted me into planning in the first place, but also what has frustrated me about the planning system. Planning excites me, and I think that it excites a lot of us because of the possibilities it can unlock. It's about making decisions today that will lead to better places tomorrow, but also for generations to come. I said that planning also frustrates me, even when I was 16 and started my planning studies, I realised that, while planning decisions affect all of us, the planning system has to be accountable to all of us, and in reality, too often, planning decisions and processes satisfy powerful interests. I'm sure that we can all think of examples where this has led to planning outcomes that don't best serve the needs of people and communities. We can't go back and change these decisions, but we can rebalance the system. I have argued for a purpose for planning in the bill because I believe that we have to be clear that planning is about the public interest. It doesn't exist simply to serve the wishes of applicants or those who pay a fee. I've argued for a rights-based approach to planning. I've talked about the importance of being serious about equality and equality impact assessments, being one tool that planners can use, and also properly realising that planning has an important role, a unique role in improving public health. Those are important principles that planning can deliver on in practice. I appreciate that not everyone around this room has agreed with me on my amendments, and there are some proposals that I know I'll need to keep working on at stage 3. We can go back to the official report from 2005, and many of us have done so. While we can see that planning has modernised, there remains a lot of frustration. Front-loading was supposed to be a step change, and it was supposed to empower communities. The evidence that the committee has heard very few communities have said that this has all worked in practice. I strongly believe that in any regulatory system you need to have appropriate checks and balances. In planning, we have an appeal system. I don't want to abolish the appeal system. I know that some people do, but I don't accept that it's credible to keep the status quo. In the main, the evidence that we've heard from people who want to keep things exactly as they are are people who make appeals and who not always but often benefit from the appeal system. They want it to be left alone. They don't want the bill to even look at it or talk about it. Others, like some planning authority staff, are nervous of any change in the bill because they are already feeling under resourced and overworked under pressure, and they are nervous about what some of these changes would bring. Speaking to amendment 143 in my name, I want to emphasise that I don't think it's credible if we're serious about planning reform to ignore the appeals system. As I said, there's lots of people who argue that giving communities a right of appeal would lead to more conflict in the system. I think that that's actually unfair. I would like to thank members of public care in the gallery, but also the hundreds of people who have been emailing us. Sometimes people unfairly characterise communities and brush people off as being nimbus, not in my backyard people who are against development. I can see Kenny Gibson nodding. I know that he has concerns about that. We know that there are some people who think very selfishly about only their own interests. I have to say that the emails that we have had to people in this room represent the diversity of people across Scotland. We've had people emailed today to say that they can't come in because of childcare reasons. We've got older people, people with disabilities who have not been able to come into Parliament for this early start this morning. We've got people with expertise, people who've worked in the system. Speaking to the amendment, it's been important to set out some of the background to this because when people talk about appeals, we're often criticised. We're only focusing on the very end of the process. I've tried to say that for people who engaged in this in 2005, and it's a lot of the same people who have come back to give evidence, they were willing to give the reform a chance to put their faith in front load in and it hasn't worked. My proposals want to reform the system to look at how we can strengthen a plan-led approach. In my view, that involves not removing an applicant right of appeal, but that should be more limited in scope and that should be linked to the development plan. If applicants are being told at an early stage, this is not in the plan, particularly if it's a fairly new plan, then they take their chances. Yes, they can make their application, but they forfeit their right to appeal. Last week we had a debate about repeat applications and we've heard a lot of evidence on the system, on communities, when applicants keep coming back to try and wear down planners. I look back at 2005 and I looked at the debates and I sympathise with the decisions that were taken, but we've really shifted sent in that the Scottish Government has to be commended for the approach that's taken on community empowerment. I think that a lot of us would agree with that approach, but we have to get away from looking at communities as the third party in the planning system and that's why my amendments seek to equalise appeals to try and put things on not an exactly equal footing but more of an even footing and that's why I think it is time that in certain circumstances we allow communities a right of appeal. The amendment is proportionate, it's not for every application, it's not about a form of mediation between neighbours or looking at very minor changes it is thinking about the major the national applications which can have the long lasting impact that we've all talked about we all want our planning system to have the best reputation to lead to the best outcomes. If an applicant has a seriously good proposal which has merit which might not completely stick to the development plan but it has merit it shouldn't be frightened of a second look at that proposal so I know today that myself and Andy Wightman who have votes here would probably don't have the majority of votes but I hope that whatever side of the debate that people are on they will respect the evidence that we've heard from communities and all their diversity from every part of Scotland and that we're not just going to close down a debate today and I hope that we can find some compromise at stage 3 because I don't think that it's credible I don't think that it does justice to our planning system if we try and shut down this debate and don't seek to make any change at all to planning appeals I would like to see overall a reduced number of planning appeals because I can see that they do have resource implications for planning authorities especially when there's quite a long process an example in my own community where the appeal sat with the director of planning and environmental appeals for over a year I won't go into detail about that one I believe it's a live issue but that's a situation that's been worrying in the community in my area since 2013 for something that was speculative not in the development plan doesn't have merit doesn't meet national guidelines and is having an impact on some of the most vulnerable people people that we want to protect and I don't think it's a good juice of anyone's time including the minister's time for these kinds of applications to keep coming back it undermines confidence I think Alex Rowley kicked off by talking about confidence if we want to improve confidence we have to reform the appeals system thank you for your indulgence thank you very much Monica excuse me this is not a football match can we have no applause and try and keep it as quiet as you possibly can Alex Cole Hamilton to speak to amendment 319 thank you very much it's nice to be back with you today I'm going to speak to and move amendment 319 in my name this amendment really sets out liberal democrat policy on appeals rights this has been arrived at over several party conferences discussions with our council groups our activists and experts that we have within the planning arena and the amendment would seek to bring an end to reporters being able to arrive at a completely different decision from that reach by elected local councillors on a planning committee based on exactly the same policies material considerations and information instead reports could only assess whether the determination by a planning committee had been reasonable this would mean reporters would no longer be able to change a reverse decision that was reasonable there is already established reasonableness test which the committee will be aware of which is used for determining whether costs should be awarded against the council to the appellant so we're not really creating and if the grounds for appeals are limited to challenging unreasonable decisions by elected councillors then we would also reduce the chance of developers automatically appealing in the hope that a remote official who is perhaps unconnected to the community is affected will come to a different conclusion very much I'm happy to take an intervention from Andy Wightman thank the member and I apologise for not addressing his amendment in my opening remarks I had intended to say that the approach that is used here manifestally unreasonable in all the circumstances and particularly a reasonable person acting reasonably in those circumstances could have made that decision they speak to me of the Weddensbury unreasonableness test and judicial review is this not more appropriate as a test as a process of the lawfulness of decision making rather than the merits of an application on appeal well as I said in my earlier remark we already have a reasonableness test in planning appeals based on where costs are awarded so I don't think we're necessarily reinventing the wheel here in terms of reasonableness and I defer to the member's superior knowledge on this and I'm grateful to him for his tutelage in the course of this bill but this I think is not to the extent that Andy Wightman is describing I am grateful for his intervention I think it's important to clarify we have consistently made the Lib Dems have consistently made the case for decisions being made closer to the people affected affecting them and local authorities and local communities and communities currently feel disenfranchised and we've heard a lot of that today and people in the audience or the public gallery believe that too is the current system of appeals with appeal decisions taken centrally by Scottish Government reporters and by ministers members of the community who have been fully engaged during the earlier stages feel excluded from the stage and it fails to respect local decision making and ensure communities have a real voice in the decisions that affect them thank you Annabelle Ewing I've listened carefully to the members in terms of the amendments that we put forward but I'm afraid I would not be able to support those amendments today and in saying so I note that in fact in terms of one of the many emails we have received on the subject of the third party right of appeal I note that the following take the same view and that is the convener of the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland the heads of planning Scotland institution of civil engineers Scotland the Royal Incorporation of Architects of Scotland the Royal Institution of Chartered Subverses Scottish Mediation Scottish Property Federation Scotland's town partnerships Planning Aid Scotland and Scottish Renewables and that's just to list some as a matter of law the planning system has in terms of its design on the one hand the role of Government so of local planning authorities of ministers of civil servants representing the broad public interest and on the other hand you have the interests of the private applicant so that is in essence how the planning system is designed now can there be improvements certainly The planning system as the bill makes clear it's not a contest between decision makers it's a private interest it's a bill about making provision about how land is developed and used the private interest of the applicant is irrelevant in the planning system the planning system is about how we allocate land in the public interest okay but at its core the participants in the planning system are those players and they have their respective interests and what I was going on to say was that do I think that the planning system can be improved absolutely do I think it should be improved because of those representations from those constituents of mine who have a strong opinion on the subject many constituents having been affected by serial applications and so forth and they have a very strong view and I have recently had a discussion with some of them about the matter of third party right of appeal so I do believe strongly that the planning system should be improved but I do see in the bill a number of important improvements to ensure that individuals can indeed make their voices heard so we see the front loading approach of engagement that the bill proposes and the role of the local place plan and I also understand that there will be new statutory guidelines on effective community engagement that will be produced in due course and I would look forward to the minister clarifying that point when he gets to his contribution I also understand that the independent planning review panel was more in favour of the front loading of engagement on the part of local people rather than on introducing more appeals to the process and at the end of the process and in terms of the important issue which I think is a huge bug bear of serial applications an issue I have already spoken about I think last week or the week before last in committee I was indeed very pleased to see the government minister come forward with an amendment to try to tackle serial applications in the sense that the current discretion enjoyed by the local planning authority which is a two year period to refuse to determine under the rule set forth serial applications that period has now, because the committee voted for it been extended to a five year period and I think that is very important I think it would also be very important when I spoke about this earlier in committee that actually local authorities exercised that discretion because I think then they would be serving the interests of the public that they are there to serve much better I understand that comparisons have been sought to be made with other jurisdictions but of course seeking to make a comparison with another jurisdiction is always fraught with difficulties because when you drill down you see that the other jurisdiction falls down I believe in that regard it is I think worth noting that there is no third party right of appeal anywhere else in the UK I also believe convener just winding up that the drafting of some of these amendments is really not very clear and I also think that the fact that some of these amendments take the approach of a carve out so that there would be a third party right of appeal but only for some people and not for other people I see that as being I'm sorry I'm a lawyer by trade I see that as being inherently incoherent and actually doesn't really I suppose address for those people who feel strongly that there should be a third party right of appeal it doesn't really meet their interests either I think it's a halfway house that doesn't really make much sense and I suppose I'm just winding up but a brief one would be I just wonder given the members legal background and expertise will we improve access to environmental justice for communities who are being subjected to repeat applications let's just say for incinerators when an applicant will have okay but the applicant will be able to well there's an appeal at the moment convener so the applicant will always have that right of appeal they've got 100 per cent of the appeal rights and the communities have zero access and balance in that well as I said those amendments I was talking specifically about those amendments that seek to carve out rights of appeal for third parties so that only some people would get it and some wouldn't get it depending on the circumstances I see that as incoherent and I don't see that that addresses the strongly held I'm sorry I really have to wind out I know other people have comments to make but on that issue I don't see that that really addresses the strongly held views about appeal on the issue of environmental rights of course there are protective expenses orders which have played an important role in ensuring access to justice on the part of those seeking to make their case on environmental grounds and conclusion convener I would say that I believe that the general public interest requires that we do see more homes in Scotland and we do see sustainable economic development in Scotland and for those reasons that those amendments put that at risk and I believe could significantly discourage development and investment in Scotland and I do not believe that that would be to the benefit of the people of Scotland, all the people of Scotland and therefore I cannot support those amendments as drafted today Thank you very much Annabelle, Kenny Gibson Thank you convener a number of them To me it's a committee that deals with those issues, could you please keep quiet at the back or else I will have to ask I'll just have to clear a public gallery Thank you Thank you convener, the planning system in my view has to deliver much needed homes places of work and facilities and these often only exist because they have been approved on appeal Annabelle Ewing listed a number of organisations who have made it clear that they are opposed to these amendments and in evidence we actually took some compelling evidence from one of them Homes for Scotland who pointed out that 40% of the houses built in Scotland last year would not have been built had there been no right of appeal and that's houses that people live in, houses that people were employed to actually build and many of these homes that are subsequently built they settle in and become parts of the communities are often in areas of Scotland where there is a chronic housing shortage What's interesting is that Alon Monica gave her registered interest as being a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute the Royal Town Planning Institute as Annabelle Ewing has pointed out is very strongly against these amendments For example This is the last warning if anybody else shoots from the public gallery the public gallery is cleared We're trying to go on with some serious business here For example, some of the points that the RTPI pointed out was that in their view these amendments would further widen inequality in our communities by disproportionately favouring those with the capacity, time and resources to pursue an appeal lead to seldom heard voices in the planning system being further marginalised weakened constructive air engagement which has already been talked about to ensure that planned decisions are taken local in the public interest and clog up the planning system I should point out which again we received in evidence is that only 12% of council refusals are overturned 12% It's not as if because of a third party rate of appeal these are automatically approved that is not the case at all The heads of planning in Scotland said that in their view various proposals to introduce an equal rate of appeal or a third party rate of appeal will be counterproductive to establish an effective and efficient planning system which acts in the long-term public interest It will simply make it more complicated than they go on to repeat some of the other issues which I've already mentioned I'll just finish with one other thing which is about what Homes for Scotland said In their view it would be catastrophic in terms of jobs investment and house construction here in Scotland so I would oppose each of the amendments that have been put forward to day Thank you very much Graham Simpson I've said throughout stage 2 that I want to see a system where people not stakeholders but real people are fully involved in the planning process so that conflicts are kept to a minimum I've also said that the bill as drafted does not fit the bill as far as front loading is concerned I'm continuing to work on proposals which will improve this I'll bring them forward at stage 3 but there's no doubt whatsoever that the system we have at present is lopsided Communities are not involved in shaping their areas to any great extent Developers tick the box of holding ill-publicised and poorly attended pre-application events so that people get annoyed when things appear apparently out of the blue then only applicants can appeal and we have the situation where one person a Government appointed reporter can overturn a democratically taken decision taken locally it all feels unsatisfactory so it's little wonder that people want to change the system now running counter to that is the argument and this also has merit very well expressed by Annabelle Ewing and Kenny Gibson that allowing third parties to appeal consent decisions will scare the horses and slow up an already snail's pace system so there are valid arguments on both sides and they both need to be heard with respect the key question for this committee has been whether equal rights of appeal will lead to a more robust plan led system which encourages more meaningful upfront engagement and agreement between communities and developers or that its implementation will lead to delays and reduce early engagement and investment in housing and developments the Government has not really addressed any of this, it wasn't mentioned in the bill now in our manifesto for the local Government elections we said that we should be stopping central appeals if applications and decisions are in line with development plans that's why we supported amendments 58 and 58A and that those appeals should only be heard in full council or by a local appeals committee so it's dealing with things locally now let me be frank about the party on this we've got differences of opinion on appeal rights I'm just being upfront about that those same differences exist within the SNP and Labour they always have will come to a view but for now we're keeping our council and for most of these amendments we will abstain I can assure you that we'll be demanding changes for stage 3 not stakeholders not the vested interests that I described in the stage 1 debate not the minister or his civil servants not the planning industry bloggers who think they know best but real people at the heart of the planning system I've got ready made amendments if none of this comes to my satisfaction it will really be up to the minister to engage on this I want to see a system that delivers development in the right places and with a maximum community buy-in the bill does not deliver that so far from shutting down the debate as Monica Lennon suggests I think the debate needs to continue there's still much work to do but we must get this right for stage 3 thank you Alexander I concur with many of the comments my colleague Graham Simpson has said this morning this is a very passionate debate communities, the length and beds have made representations we've already heard from others that organisations have also made their views very plainly known and they all perceive that there's flaws in the system and the system requires to be managed going forward but at the present moment there is potentially an opportunity to stifle development there is also the opportunity that communities do not feel that they are part and parcel of the process and are not being given the opportunities that they want to see going forward so I think that it is vitally important that we look at this and we continue to look at where we are here it's too important for us to get it wrong and there should not be any knee-jerk reactions to it this whole process will upset people there's no question about that there's a lot of information and lots of correspondence and people are very passionate about it so we as individuals here on this committee have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that we can do all we can within that process I'm grateful to Alexander Stewart I might also add that I'm the convener of the construction cross-party group so I'm very motivated to see that we do have the right development and the right infrastructure for Scotland now today we're hearing both sides and we're hearing about some of the behaviours that people perceive or are seeing in their communities and I wonder if there's an opportunity for some of the stakeholders and the establishment that has been rhymed off to think about that because when the 2006 act was passed it did bring in measures to front-load to have that early engagement Graham Simpson talked about those poorly attended community meetings we've got to think why that is and if people continue to believe that that's a tick box exercise would Alexander Stewart agree that there's an opportunity for homes for Scotland to speak to their members and other organisations to try and do something about that before we get to stage 3? I would agree that there needs to be much more dialogue and much more discussion and much more debate on this whole process because we want to ensure that we get it right for the communities and the individuals and organisations and at the moment we are stuck in that situation which I do not believe we are at that stage of actually getting it correct so we need to go back and rethink and we need to go back and discuss and I hope that that can take place so that we do come forward to the next stage and we have proposals that we can all sign up to and we feel more comfortable signing up to because of the community and because of representation we have had so far much Alexander Stewart Minister There's a lot for me to get my teeth into there convener let me start off with some of the comments made by members and let me start with Mr Simpson because yesterday I noticed that Mr Simpson tweeted about a survey of his that highlights the importance of engaging with local people relating to an application for planning permission and principle and I won't go on about the individual application because I don't know where it is at the moment I completely utterly agree that effective and meaningful engagement with people across our communities is vital to properly understand the views the aspirations the feeling and not just to hear from those that shout the loudest and the committee I certainly will Thank you very much you hopefully mentioned my tweet and just to give you the background to that that was an application which hadn't been made at that point to develop on an area of land in North Lanarkshire now I figured out that the potential developer would not have told many people about this and that was true I leafleted a very large estate making people aware of the application not saying what they should think one way or the other telling them about the pre-application meeting lots of people then turned up to that meeting many people far more than would have done expressed a view to the council it was probably 50-50 now the developer in that case I won't say who it was was grateful that I had done that and part of the problem and I've discussed this with big builders recently is that they're not they're not reaching out they're not telling enough people what's coming up because if you do what you've got planned you need to work with them and it's not happening at the moment I don't agree with any of that and I do these kind of things regularly within my own constituency and did so as a councillor and Ms Ewing mentioned effective community engagement and further guidance and I can assure her that we will be doing everything possible to ensure that we get this engagement right and Ms Ewing has already agreed an amendment brought by Graham Simpson in relation to guidance and effective community engagement and I was happy to support that because I do think that this is the right way forward and I've told this story on a number of occasions convener but you know you do reach situations which sometimes are a little bit confusing a room at a very early stage of being appointed to this current post and I know there are women there told me straight off housing minister you need to build more houses here and the next sentence was you kind of build them here, here, here and here and one of the things which I've talked about is the level of engagement that we have in terms of community planning where we actually give reasons and set parameters about why certain things need to be done in areas that areas need certain things we should be looking to do the same thing with spatial planning and bring that level of engagement up to the kind of engagement level that happens in community planning particularly in certain areas of the country where they are really punching above their way and there's other things that have been mentioned about comments that people have made John Finlay said to the committee last week on the 31st of October in terms of certain applications that in a quote here local people protest and local members follow the view of the community and that can be irrespective of the development plan and it illustrates why the right of appeal remains a key to the planning system and that may be a similar kind of situation to what Malcolm Fraser had in mind when he was talking to the committee I don't want to assume anything but it might well be that that was the kind of situation that he was talking about I want to see stronger clearer development plans I want to see elected member training so that elected members know exactly what to expect and what is required and I do want to see performance provisions because I believe that all of this together can lead to a reduction in the need for appeals by applicants in the future If the minister believes that that would lead to a reduction why can't he see the argument for making that reduction something that's reflected in the bill itself because at the moment an appeal can be made by any applicant so whilst I would agree and I would hope that fewer of them it seems reasonable to attempt to secure that intention on the face of the bill I think that in order to get fewer appeals we need to go along the path that Mr Simpson is talking about that early engagement scenario that scenario has been made by others as the Government itself and I'll use this quote all of us agree that we need to bring people and planning closer together to agree a shared vision for the places in which we live, work and play rather than simply opposing what we do not wish to see However our members agree with the Scottish Government's position that planning appeals is not the means by which we can best hope to achieve this income and that is a quote from Henry McLeish who is the Scottish Alliance for People and Places chair and it includes a number of the organisations that has already been mentioned by other members Further to that Petra Beiberbach of Paz has said that I would say that a third party right of appeal exacerbates conflict it undermines the goal of very early engagement which is what we want to see between all parties and it would undermine a plan led system The Government itself its position has been quite clear on third party right of appeal eco right of appeal Quite simply we do not support its introduction nor do we support any restrictions on the current right of appeal The Government's views are well known and are supported by a range of stakeholders many of them have already been mentioned and I will not go through all of those again and there are many community groups who want to see investment and improvement in their areas but who could see their ambitions hampered by additional appeals I would like to set the record straight and clarify that this issue was explored during the independent review of the planning system There was not a specific question on it because the panel asked much broader questions about engagement Those who support an eco right of appeal made their views known through both written and oral evidence to the panel Having taken into account the available evidence the independent panel concluded that recommendation 46 of their report that they were not persuaded that third party rights of appeal should be introduced and they stated that effective planning depends on building positive and productive relationships I'll take a very brief intervention for Mr Wightman I've got a lot to go through here Does the minister accept that the independent review did not look at the applicant right of appeal I don't want to accept that I've just said that There wasn't a specific question on it because the panel asked much broader questions but those questions were asked If I can continue with the quote from the recommendation the evidence shows that a third party right of appeal would add time, complexity and conflict to the process and have the unintended consequence of centralising decisions undermining confidence and deterring investment The panel concluded that it would be much more beneficial to use available time and resources to focus on improved early engagement I agree and that is what we have sought to do in this bill and we will continue to look at ways that that can be improved and I'm more than happy to work with Mr Simpson to get to that point I carefully considered what the committee said about appeals in its stage 1 report and I do recognise that many communities feel frustrated by the planning system and I've acknowledged and here again today that we can do more to build on the community involvement that we have seen today Like the committee I want people to be involved in planning as well as having opportunities to say what they think People need to know they have been properly listened to but I'm certain that introducing new rights of appeal or restricting the current right of appeal is not the answer In fact I am absolutely convinced that it would do the opposite It would create conflict and undermine efforts to improve trust in the planning system It would add uncertainty to all democracy It would be divisive and there would be no impetus to engage in earlier participation The idea might be seen to be politically appealing but it would be disingenuous to suggest that introducing this right of appeal would mean that people will automatically get the decision they are looking for An additional right of appeal does not change the circumstances of the decision being made in the first place An experience in Ireland shows very few decisions are wholly reversed as a result of third party appeals Some of these amendments also seek to restrict the current applicant's right of appeal I would remind the committee why appeal rights exist It was to ensure that there was appropriate scrutiny of the denial of the right of land owners That rationale remains as valid today as it did when planning regulation was introduced Perhaps even more so given the pressures we are facing on housing supply and essential infrastructure If people who want to provide new housing and facilities are to be refused those decisions need to be robust In practice over the decades the right of appeal has proven to be vital Many of our much needed homes places of work and facilities only exist because they have been approved on appeal This is not about big business having some kind of perceived advantage on a playing field It's about delivery of real people's actual homes and jobs and balancing public and private interests to deliver the development that we need If any of these amendments are supported we would be asking applicants to take a leap of faith in the process Worst, they would have no right of appeal at best a right of appeal might exist to be concluded at some future date There would be no certainty of clarity and that uncertainty could make or break a decision to invest in Scotland The restricting the current right of appeal could deter investment and put Scotland at a commercial disadvantage as investors perceive conditions in other parts of the UK to be more favourable and we cannot allow that to happen I oppose the amendments in this group on principle but I will mention some details which are perhaps not as helpful as members intend Andy Wightman and Monica Lennon's amendments would have rights to appeal for applicants and others dependent on a statement made by the planning authority as to accordance with the development plan As I've made clear, this is only half of the story of how a decision is made to a matter for interpretation of complex information and careful professional judgment which may not be universally accepted This approach also misses that vital ability of our planning system to be able to recognise changing circumstances Occasionally there can be very good reasons for making a decision which is not in accordance with the development plan for example an emerging draft development plan contains a far more current and relevant policy intent than the ageing plan is about to replace but it is not yet the development plan or where there is a worthwhile development opportunity which could not possibly have been anticipated when the development plan was prepared These can be examples of the planning system working properly and responsibly by allowing there to be exceptions Alec Rowley's amendment 51 goes even further It would place the decision on whether an appeal right exists in any given case firmly in the hands of the person who is seeking to appeal the very person who has invested interest in having a right of appeal Mr Wightman's amendment 60 has a similar provision in which it is up to the appellant to decide whether the grounds for objection by a statutory consultee have been addressed regardless of the view of the body that made the objection The only restriction on the right to appeal on these cases would be whether the appellant has made a submission on the application It would just take a submission about a planning application for third parties to preserve their right of appeal Rather than making the system more efficient it would slow it down and discourage the genuine meaningful early engagement that we need more of in planning What is proposed would damage the planning system, create more confusion conflict and challenge and less certainty and less transparency Amendment 92 in the name of Alec Rowley shows a complete misunderstanding of the purpose and content of the development plan The development plan guides development management decisions It does not directly authorise or prohibit development Not all land is allocated for one use or another Large development sites for example large residential development sites which require master planning may be allocated in the plan Land required for schools or transport interventions may be identified but the plan cannot anticipate every possible development large or small So in reality this amendment would take away the applicants' right of appeal including for many developments which may be clearly supported by policies of the development plan and so will be in accordance with the plan overall Andy Wightman's amendment 325 which I understand is not going to press today but I will talk about it because I think it's important that we address some of the issues and I think maybe one of the reasons for withdrawal is because of some of the points that I will highlight It would have created new appeal rights where there has been mal-administration or criminal activity by a member of the planning authority With the exception of a recent case reported where two councillors were charged this has not been raised as a concern by stakeholders and I'm not convinced that such conduct is widespread There's been no consultation with planning authorities about this amendment and there are real impracticalities involved as the right of appeal is not linked to the decision on a particular application but only arises at the point when the guilt of a member of the planning authority is established the right of appeal would have to run from that date and not from the date of the planning decision In effect this would mean that it would not be possible to know at the time when a decision is made whether a right of appeal or not and by the time any investigations and prosecutions have been completed and someone has been found guilty of wrongdoing it is entirely possible maybe even likely that the development may have been completed in addition there is no requirement that the mal-administration or criminal activity in question need even relate to the particular application in question that Mr Wightman will not move that today I am happy to have further discussions with him on this issue but I do not think that that amendment was suitable Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendment 319 takes a different approach to other proposals in this group it would introduce a further restriction on the ability of ministers to deal with appeals it creates a requirement to consider if the decision of the planning authority is a quote manifestly unreasonable while the proposed subsection 1B makes it clear that a decision would be manifestly unreasonable if no reasonable person could have made the decision this is without prejudice to ministers being entitled to consider that a decision is manifestly unreasonable in other circumstances ministers may reverse or vary decisions of a planning authority where they consider it is reasonable to do so the amendment would serve to add another step in decision making and simply introduce the potential for further grounds of legal challenge to reasons given on appeal decisions any party can already challenge a decision in the courts on the grounds that the decision maker has acted unreasonably but this is a distinct and separate right to the right of appeal apologies, convener the committee must not underestimate the importance of their decisions on this group of amendments they could fundamentally change your planning system and shift the whole focus of this package of planning reforms from greater collaboration to more conflict very much to the detriment of investment in Scotland an additional right of appeal may on the face of it appear to promise a lot to communities and individuals but I'm concerned that these claims are at base misguided and at worse misleading the reality is that an additional right of appeal will simply add time cost, procedure and conflict to an already established planning service does the committee really think that the result will be so different is it fair to suggest to communities that this would mean they can expect to overturn decisions and put a block in development the evidence shows that this will not be the case our planning system is inclusive and I want to improve on that to ensure that people can have a real influence on how their places communities will develop in future I welcome the decisions that the committee has already made to support that approach and if we are serious about delivering the investment and development our communities need and I most certainly am we cannot afford to make it more difficult we have an appropriate balance and appeals rights already some are decided by or on behalf of ministers others by local review bodies making those changes proposed in these amendments would take our planning system in entirely the wrong direction and for all of these reasons I would urge the committee to reject all of these amendments thank you thank you minister Alex Rowley to wind up and press or withdraw thank you convener I think there's been a number of valid points made but the one issue that I think is comes through again is that for people who have experienced using the planning system I'm not sure inclusive is always the word that they would end up making and the point is I mean I not only support the idea of front loading the system to engage people but as a politician I have over many years actively taken action to encourage people to get involved in the planning process at the earliest stages and I have repeatedly done lots in the media to try and make the point that if you wait until the applications in that's discussing the colour of the bricks you're too late you have to go at a much earlier stage and that is a point and I'm disappointed that Andy Wightman says he can't support the amendment that I have put in because it's the same argument I heard Andy make at the environment committee a number of weeks ago at stage 2 where he was putting up some amendments and saying that a lot of work would need to be done on this to get to stage 3 and with all these amendments a lot of work will need to be done on them to get to stage 3 I am encouraged a bit by what Graham Simpson has to say that coming up to stage 3 I would suggest all the parties other than the party that's absolutely opposed to listening to the concerns that are being raised by the public get together before stage 3 because there is an issue here there is a real issue here happy to do so Mr Riley I am more than happy to engage with everyone whether I agree with their amendments or no I have done so through this process and will continue to do so I think that many members around the table will tell you the efforts that I have gone to actually ensure that we get to the best possible place I don't think that third party equal right of appeal is the best place That's the whole point you've ruled it out for day 1 and you've made clear that in principle you're totally opposed to looking at any aspect to it the amendment that I have put forward in 1.5.1 actually talks specifically about this process where you front loaded the process when I've spoke to people who have taken part in that process meeting rooms that have been parked out with local communities taking part in that process then falling it through to the point where the council determined the local plan and have thought yet that process worked only for a developer to come along before the inks dry on the paper firing an application take it to appeal and overrule that and undermine that whole process of front loading That's the problem that I'm trying to address through my amendment I accept that technically these amendments need to be worked on but the principle of that is one where it leaves people and these are some of the comments that I've heard where people say democracy does not work in planning they feel cheated, betrayed by the whole planning process and system and if people feel like that then we have an issue and we have a problem that the minister and the government and the government party seem unwilling completely unwilling to actually take on board and therefore that is to ignore communities right across Scotland who have heard this issue and I know that Kenneth Gibson raises the issue about the need to build houses I agree with that the biggest block to building houses or one-off the biggest blocks to building houses in Scotland is the lack of upfront infrastructure funding for education schools health, leisure community facilities that is one of the key blocks it's not the planning system it's the front-loading of infrastructure that I have raised with the minister time and time again and that's the issue that needs to be tackled if we actually want to release a whole loady land that is already in the plans that needs to be built so I would say in moving and I certainly intend to move 51 that all these amendments that are there need work done to them we need to come together at stage 3 there is only one party that I've listened very carefully to Mr Rowley and we've had conversations about some of the issues that he has raised and we will continue to have discussions and the Government has put in place things like the housing infrastructure fund to help in some of these regards Alec Rowley has been talking about wanting people to get involved early that's what I want I think that's what everybody wants it's too late when the decision is being made so that's a clear argument why adding further late appeals is not the answer I'm willing to work with all parties in trying to improve the early engagement aspect of all of this as best we possibly can and I think that we can do a lot not only just within this bill but out with the bill to get more folk involved in the planning process I've talked previously about intertwining community planning with spatial planning and I think that that is a way of getting more people involved that is the collaborative approach adding more appeals at the end is a recipe for even more conflict the problem with that is that if people feel that spending all that time energy and often resource and getting involved at the early stages can completely be ignored if the developer doesn't like the outcome and they then have the right to appeal but those who put everything into that process have no rights that's where this breaks down indeed the minister was quite critical of my amendment 92 I would have to say that my amendment 92 came about as a result of discussions I had on my amendment the first one the 51 way to the most senior planners in Scotland so if I've got that completely wrong I need to stop taking advice for very senior planners I don't intend to move 52 but I certainly intend to move my first amendment but I would finish by again saying there is only one party that would seem in this Parliament that is fundamentally opposed to addressing the concerns that people in communities across Scotland are raising so that at stage 3 we can't address the genuine concerns that are raised in communities across Scotland and with that convener I would want to move the amendment 51 okay thank you for that and the question therefore is that amendment 51 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour of amendment 51 those opposed those abstaining that's 2 in favour 3 opposed and 2 abstaining therefore the amendment falls I call amendment 59 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 51 Andy Wightman to move or not move moved the question is that amendment 59 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour that's 2 those opposed 3 those abstaining 2 the amendment 59 there falls I call amendment 60 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 51 Andy Wightman to move or not move moved the question is that amendment 60 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour 2 those opposed 3 those abstaining 2 the amendment 60 falls I call amendment 92 in the name of Alec Rowley already debated with amendment 51 Alec Rowley to move or not move not move I call amendment 143 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 51 Monica Lennon to move or not move the question is that amendment 143 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour 2 those opposed 3 those abstaining 2 the amendment 143 is not agreed to I call amendment 325 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 51 Andy Wightman to move or not move moved I call amendment 319 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton already debated with amendment 51 Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move moved the question is that amendment 319 be agreed to are we all agreed amendment 319 for those not agreed all those in favour 0 319 all those opposed 6 7 and no abstention so therefore amendment 319 has fallen I call amendment 209 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 207 not moving not moving, thank you therefore the question is 0 I call amendment 88 in the name of Andy Wightman in a group on its own Andy Wightman to move and speak to amendment 88 thank you very much convener I move amendment 88 in my name in determining planning applications as we've already discussed planning authorities are required to regard the provisions of the development plan so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations material considerations together with applicant appeals are what gives the planning system so much discretion to the extent that sometimes the development plan can appear somewhat irrelevant in order to give greater clarity about the issues that will be taken into consideration in any determination and to strengthen the plan-led system it would be helpful in my view to codify in regulations what is meant by material considerations those at the moment are left undefined in law and rather like previous debate we had around introducing regulations to govern the circumstances in which calling powers by ministers can be used it will be up to ministers and Parliament to determine how widely or how narrowly how extensively or how minimally to describe these material considerations those are a question for another day but once agreed only considerations that fall within the scope of those set out in such regulations would be material for the purposes of planning determinations under the 97 act I stress again it will be up to ministers and Parliament to determine how widely to construe how widely or narrowly to frame such material considerations this is a modest amendment to bring greater clarity and certainty to the planning system thank you very much anybody else was to speak minister as I've said before the inclusion of material considerations is an important and long standing element in decisions on planning applications but there are references to material considerations across multiple provisions of the 1997 act for example when considering appropriate periods for duration of planning permission or revocation or discontinuance of permission or for taking enforcement action what may or may not constitute a material consideration can be different across these different purposes the 1997 act deliberately leaves the phrase material considerations undefined it's just not possible to anticipate and lay down in legislation everything that could be a material consideration in every case or circumstance for all of these purposes any list or definition of material consideration is likely either to restrict what planning authorities could consider or to require them to consider issues that may not be relevant to the case before them leaving the phrase undefined means it is for the decision maker in the first instance to decide what the material considerations in any given case are and ultimately if there is a dispute about it the courts will adjudicate and independently decide what amounts to a material consideration in a particular case briefly just for information Andy Wightman and myself had a meeting with planning conveners at COSLA and Andy Wightman raised this issue and I just have to tell the minister they were comfortable with what he's proposing so it doesn't seem to me that there are any proposals against this I would say that myself and the officials met with planning conveners yesterday this was not a topic that was raised I'm in regular contact with planning conveners I'm more than happy to talk to them but let me go on to centralising in various ways let me be clear this power and responsibility that Mr Wightman wants to take from planning authorities and the courts and give to the Government is not one that this Government wants very briefly I'm not suggesting that ministers have this power Parliament would pass these regulations as Parliament passes all legislation in relationship to planning and the terms of such a regulation can be drawn as widely or narrowly as ministers in Parliament see fit whatever way it's centralisation and as I've said the key thing in all of this is trying to predict everything that could be a material consideration for every case across all different kinds of cases that could arise under the various situations of the 1997 act that use the expression would be an almost impossible task and that is why in our published guidance in our circular 3 2013 it contains some examples of possible material considerations in relation to planning applications because even those are only broad categories and the circular makes clear the list is illustrative and not exhaustive even trying to set some of the scope for material considerations would be unclear and it could discount considerations that matter that really matter in decision making if there are particular matters that Mr Wightman is seeking to clarify through this amendment I'd be happy to discuss with him and with others before stage 3 or to explore what can perhaps be done through guidance but I cannot support the amendment as it stands and I would urge Mr Wightman not to press it Okay, thank you Andy Wightman to wind up This amendment I've listened carefully to what the minister has to say and I accept that the term material considerations occurs in a variety of places in the 97 act I think that given that we're trying to move towards a more plan led system where there's greater certainty and greater confidence in a plan led system leaving a term like material considerations undefined is not helpful I accept that material considerations is a useful very useful part of the planning system I have no disagreement at all on that with the minister but it surely is not unreasonable to seek to define material considerations via regulations introduced by ministers to Parliament and as I say that definition can be itself very broadly drawn I mean that definition could be so broadly drawn as it's almost meaningless that in itself would probably not help but I'm just illustrating the power that this gives to ministers and Parliament to draw things as widely or narrowly as they see fit what the minister is essentially arguing is that this should be an infinitesimal discretion material considerations could be anything and I don't accept that material considerations should fall into a prescribed range of circumstances and categories relatively broadly drawn and that those should be stated for clarity such that the guidance the minister is talking about no longer takes the form of guidance but takes the form of a statutory regulation and it's up to ministers not even to introduce such a regulation if they don't wish to this isn't a gift of ministers to introduce such regulations so which may not actually be how it's described here as the meaning prescribed by the Scottish ministers it requires Scottish ministers to come up with a meaning so it requires regulations I'll roll back on that a little bit what I'm trying to say is that that meaning is up to Scottish ministers to frame and if Parliament agrees with the minister that it should be continued to be framed very broadly then I'm sure Parliament will consent to that and will have material considerations that remain broadly framed but at least take the form of a statutory regulation that's been approved by Parliament that's all I have to say thank you very much and are you pressing on with drawing the question therefore is that amendment 88 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour of amendment 88 four those opposed three amendment 88 is agreed to I call amendment 263 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 318 minister to move formally the question is that amendment 263 be agreed to are we all agreed the question is that section 17 be agreed to are we all agreed and the question is that section 18 be agreed to are we all agreed in that case we will suspend for a brief period for a natural break okay I call amendment 98 in the name of Andy Wightman grouped with amendments 166 320 and 317 Andy Wightman to move amendment 98 and speak to all amendments in the group thank you very much convener I move amendment 98 in my name the policy memorandum says nothing about sections 19 and 20 of the bill I was advised that this was because the sections introduced no new policy the explanatory notes do provide an explanation of what's intended and it appears to change to make reforms to section 75 of the 97 act to allow the requirement for payment to be made by an applicant without such a payment being part restricts or regulates the use of land I spoke to two eminent planning professionals one working in the public sector and one in the private sector to ask them what they thought was the meaning and consequence and intent purpose of this of these two sections and both sorry ask them for their view on what section 19 does and both gave completely different answers Parliament needs to be clear about what it is legislating on in relation to section 19 ministers appear to think it makes very little of any change to the law while two professional planners think that it does make a change and neither agree what that change is I struggle myself to work out what the change is and that's why I asked them in the first place amendment 98 leaves out section 19 and invites ministers to come back at stage 3 with a section that's clear in its terms and intentions I want briefly to speak to amendment 166 in the name of John Finnie this amendment seeks to bring greater transparency to section 75 agreements and is motivated in part and John's part by the secrecy surrounding the section 75 agreement that was entered into between Highland Council in relation to the Inverness west link the amendment would require planning authorities to publish and promote the relevant section 75 instruments so that people are aware of what it involves and it's important to draw to the attention of the committee that the obligation in the duty contained in the amendment is for planning authorities to publish and promote a relevant instrument in such a manner as they consider sufficient to ensure that it's brought to the attention of residents in their area as a substantial amount of discretion to the planning authority as to how that should be done and finally in this group Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendment 320 appears to be helpful to bring greater accountability to the way in which planning authorities use section 75 agreements thank you, convener thank you and you've spoken to John Finnie's amendment I have spoken to John Finnie's amendment thank you Alex Cole-Hamilton speaks to amendment 320 thank you very much, convener I move 320 in my name this is a very light touch amendment to go some way to solving a problem and restoring confidence in communities where development happens all of us I'm sure can think of examples in our constituencies where communities have been let down by developers who have made promises at the age which they have not then delivered on in my own constituency AMA developed the Brighhouse Park development on the Cramon campus with section 75 commitments to deliver sports pitches and pavilion they claimed a cash flow problem at the end of that development seeded the still slightly contaminated ground with meadowflower and left it at that facilities in the nearby and were sadly let down but there is no comeback it seems on that I think this is important because this only requires planning authorities to produce an annual report detailing commitments undertaken by developers and those not yet complied with as part of their obligations to planning gain that affords a greater level of transparency it will create an inbuilt organisational memory within planning authorities which by the very nature of chair in terms of elected members that sit on committees will outdate or continue on after they leave so that their successes are aware of particularly those developers that have a habit of making commitments and they're not delivering it will I hope incentivise developers in terms of working on those commitments giving them the idea that they will be under the full glare of public scrutiny if they continually make commitments to planning gain and do not deliver and as I said earlier will give planning authorities a healthy skepticism if there are developers who consistently do this so that they might not may take those protestations with a pinch of salt or those promises with a pinch of salt the other part of my amendments speaks to an obligation of developers to tell local residents in the vicinity of the developments what they have committed to undertake this I think will do two things firstly will help with the pressure on local authorities to make good on those commitments but it will also to in some cases soften the blow of that development on the community's win hearts and minds if you like within the community so there's a full understanding of clear at letter box level understanding of what developers have committed to and what local communities can expect to derive in terms of benefit from that proposed development it doesn't propose to be overly bureaucratic it's something that will be will sit in the public domain it's about transparency clear level of scrutiny and will hopefully go some way to stop developers when they can make these promises and then walk away once they have derived the capital that they hope to thank you very much Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 317 and other amendments in the group thanks convener so 317 would allow applicants and authorities to agree changes to planning obligations in a much more efficient manner than they currently do the amendment does this by revising the modifying and discharging section of the bill the outcome of the amendment would be that planning authority and an applicant who are in agreement on a proposed change to a planning obligation would not have to go through the statutory section 75a application process to give effect to that change they could instead agree between themselves to modify the agreement this would bring the law at this point in line with England and Wales not that that matters at present section 75a applications for major developments can take up a disproportionate amount of time for example a pair or consortium of home builders working together on a development of several hundred new homes may wish to make layout changes that would increase the total number of new homes to be built that's quite common the current wording of section 75a is generally interpreted by planning authorities as meaning a formal application must be made in order to update update the planning obligation and that means that section 75a application for a simple and agreed change where the only interested and notifiable parties are the planning authority and the applicant clogs up the development management system and can sometimes take several years to resolve it doesn't make a lot of sense is an attempt to make things slicker and more streamlined something the minister has spoken a lot about now I'll be supporting John Finnie's amendment 166 and Alex Cole Hamilton's amendment 320 John Finnie's amendments about informing residents of planning obligations that's positive Mr Cole Hamilton's essentially requires planning authorities to publish annual reports about planning obligations that's about transparency and I was thinking back when he was speaking to my time as a councillor in South Lanarkshire and it's certainly not common practice that even councillors are told about these so you don't even know what's going on on your own doorstep so I think it makes a lot of sense Mr Whiteman's amendment 98 removes section 19 entirely which relates to financial agreements relation to planning obligations now we had a good look at this and frankly we're in the same place as Mr Whiteman we have no idea what it means so I think if the Government can clear up the confusion for stage 3 that would be welcomed but we'll be backing Mr Whiteman at this point thank you very much Minister thank you very much planning obligations are an important tool for planning authorities developers and the public they are used to ensure that the impacts of development are properly addressed ensuring the developer pays for infrastructure required to make their development acceptable we know that communities want that to happen and it is in all of our interests that planning obligations operate effectively we want the use of planning obligations to be consistent and transparent to avoid confusion in the system currently section 75 requires that a planning obligation restricts or regulates the development or use of the land to which it relates in terms of the current section 75 3B the planning obligation could include a requirement for the payment of money section 19 ensures that there is no doubt that a planning obligation can require a financial payment without having to be worded so that otherwise restricts the development or use of the land I've heard what Mr Whiteman has said about the comments of others I'm quite happy for Mr Whiteman and others to come and speak to me and officials around about this to give you the clarity that you require I I'm more than happy to go through all of that with members so as it is the case at this moment a planning obligation obligation can require a financial payment without having to be worded so that otherwise restricts the development or use of the land but it does seek to widen the scope of when planning obligations can properly be sought by a planning authority obligations must still have a sufficient relationship with the development in question and the changes made by section 19 do not alter the general principle that a planning obligation requiring a sum or sums to be paid to the planning authority should be for a planning purpose which should in some way be connected with or relate to the land in question amendment 98 in the name of Andy Whiteman would remove the clarifications made by section 19 and I would ask the committee not to support it but I am willing to speak to folk further amendments 166 from John Finnie and 320 from Alex Cole-Hamilton both seek to improve the transparency of planning obligations and I can see merit in this so that those with an interest can be better informed of the context around planning decisions a summary of the terms of planning obligations already have to be contained within handling reports which are kept in the planning register along with the decision notice for the application and they are open to public inspection but there is scope to enhance this I would be happy to support the publication of the full planning obligation documents however I'm concerned that amendment 166 imposes an additional burden burden on planning authorities by requiring them to promote these documents it's not clear exactly what this would require the development management regulations already includes requirements for publication and notification of various information I think that we can find better ways of making sure that planning information is readily available to the public through these regulations and through the improved online system that the Scottish Government is developing so I would ask the committee not to support this amendment and allow us to consider what should be required in more detail for secondary legislation since planning authorities hold all the other information about planning applications more appropriate for them to publish details of planning obligations rather than the applicant is proposed by Mr Cole Hamilton it will be easier for the public to find if the information is all in one place I can see potential benefits from amendment 320 and it's aim of collating information and statistics on planning obligations however again I have concerns about the burden that this would place on planning authorities section 26 of the bill will require planning authorities to prepare annual performance reports the form and content is to be set by regulations and it seems to me that would be an appropriate place to include planning obligations statistics rather than a stand-alone report and I would encourage the committee not to support amendment 320 but I am more than willing to have further discussions about how best to make sure that this information is available finally in relation to Mr Simpson's amendment 317 I believe it's important that the process around how planning obligations can be modified or discharged is clear section 20 of the bill would do this I appreciate that it is a touch obscure but firstly it clarifies that a formal application has to be submitted in accordance with section 75a in order to modify or discharge a planning obligation and secondly it introduces additional flexibility for the decision maker which isn't available at present and this allows for the applicant and the authority to agree to an alternative modification rather than the one specified in the application amendment 317 would in actual fact create a dual process whereby there is a statutory application process for modifying an obligation in accordance with section 75a but also an informal process to modify it by agreement without reference to any statutory procedures and I don't think that that's desirable that informal process would also bypass other important provisions in section 75a including setting out when the modified obligation would apply and protections for other people against whom the planning obligation may be enforceable who are not involved in the application for modification or discharge so I don't support amendment 317 and I would ask the committee not to support it to avoid these issues Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, Andy to wind up. Thank you very much, convener. Section 19 from what the minister is saying does seem to involve a policy change in the law rather than just a clarification. The minister said he's happy to discuss this if there's lots of things to be discussed between now and stage 3. Can we say? I am genuinely concerned that, as I said, two very senior and experienced planning professionals read this and took different meanings from it but that made me because they didn't read it very carefully it didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it I wouldn't seek to presume but it concerned me that a provision could be interpreted in very different ways and it concerned me that the Government's view was that this wasn't making a change in policy I'm thinking my feet here as to whether to press this or not because I genuinely don't want to create any extra work for him but I do I'm prepared to concede to the minister this is a serious point about understanding if section 19 does involve a policy change I think that should be made very clear if it allows planning authorities to do things that they cannot now do that should be made very clear if it merely provides greater clarity to what they can do just now but it doesn't appear that they can do well that's a different matter so I'm prepared in this occasion not to press amendment 98 but I would urge the minister to I mean I can let him know homes for Scotland for example don't like this amendment because they interpret in a certain way and I have a lot of sympathy with that the other planning professional to whom I spoke thought it changed policy and no argument was made for that if I could maybe intervene on Mr Wightman because there is no real change in scope here I understand that Mr Wightman has had conflicting views from folk I think the best bet because there's a flurry of paper coming to me here often which has got various bits and pieces of legalese within it I think it would be better much better if we sat down and discussed exactly what the implications of this are I would urge Mr Wightman not to press it today Mr Wightman knows that I'm a man of my word in these regards we will have these discussions we will give him the full explanations that he requires around about this which may help him in terms of making decisions about the future but may also help the folk that he has been talking to get with some clarity Okay thanks that's helpful and just to conclude in winding up my interest in this will be to satisfy myself that if there are policy changes that involved in this those are policy changes that I can support so that's the clarity I'll be seeking between now and stage 3 if it involves policy changes that may affect the interests of people engaging in the planning system the interests of applicants or developers then it may well be that I would be seeking to remove this at stage 3 and I hope discussions can bring clarity as to which direction we go in that so we don't end up obviously with these things hanging to the last minute and I take the minister's word so I will not be pressing amendment 98 thank you very much in that case Andy Wightman wishes to withdraw his amendment does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn thank you the amendment is therefore withdrawn the question is that section 19 be agreed to are we all agreed thank you section 19 is agreed to I call amendment 166 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 98 Andy you are moving on his behalf moving the question is that amendment 166 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour of amendment 166 4 those opposed 3 amendment 166 is passed I call amendment 320 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton already debated with amendment 98 move to committee the question is that amendment 320 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour 4 those opposed 3 amendment 320 has been agreed to I call amendment 317 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 98 Graham Simpson to move or not move move the question is that amendment 317 be agreed to those in favour 4 those opposed 3 the question now is that section 20 be agreed to are we all agreed section 20 is agreed to I call amendment 145 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 257 Claudia Beamish to move or not move move convener the question is that amendment 145 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour 4 those opposed 5 I call amendment 146 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 257 Claudia Beamish to move or not move moved the question is that amendment 146 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour 4 those opposed 3 I call amendment 314 in the name of Ruth Maguire grouped with amendments 333 and 315 Ruth Maguire to move amendment 314 and speak to all amendments in the group welcome Ruth good morning convener and I should say that I only intend to speak to my own amendments this morning my amendments address an issue which has been raised with me by the local councillor Davina McTurnan, by a community group by individuals and indeed the local authority themselves have been making representations for a number of years the town and country planning county of air number one special development order 1953 was made on the 28th of July 1953 and came into operation in August of that year subject to certain specific exceptions the special development order permits the carrying out of any development at our dear Stevenson without the requirement to obtain planning permission from the local planning authority at the time the special development order was made our dear was a major industrial complex operated by a single user ICI however the area covered is now in different ownership and there is no longer the large industrial factory at our dear the absence of any planning application process means that there is no process to evaluate material considerations such as traffic parking design noise environmental impact etc in particular it should be noted that the our dear site is adjacent to the Garnick and Irvine estuaries and it's an extensive regional habitat and really important the existence of the special development order provides no means of either protecting this or ensuring that any impacts from development can be considered for example the special development order grants planning permission without the need for an environmental impact assessment there's no mechanism by which an environmental impact assessment can be required for development at our dear as there's no need for planning permission in the special development area the existence of the special development order also operates as an impediment to development inward investors are likely to be deterred from investment particularly tourism housing or other clean uses if any development can simply appear on their boundary without any proper planning process funders will inevitably want a proper planning process for any development rather than one which may be challengeable on the basis it fails to have regard to environmental traffic and other impacts of the development given that the our dear peninsula is immediately across the river Irvine and forms the north side of Irvine harbour the special development order is also arguably a restraint to the development of Irvine harbour side and Irvine harbour as colleagues from all parties both in the local authority and our two parliaments continue to push the UK and Scottish governments for the Ayrshire growth deal and proposals for development Irvine harbour side, Irvine harbour and the our dear peninsula the problem is really quite pressing you'll have the details of the amendment in front of you so I'll not read those out to you but I'll just summarise the purpose and effect section 30 brackets 2 of the 1997 act enables planning permission to be granted by a development order in relation to land specified in the order this power is now rarely, if indeed ever used but there exists various old special development orders section 77 of the act currently sets out provisions for the payment of compensation if planning permission granted by a development order is withdrawn or modified this includes the circumstances where a development order is revoked if a development order is revoked and an application is made within 12 months for planning permission for development previously permitted by the special development order then compensation is payable if that planning permission is refused or granted subject to different conditions to those included in the special development order this mirrors the provision that where a planning permission not granted by a development order is revoked or modified the planning authority is liable to pay compensation the compensation is limited to where a claim made within the prescribed timeframe shows that a person interested in the land has incurred abortive expenditure or sustained loss or damage directly attributable to the revocation or modification however because of the broad nature of the permission usually granted by a development order the possible compensation for loss or damage is likely to be higher in those cases amendment 314 repeals section 77 and introduces instead a power for the Scottish ministers to make regulations concerning the compensation that may be payable or revocation of an order the effect of this amendment is to enable Scottish ministers to use regulations to set out the circumstances in which compensation may be payable set out what the compensation is to cover set out the manner in which the level of compensation is to be calculated to require a claim for such compensation to be made within a certain period and specify how such a claim should be made and the information which should be included and apply or whether to apply any of the provisions of part 4 of the 1997 act with or without modifications amendment 315 repeals various references to section 77 elsewhere in the 1997 act I'll finish there Thank you very much Monica, to speak to Monica Lennon to seek to amendment 333 and all amendments in the group Thank you amendment 333 similar to Ruth Maguire there's a story behind it and it's rooted in a very sort of local example so bear with me I won't give all the details but we have a situation where planning consent is withdrawn, is revoked very rarely at all and in my community when I was a local councill in Hamilton there was a planning appeal upheld so permission was granted by the Scottish Government for an incinerator and at a cross-party level everyone was upset with that decision and there were further discussions with the then Cabinet Secretary because he didn't personally make the decision it was delegated to to officials, to a reporter and through those discussions the option of having the consent revoked was discussed and one of our colleagues Richard Lyle, MSP who at that time was Central Scotland MSP is now the member for Udingston Bales Hill he raised the issue of revocation as did many others including myself and he wrote to the local authority South Lancer Council to ask them to use revocation powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 and the Scottish Government were also sympathetic to the power being used but the sticking point became that even if the Scottish ministers had used the revocation powers available to them any liability for compensation would fall to the planning authority so there could be a financial burden for a decision that was taken by Scottish ministers but the financial penalty if you like would rest with the planning authority so when I've been looking at this bill again it's a very niche issue but like the one that Ruth Maguire has raised I think it is an important one so I appreciate that the minister because we had a chat yesterday and I know he has some concerns about this and I did take a steer from the Parliament's legislation team but I'll concede if it's not drafted as perfectly as it could be but that's the intention behind it it's where we have these situations where ministers for good reason might want to revoke a planning consent that any liability for compensation shouldn't then transfer down to a planning authority I'll admit when I looked at Ruth Maguire's amendments having not been aware of the back story I wasn't quite sure but I'm happy to support Ruth Maguire with her amendments and I look forward to hearing from the minister about my own amendments 333 Thank you very much Minister Thank you, convener The introduction of the planning system denied landowners the right to develop their land unless permitted to do so so once a site has planning permission a landowner or developer should be able to commit to investing confident that the principle of development has been accepted there can occasionally be circumstances though when it may be appropriate to revoke or modify a planning permission and so again remove the right to develop and the 1997 act specifically allows for that for example if an administrative error has led to permission being granted mistakenly or where a significant change has taken place which means that the proposed development would no longer be acceptable but in these very rare circumstances property owners are entitled to expect to be fairly compensated for loss of given rights to develop their property the provisions for compensation are a long established part of the planning regime and have been included in the system to ensure fairness if it becomes necessary later to revoke or modify a planning permission after it has been granted Crucially blanket removal of these provisions could put the planning system the bill in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights entirely removing these provisions would also risk far greater uncertainty in the system for example following a change of administration might new elected members be tempted or pressured to revoke a consent which had been granted controversially under the previous administration this would pose a fundamental problem for planning it would erode and undermine the value of planning permission and in so doing significantly undermine investor confidence there has been no consultation on this very serious proposed change for these reasons I cannot support amendment 333 in the name of Monica Lennon and I would ask Ms Lennon not to press it I do support the aims of Ruth Maguire's amendments moving on very briefly well it will inform my decision whether or not I press amendment 333 I take the point that perhaps moving the whole of part 4 is quite drastic but the particular point I made about if ministers for their own reasons wish to revoke or modify a consent under section 68 of the town and country planning act 97 is it fair that any compensation liability should fall to the planning authority that is the issue that I am trying to address the question there is and we have not had this discussion where does the payment of compensation lie with does it lie with the Government or does it lie with the planning authority and I have to say once again this is an amendment where Ms Lennon is obviously trying to do one thing but the way that this is drafted has immense unintended consequences here and we have not consulted on this we had as Ms Lennon rightly points out some discussion around about these matters yesterday but I have offered Ms Lennon the opportunity to talk to me further or to the officials around about that but this amendment has immense unintended consequences and does not actually just do what Ms Lennon is seeking to do in that spirit I am minded to not press a day minister but the very specific point is about if ministers revoke or modify a consent would you be willing to engage with me to make sure that it is not the planning authority that pays the price for that I am willing to have discussions at this moment to say that I will move one way or to other on this issue I think that there is a lot of work that has to be done around about this I do wish that there had been some discussion earlier around about this there is the opportunity now to discuss but I am guaranteeing nothing here convener if I can move on to Ms McGuire's amendments 314 and 315 to support the aims of these amendments and the reasonable approach taken there will sometimes be circumstances sometimes be circumstances where it is appropriate for the Scottish ministers to modify or even revoke permitted development rights under a development order whether a general or a special development order in these cases there may well be circumstances where it may not be appropriate to pay the amount of compensation that might have been envisaged when the order was made there is clearly a difference between planning permissions expressly granted by a planning authority following detailed considerations of the merits of a particular application on the one hand and a general permitted development right which applies across the country or a specific part of it to certain development as described in a development order some development orders were made many many years ago or even decades ago as in the case of this one and the land use policy framework may have changed significantly I agree that we should take the opportunity through this bill to ensure that where a planning authority revokes or modifies a development order any compensation for which the authority becomes liable is appropriate and proportionate it will require a very careful and very considered approach to make sure that this is done fairly should the committee agree Ms McGuire's amendments the Scottish Government will of course engage fully with planning authorities and others who may be affected before making any regulations under this power and give full consideration to the ECHR issues relating to compensation for the loss of property rights I ask the committee to agree amendments 314 and 315 in the name of Ruth McGuire and I would ask Ms Lennon not to press amendments 333 convener Ruth McGuire to wind up the question is that amendment 314 be agreed to are we all agreed amendment 314 is agreed to I call amendment 332 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 259 Andy are you moving for John? moved the question is that amendment 332 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour of amendment 332 amendment 4 those opposed amendment 332 has been passed I call amendment 147 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 257 Claudia Beamish to move or not move the question is that amendment 147 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour of amendment 147 one those opposed five amendment 147 is not agreed to I call amendment 326 in the name of Andy Wightman grouped with amendments as shown in groupings Andy Wightman to move amendment 326 and speak to all amendments in the group sorry convener has been losing my place right we are now on to a new section training and performance of planning authorities so thank you very much amendments in my name in this group fall into three distinct groups themselves 326, 327 and 328 are one group 310 kind of stands on its own and 311, 12 and 13 is the third the planning bill and the wider review of which it is part places a number of new duties on local on planning authorities which of course will have resource implications at a time as a committee has heard several times already that when resources in the planning service are scarce and continuing to fall in spite of this we've seen consistent improvements in the speed of planning decision making there's also increasing understanding across the board that we need to focus more on measuring the quality of decision making and planning, planning is not just about making decisions quickly but about making the right decisions that ultimately contribute to making better places the penalty clause provisions in the town country planning at 1997 were introduced through section 55 of the regulatory reform Scotland act 2014 they allow Scottish ministers to vary planning fees where a planning authorities deemed to be performing unsatisfactorily the provisions have never been used it seems counterproductive to threaten to withdraw funding from planning authorities that need to improve the improvements in planning that this bill seeks to drive will require skills and resource support for those planning authorities responsible for implementing them amendments 3 to 6 3 to 7 and 3 to 8 made a clear statement of intent to this end these provisions have never had support within the planning community and I'm pleased to bring them forward for consideration in this bill amendment 310 provides for flexibility and a transition period in relationship to the bill's duties for mandatory planning it enables members of planning committees amendment 310 if passed would enable members of planning committees to continue to take part in decisions provided they have begun any statutory training and therefore it softens and provides a transitionary period from the rather hard provisions in the bill as to whether members of planning authorities have or have not undertaken the proposed statutory training amendments apologies amendments 3 11 12 and 13 seek to ensure that any mandatory training that is required of members of planning authorities is required of all decision makers and that includes Scottish ministers the report recommended that the mandatory training provisions be removed from the bill but if they were to remain in the bill that ministers should be subject to them also in the government's response to the committee it outlined why this was not possible due to the collective nature of Scottish ministers in whose name determinations are made amendment 311 makes this fundamental change to say that Scottish ministers are to be subject to mandatory training provisions within the planning system as decision makers like all others amendment 312 overcomes in my view the objection raised by Scottish ministers made by the minister himself in his response by providing that regulations can be laid, I propose this be the laid only procedure for the same individuals that would be specified who become for the purposes of any mandatory training the individuals required to undergo that training amendment 313 is consequential and makes it clear that the scope of 251 whereby functions can be transferred to another planning authority of the Scottish ministers extends only to a local authority it should read planning authority or national park it cannot extend to Scottish ministers because if amendment 311 is passed the Scottish ministers to direct at their own functions be exercised by someone else this is a rather complicated sequence here the amendment becomes redundant if amendments 23 and 24 are passed to be clear as a matter of policy I do support mandatory training for planning decision makers but it must apply to all if my amendments 311 12 and 13 fall then I will be supporting Graham Simpson's amendment 23 and 24 I also support Graham Simpson's amendment 17 to delete section 26 of the bill whose provisions cut across the collaborative work that has been undertaken to date to continuously improve outcomes of the planning system I support amendment 268 but I oppose amendment 18 which would introduce extra bureaucracy in administration in relation to provisions that already exist not just in this bill but in previous legislation Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group Thanks a lot, convener I'll discuss amendments 23, 24 and 17 before moving on to 18 amendments 23 and 24 remove the requirement for councillors to undergo mandatory training by removing sections 24 and 25 of the bill my amendment 17 removes section 26 from the face of the bill this section sets out how Scottish ministers can assess the performance of planning authorities and includes powers to take on an appointed person or planning czar let's start with that one on performance the bill does three things there would be a statutory requirement for every planning authority to produce an annual performance report with their form, content and process for production set out by ministers in regulations ministers would have the power to appoint a national planning performance czar to report back to them on performance standards ministers would have the power to appoint a person to conduct an assessment of one or more planning authorities performance to report on their findings with recommendations and grant ministers powers to pursue those recommended improvements what constitutes poor performance is not defined in the bill it leaves the way open for the whole process to become very political if a council takes a series of planning decisions that conflict with the agenda of any Scottish Government now or in the future they could determine that they are underperforming it's a dangerous president the committee produced a hard hitting and well received stage one report into this bill it was agreed unanimously let me read what it said about section 26 we note that planning authorities have for a number of years voluntarily reported on their planning performance we received no evidence that this approach has been flawed indeed as COSLA explained in its written evidence the decision by Scottish Government to legislate on reporting came as a surprise and that it was not expecting the inclusion of the national planning performance coordinator in the bill as discussions with the Government were on going COSLA comment that it is the proposals on assessment which give us most concern as we are aware the appointment of an assessor for local Government performance has never recently been discussed the report goes on the committee sees no need or justification for the bills proposals on performance and recommends that section 26 of the bill be removed we consider that the Scottish Government should continue to work collaboratively with COSLA amendment 17 simply does what the committee said should happen I've had extensive talks with COSLA on this and other aspects of the bill and they agree with the committee on this amendment 23 removes section 24 and amendment 24 removes section 25 section 24 proposes that future regulations will set out the training requirements for members of planning authorities who sit on planning committees or on local review bodies in fact all councillors every single one of them could have to take decisions on planning matters so this applies to them all it requires that this training be completed before such members make planning decisions and section 25 sets out the arrangements to ensure continuity of the planning service should sufficient members not have completed this training handing powers to other councils the policy memorandum explains that regulations will specify a requirement for attendance and or completion of an exam by members of the planning authorities before they may be involved in the making of planning decisions by their authority my view on this shaped by 10 years as a councillor who sat on a planning committee is that they're elected to take decisions affecting their areas and it's quite simply an affront to democracy for someone to then set them a test to rule on whether they're bright enough to do so in any case the minister himself has refused to take an exam despite being the ultimate arbiter on planning matters what do the committee have to say on all this our report reads thus we agree that in undertaking their functions on a planning committee it's important that councillors are clear about the matters upon which they should base their decisions we consider therefore that councillors should attend training on key aspects of the planning system we do not agree however that it should be mandatory and accordingly we recommend that the Scottish Government amends the bill to remove this provision we consider any training in planning should be considered as part of a continuous professional development programme for councillors and we invite COSLA and the Improvement Service to consider broadening the range of training available to councillors on planning to include best practice in community engagement in planning, equalities and human rights duties challenges in urban and rural settings and environmental and sustainability duties if the amendments we recommend are not made then we consider that all decision takers in planning and this is what Andy Wightman said earlier should be subject to the same training requirements this includes all relevant councillors and Scottish ministers close quotes in his response to the committee on May 24 the minister said the Scottish Government is clear that planning ministers receive appropriate training on their role and functions when they are appointed the response declared that raising a training requirement would quote raise the risk that ministers planning functions could not be carried out which is precisely what the bill proposes for councillors talk about hypocrisy councils do train their members on all sorts of things including planning they don't need to be ordered to in law I'm not just saying this I know this having been a councillor but I thought I'd just check in any case I wrote to every single councillor in Scotland to see if they train their councillors in planning 28 of the 32 wrote back and all 28 train their councillors most also do regular refreshing training so this part of the bill is simply unnecessary because it's happening anyway my amendment 18 tackles performance in a rather softer manner than the one in the bill by calling for an annual report from councils detailing the number of planning applications dealt with the outcomes and times taken to process the amendment creates transparency over performance without undermining council's authority Andy Wightman's amendment 310 sets out guidelines on when training should be complete but since I want this removed I won't be supporting it his amendment 311 tackles training issue but for the same reason I won't back that 312 simply adds a bit of detail to 311 the minister's amendment 268 is an amendment to 26 which of course I want to see removed I'll be supporting Mr Wightman's amendments 326, 327 and 328 I believe they're beneficial and will improve the planning process thank you convener thank you very much Mr Wightman I don't know the mic's gone up the sound was there before I launch into all of the technical aspects of these amendments can I say first of all that in terms of the stakeholder engagement, the consultation there was overwhelming overwhelming support for the training of elected members from all stakeholders and in terms of performance again there was support for what we are trying to do here from stakeholders across the board and when I'm talking about stakeholders I'm talking about communities and individuals and from my experience as a councillor over a 13-year period one of the things that frustrated me greatly was going to extremely important meetings which would be deciding things like the passing of a local development plan where folk were sitting with papers in front of them, largely unopened and I do think that more of them would have been opened if the right training had gone in there performance, convener, is important to everyone in the planning system I'll take an intervention from Mr Simpson It will be brief whether councillors have opened their papers or not is not affected by training they could be trained and not have their papers open I really think that's an irrelevant point It's not, it's a very relevant point because in my early years of local development plans when we were dealing with a local plan I spoke to a number of members at that point who quite clearly did not understand what was put in front of them training would have helped in that regard and I think that this is extremely important and it is extremely important for stakeholders performance is extremely important to everyone with a stake in the planning system and this is not just about the big developers demanding faster processing householders, small businesses communities all want an efficient service and communities wants to be assured that the planning authority is engaging effectively and is creating good outcomes in their areas and a lot of the correspondence that crosses my desk communities is around about performance in particular areas and everyone wants to know that the authority is making good decisions based on a sound understanding of planning principles our performance proposals as I've said were some of the most popular measures in our consultation and so the committee will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely oppose Mr Simpson's proposals to remove the sections from the bill and at stage 1 report the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should continue to work collaboratively with its partners enhancing the current planning performance framework and I am committed to doing that and we will continue to work with the high level group with COSLA and other stakeholders to agree how best to measure performance and identify areas for improvement we will also work with them to develop the role of the planning performance coordinator which is intended to support planning authorities and help share good practice and to draw up the criteria and process for initiating an assessment of performance but I do believe that those approaches need some statutory backing and ultimately some sanction to deal with authorities that fail to improve despite all the support and the package of measures introduced by section 26 will provide that positive and supportive framework that was envisaged by the independent panel that Mr Simpson's proposed annual report is anyway a helpful alternative there is general agreement that we need to consider performance in a more rounded way even if we disagree how that should be achieved requiring a report that reduces planning performance to the most basic of numbers will not support that aim and sends entirely the wrong message about what we value in my proposals I have taken on board some of the specific concerns raised about the provisions amendment 268 removes the provision that a person could be subject to criminal proceedings if they do not provide information requested in connection with a performance assessment although this is a standard performance standard provision that exists for example in relation to school inspections that it is not necessary here if an appointed person is not provided with information they need to carry out the assessment that is likely to be mentioned in the report and I think that that is sufficient encouragement I have also accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that the power to prescribe the functions of the co-ordinator should be subject to affirmative procedure we will come to that in the next group because it is a composite amendment covering a number of regulation making powers turning to Mr Wightman's amendments and fees the Scottish Government has made clear for many years that any increase in fees must be linked with improved performance this is of particular importance when planning authorities COSLA and the RTPI have been asking for us to raise planning fees to enable full cost recovery people are concerned that increased fees do not necessarily go to funding the planning service I don't think that I can commit to increasing planning fees towards full cost recovery without sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that those fees are reinvested in the service and are leading to improvements and performance while it is for local authorities to decide how their income should be spent robust performance monitoring should ensure that there is appropriate investment to meet agreed performance indicators Mr Wightman's amendments would remove the ability of ministers to reflect the performance of individual authorities and the fees that they are able to charge using the penalty clause would always be a last resort moving it would leave Scottish ministers with few concrete options to use where planning authorities do not make expected improvements moving on to the training of elected members not only was this overwhelmingly supported in our consultation but people expressed surprise that it was not already mandatory ensuring that decisions are made in a consistent manner on solid planning knowledge is an essential part of good performance and essential to maintaining trust in the system I urge members not to discard something that people all across the system want to see Again, I listened to the arguments and I was prepared to bring forward an amendment to remove the power to transfer planning functions to another authority or to ministers where insufficient members have been trained and I've concluded that transferring decisions to another authority would not actually lead to faster decisions and that the reputational risk should members not be able to take decisions should ensure that that issue is resolved swiftly Mr Simpson beat me to lodging that amendment however I've put in the consequential amendment in section 32 The committee also suggested that if compulsory training was to be retained that ministers should also be included Let me put this on the record again I am committed to undertake training I've received training on planning both in my roles as a councillor and as a minister and it feels like at the moment that every day is a training session in planning for me However, as I noted in my response to the committee's stage 1 report to require that in statute raises all kinds of difficulties section 52.3 of the Scotland act provides that the statutory functions of the Scottish ministers shall be exercisable by any member of the Scottish Government This is different from the way planning authorities are constituted If one or more members of a planning authority have not completed the training the authority could substitute members on the planning committee or perhaps even change its quorum As I've said the Scotland act provides that the statutory functions of the Scottish ministers shall be exercisable by any member of the Scottish Government This amendment seeks to alter that position and so to alter the effect of the Scotland act In addition, if the Scottish ministers were to be prohibited from exercising their functions then no junior minister or officials acting on their behalf could do so either I recognise that Mr Whiteman has attempted to unpick this in amendment 312 by providing for an individual Scottish minister to be designated as responsible for planning and placing the requirement for training on them Unfortunately I have to remind him that unpicking the provisions of the Scotland act is outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament It might be possible under Mr Whiteman's amendment to require a junior minister with responsibility for planning to undergo training on members of the Scottish Government but it would be odd to have a junior minister unable to exercise a function that the cabinet secretary could exercise so I'm swerd to support these amendments Finally on amendment 310 this would mean that a member of a planning authority is considered to have fulfilled the specified training requirements when they have not It appears that the member should repeatedly start the training and never complete it or possibly repeatedly fail in any required assessment and start again but still be allowed to undertake planning functions That would completely undermine the point of having a training requirement and I cannot support it To conclude let me say again that our aim is to work collaboratively with planning authorities and other stakeholders to define how performance should be assessed how the planning performance coordinator can support improved performance and what training elected members should have to take part in planning decisions Some members seem to think that I'm fixated on a test around all of this I am not but what I am fixated about is that training aspect I am happy to undergrow that training myself that concerns me not one iota If there was a way within legislation for me to have to do that rather than the unpicking of the Scotland Act which we cannot do I would be happy to do that I believe the statutory framework in this bill as it is will strengthen the collaborative approach and help to demonstrate how serious really serious about improving performance across the board and I ask the committee to keep the provisions as they are Thank you very much Andy, to wind up the press So as I said in the opening of this group I do actually support provisions for putting training on that I was concerned however that reflecting the committee's stage 1 report that were ministers not persuaded that they should be treated equitably then that would not be appropriate I've listened carefully to what the ministers say and obviously these stage 2 debates are conducted within a rather compressed environment that doesn't allow us a great deal of time to reflect on what people have said but I'm prepared to take the minister's comments in good faith that there would be practical difficulties in relationship to the provisions of the Scotland Act to put in place statutory provisions requiring ministers to undergo this training accept that in good faith and therefore will not be moving amendments 311, 312 and 313 I am on the question of performance this relates to Graham Simpson's amendment 17 I I've heard what the minister has said there too I think the provisions in the bill in section 26 profoundly change profoundly change the power relationship between planning authorities and Scottish ministers in a way that's not helpful I don't think I think it undermines the autonomy and the authority of directly elected members who have responsibility for making decisions about planning matters within their area and therefore I'm not persuaded by the minister's arguments against that this is a complicated group of amendments I don't think I've got anything else thank you therefore the question is amendment 326 be agreed to are we all agreed yes I call amendment sorry, therefore amendment 326 agreed to I'm right, okay those in favour of amendment 326 those opposed five two in favour of it I call amendment 264 in the name of the minister I've already debated with amendment 259 minister to me formally the question is that amendment 264 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 265 in the name of the minister already sorry, I thought you said yes my apologies those in favour 264 264 right five those opposed two sorry about that I call amendment 265 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 259 minister to me formally moved, convener the question is that amendment 265 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour of amendment 265 five those opposed to I call amendment 327 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 326 Andy Wightman to move or not move moved the question is that amendment 327 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour those opposed five two in favour three two seven I call amendment 328 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 326 Andy Wightman to move or not move moved the question is that amendment 328 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour five those opposed two I call amendment 321 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 259 Monica Lennon to move or not move the question is that amendment 321 be agreed to are we all agreed those in favour of amendment 321 five those opposed I call amendment 266 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 259 minister can move forward the question is that amendment 266 be agreed to are we all agreed 266 agreed to I call amendment 16 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 259 Graham Simpson to move or not move not move the question therefore is that section 21 be agreed to are we all agreed agreed I call amendment 333 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 314 Monica Lennon to move or not move not move I call amendment 329 in the name of Graham Simpson in a group on its own Graham Simpson to move and speak to amendment 329 on it I would appreciate breveted from liberty because I would like to finish this section very soon convener I'm going to make your day we'll be very brief the amendment was tabled in response to an article that was sent in Scottish Planner where it was argued that authorities issue fixed penalty notices for breaching and enforcement notice and it's then possible to pay the fine and carry on as before now I spoke to the minister about this last week very useful discussion he's pointed out issues which he may well touch on I'm happy at this point to withdraw the amendment on the basis that the minister is aware of the issue and is looking at it I wish I'd used that for every opening in the middle life so much easier thank you Graham I appreciate that anyone in the committee wants to hear all of the reasoning for that convener I'm happy to pass and speaking here to help you considerably Graham Simpson has wishes to withdraw his amendment does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn thank you that amendment is withdrawn and that the question is that section 22 be agreed to are we all agreed and that brings us to the end of the public session if I could ask are we starting I've got a family thing I need to do my granddaughter sorry can I the minister is officials and all the other MSPs who attended today, day 7 of stage 2 which is the final day will take place on the 14th of November any remaining amendments to the bill should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday 8 November and that concludes the public part of the meeting