 Proses o'r ddweud â wladau sylwag yn Llywodraeth, mae'n gwybodol iawn a'i ddiwrnod i gwael, requaddynu i ei ddod. Oherwydd, i chi ddim yn gwybodol iawn, dweud ein bod i ddim yn gwybodol iechyd ar y byw, maen nhw. Can oedd emon oedd oedd ei ddyn nhw i ddweud â'r edrych. Yn moed, mae'n gweithio'r ddweud oed, mae'n mynd i gweithio'r rhai dyfu'r ddweud was being interpreted by some as deregulating rather than strengthening planning. I want to support and encourage more public sector-led development. This mechanism puts planning authorities in the lead in planning their places rather than just reacting to developers' proposals. Early and effective community engagement and a strong design-led approach to delivering quality development will be required in all cases. This is not a developer's charter or a bid to lower standards. Indeed, the previous convener noted that the evidence that we have been hearing is that what is proposed sounds just like enhanced master planning. It is a master plan, will give up-front consent for the type of development that the planning authority considers most appropriate for an area that is therefore a more accurate name, which should remove any misunderstanding about what we are trying to achieve here. I ask the committee to support this group of amendments. Thank you, convener. I think that this is pretty straightforward. It might on the face of it look like there's not a lot of point in changing the name but nor is there any great objection to it so we'll support these amendments. In that case, can I ask the minister to wind up? Nothing more to say, convener. The question is that amendment 232 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed, thank you. I call amendments 233, 234 and 235, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated with amendment 232. I invite the minister to move amendments 233 to 235 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 233 to 235? The question is that amendments 233 to 235 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 236 in the name of the minister grouped with amendment 284. Minister to move amendment 236 and speak to both amendments in the group. I'm happy to bring forward amendments 236 and 284. They respond to a point made by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1 and follow up on a commitment that I made to reconsider the matter. To avoid any further confusion around terminology for those and the following amendments I will be referring to master plan consent areas when discussing provisions relating to simplified development zones in the bill. The bill is introduced would have allowed a scheme for these areas to disapply the normal controls on the display of advertisements and apply controls set out in the scheme instead. However, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee was concerned that this would remove parliamentary oversight over the rules of the display of adverts and, in response to those concerns, amendment 236 removes that provision. I want planning authorities to lead and incentivise development through the upfront consideration and granting of a range of consents, reducing uncertainty for all. We heard from Renfrewshire Council, who prepared Scotland's first time centre simplified planning zone, that, despite the scheme granting planning permission, the ongoing need to separately apply for advertisement consent within the area can cause delay and reduce certainty and confidence for investors. I maintain that it would be useful and proportionate if a master plan consent area scheme could include scope to grant advertisement consent in addition to the range of other consents. Section 183 of the 1997 act already allows regulations to make different provisions for different areas when it comes to advertisement controls. Amendment 284 would add master plan consent areas into that non-exhaustive list of types of area which different provisions can be made. This will allow the existing control of advertisements regulations to be amended to make special provision for master plan consent areas so that the planning authority could consent advertisements through a scheme within the parameters permitted by the regulations. Planners would bring forward the same thinking and scrutiny that would otherwise go into the consideration of individual applications and provide a more holistic, streamlined consenting framework within the scheme. That approach addresses the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee's concern about a loss of parliamentary oversight because any future amendments to the control of advertisement regulations in relation to these areas will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am grateful to them for highlighting this issue and I ask the committee to support these amendments. As convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I welcome the minister's amendments in this area. Minister, wind up. Nine words to say, convener. Thank you very much. In that case, the question is that amendment 236 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I now call amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 2, 9, 5 and 20. I would point out that amendment 20 is preempted by amendment 156 in group, simplified development zones, land which may or may not be included. Graham Simpson to move amendment 12 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks very much, convener. Apologies may unusually take a while on this, but it's an important amendment 12, it's important grouping. Initially, of course, the bill had no mechanism for capturing any land value uplift and it was something that the committee looked at very closely at stage 1. A planning resource article this month said that more than eight in ten planning and development professionals believe the planning bill will fail to provide a system capable of improving housing and infrastructure delivery. According to a new survey, the omission of any reference to land value capture was, in my view, a clear missed opportunity. In our manifesto for the 2017 election, we said that communities and public authorities should benefit from the increase in value of land achieved through gaining planning permission. Ruth Davidson has given a couple of speeches backing the idea and has argued that Scotland should build a new generation of new towns to help ease the country's housing shortage. My amendment 12 would provide a powerful tool for local authorities to build new communities as well as extensions to or significant developments within existing settlements. I've lodged the amendment to provide that where a planning authority establishes a master plan consent area, it may include provision for compulsory purchase. The amendment sets out the basics of how the purchase price is to be fixed and requires ministers to set out the rest of the detail about the process by regulations. That would include how any provision of the land compensation Scotland Act 1963 is to be supplied or modified for the purposes of this scheme. Amendment 20 also in this group simply provides that, where regulations are made by ministers, they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. COSLA has stated that there is potential for this to be a useful tool for councils. Shelter and the Adam Smith Institute have supported such a reform. Councils will be able to invest money gained through their own decision to grant planning permission to spend on affordable housing, new roads and better infrastructure. We could avoid the wrangles over who pays for what and how much that often holds up development. We could deliver varied places, we could unlock land for smaller builders and self builders. The focus of a previously debated amendment, we could deliver more houses and more affordable houses. It's genuinely exciting but it's far from new convener. We should learn from the past. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 enabled the state to acquire land at levels close to existing use value until it was amended in the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 and with new compensation arrangements in the Land Compensation Act 1961, 1963 as it was in Scotland. Alongside powers provided within the New Towns Act 1946, the 1947 Act enabled the establishment through development corporations of post-war New Towns and the New Towns programme ultimately led to the establishment of 32 communities for 2.8 million people and successfully paid back its entire borrowing for the delivery of the towns in 1999. I live in one of those towns, East Kilbride, which was the first in Scotland. Convener, analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy indicates that land awarded planning permission is worth more than 275 times the agricultural valley across England and in 2016-17 generated 18 billion pounds in increased land values. The state collected about 5 billion pounds through, in England, section 106 agreements. The community infrastructure level, levy and public land sales, leaving private landowners and their intermediaries with pre-tax profits of around 13 billion pounds. I said during the stage 1 debate on this bill that planning is often all about money and these figures illustrate the point very well. Importantly, my amendment provides for compensation payable in respect of land purchased under the powers in this amendment and that's only fair. Andy Wightman is a long-standing supporter of land value capture but his amendment 295 does not include a provision for compensation and that doesn't seem fair to me. We won't be supporting his amendment today but I do accept the principles behind what Mr Wightman is trying to achieve and I guarantee we can work together for stage 3 and encourage the Government to get on board with us if this is passed. We can't keep kicking this can down the road. The issue convener has been examined across the UK. Just last month, the Housing Communities and Local Government Committee at the UK Parliament concluded that extra funding for new local infrastructure and affordable housing could be raised by reforms to how the increase in value of land resulting from public policy decisions is captured. The committee argued that there is scope for raising additional revenue from the consideration of new mechanisms for land value capture and reform of the way councils can compulsory purchase land. The report highlighted the success of the first generations of new towns, which I've already mentioned, which acquired land at or near to existing use value and captured uplifts in land value to invest in new infrastructure and they've called for reform of such powers through amendment of the Land Compensation Act. That would lead to a much-needed boost in house building. It was reported, convener, in this week's Sunday Telegraph, that the Chancellor himself may announce proposals in the budget next week. We don't need to wait for England to move on this. We don't need to wait for the Land Commission to report. Scotland can be at the forefront of this radical public policy shift and I believe that this amendment will help transform the landscape of residential and economic development in Scotland. It can play an important part in a radical new planning system and I urge the committee to support it. Andy Wightman, to speak to amendment 295 and other amendments in the group. Graham Simpson has articulated the case for land value capture. Scottish Greens have a manifesto commitment to secure reform to the planning act to allow local authorities to acquire land at its existing use value and, as Graham said, I'm also aware that this was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party in the 2017 general election. It was also a recommendation of the UK Labour parties in their recent housing white paper. It's a topic of growing interest amongst policy makers and I would remind members, as indeed Graham did himself, that a provision enabling this was introduced in section 48 of the Town Country Planning Act 1947 repealed in 1959. In the UK, 90 per cent of new housing is by speculative volume builders. This is a very strange model of house building compared to the rest of the continent. They compete first for land and they have to pay the uplift value, which is transferred ultimately on to house buyers. Typically, 30 to 50 per cent of the costs of new housing is land value, created entirely by the public through planning authorities acting in the public interest in granting planning consent. Eliminating this, we can invest 30 to 50 per cent more in higher quality, longer lasting, larger, more energy efficient or build more homes at the same cost. As Mr Simpson pointed out, our sister committee in the House of Commons in September this year conducted an inquiry into this topic and made recommendations on this. Amendment 295 is my version of a provision similar to amendment 12. Like amendment 12, my amendment restricts the deployment of a land value capture mechanism to master plan consent areas. This is not because I think it should be so restricted, I think it should be far more widely available. I am conscious that, in reintroducing provisions that were last enforced 50 years ago, there is significant risk of causing uncertainty and confusion in the land market. Therefore, the need to have a proportionate approach at this stage is critical. The establishment of master plan consent areas creates the ideal environment within which to reintroduce this concept in a controlled and manageable way. I carried out a consultation on this proposal during May and June this year. I received 23 responses of which 11 were in favour and 9 were opposed and three had mixed views. Amongst those who were supportive were Planning Democracy, Rural Housing Scotland, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, Chartered Down Institute of Housing. Those against include the Scottish Property Federation, Homes for Scotland, Persim and Homes, Scottish Land and the States. I attended a meeting of the compulsory purchase specialists and met with the authors of a recent Scottish Land Commission paper on the topic. As a consequence, I developed an amendment that is more tightly drawn than amendment 12 and was informed by my consultation out of which two key principles emerged. The first is that the existing use value of any land in a master plan consent area must be established unknown at the point at which the land is so designated. In Germany, that is described as the land price freeze mechanism. To leave the valuation until some years hence, as amendment 12 does, will risk interfering with the legitimate expectations of the landowner who may have undertaken preparatory works with the attendant risk of a legal challenge under article 1 protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The second principle is that the provisions are only made available to meet the housing needs of the community and to uphold the human right to housing. Those are reflected in my amendment. This makes clear the public interest and provides a robust defence under the public interest exemption in A1 P1. I am aware that the Scottish Land Commission is currently undertaking work in this area, but I do not know when the next legislative opportunity will arise or even if I will be around to take advantage of it. This is a planning provision. This is a planning bill. We have a planning bill about once a decade. Both amendment 12 and 295 represent a tightly focused and proportionate measure that will allow local authorities to use this part in defined circumstances in the public interest. As Graham Simpson has mentioned, this has the potential to transform the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing in rural as well as urban areas. In light of the duplication of Deterise in the bill where both amendments 12 and 295 have passed, I will not be moving amendment 295. On the understanding that Graham Simpson agrees, and I think I have heard him already do this, to discuss how his amendment can be further amended before stage 3 to accommodate the principles that I outlined earlier. Those principles arose out of consultation with interested parties and are, in my view, essential to ensure a workable, fair, proportionate and legally defensible mechanism to capture land value. Graham Simpson said that there is no mechanism for land value capture in the bill. There is. The infrastructure levy is a mechanism for capturing an element of land value. The bill also seeks to clarify use of section 75 planning obligations in this way. Both of these amendments apparently seek to require ministers to make provision and regulations about the compensation payable for compulsory purchase. While the intention behind these amendments shown in the headings may be to make provision for compulsory acquisition of land, in fact they do not use the word compulsory in the substantive provisions. The sections that these amendments seek to introduce would, in fact, operate to regulate voluntary acquisition of land in certain situations. However, as I recognise the intention was to create rights of compulsory purchase, I will consider the amendments as if that is what they would do. The compulsory purchase of land is a very serious issue. Since the 18th century, the process for compulsory purchase in the UK has been almost exclusively laid down in primary legislation in detail to make sure that the power is not abused. I do not see any reason here to change that. The Scottish Government is interested in the concept of land value capture. That is why we have asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate options for that more effective use-catering uplift values in Scotland. They are due to report back in spring 2019. Graham Simpson mentioned new towns quite a lot in his contribution. The Scottish Land Commission has recently carried out a study of previous attempts to capture land value uplifts. While new towns were a successful approach, the 1947 development charge was not successful and in fact it discouraged development. That is why we need to look at this area very carefully indeed. The proposal that is in front of us would ignore the ongoing work and the range of options for land value capture that could potentially be considered in Scotland. There are a range of ways that land value capture may be attempted and changing the compulsory purchase compensation rules is just one of them. Once we have the Land Commission's report, we will consider whether we should move towards consultation and preparing legislation. If the Land Commission concluded that changes to compulsory purchase compensation would be helpful, then it may be possible to combine changes to compulsory purchase with the proposed bill on compulsory sale orders that is being considered for later on in this Parliament. There are a number of technical deficiencies in these amendments that I consider would make them unacceptable in their current form. For example, Andy Wightman's version would require the local authority to value all the land in the area to which the scheme relates, not just the land that they propose to purchase. There are issues with the evaluation methods contained in amendment 12 that could in some cases lead to higher compensation than at present. I also question why these rules would only apply in a master plan consent area. What justification is there for paying less than market value in this area and not another? If a land owner inside the master plan consent area will potentially receive less for their land than one outside the area, is that fair? And surely it will lead to more opposition to master plan consent areas being made when they are meant to be a collaborative positive tool which can support and speed up much needed development. One of the key criticisms of the current compulsory purchase system is that it is too complex with multiple overlapping processes, so how does it help to add another one? Beyond those specific issues, there is a more significant principle at stake here. I recognise the rights to housing that Mr Wightman has quoted, but rights can never be considered in isolation. The rights to housing have to be balanced with the rights to property, also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of more direct relevance to the powers of this Parliament in the European Convention on Human Rights, which legislation of this Parliament must be compatible with. The courts have long held that compulsory purchase is compatible with EHCR, but only where exercise proportionately and when owners receive fair compensation. As a general rule, the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value would not be justifiable under the EHCR. In the absence of special justification, fair compensation would be expected to equate to the market value of the land taken. While there may possibly be scope for making changes to the rules for assessment of land compensation in certain circumstances, this will require very careful scrutiny and justification. Both of those amendments imply that the compensation payable in such circumstances will be less than is currently considered to be market value. There must be very real doubt that compulsory purchase in those lines proposed would be compatible with the EHCR. If not, those amendments would be outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament, and I hope that committee members will take that issue very seriously. In short, I believe that it is premature to attempt to change the rules for compensation for compulsory purchase via amendments on this bill without proper analysis and consultation. We have had no formal public consultation on this key issue. Mr Wightman has mentioned his own views from his findings, but he has not published the full results of his consultation. I will certainly take Mr Wightman. Just for the record, I will be publishing them. That is fine, but they are not published as yet. The Scottish Land Commission, the Scottish Law Commission, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and Homes for Scotland all agree with the analysis and have expressed their concern about those proposals. Indeed, the Scottish Compulsory Purchase Association has written to the committee setting out their concerns in some detail. We have asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate the options for more effective land value capture. They need the time and the space to complete their work. I would therefore ask Mr Simpson not to press his amendment and Mr Wightman not to move his. Graham Simpson, to wind up. Not really much to add, convener, but I hear what the minister is saying. I am certainly prepared to speak to the minister afterwards, but on this occasion I will be moving it. The question is then that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment 12 is agreed to. I call amendment 295, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 12. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 237, 238, 239 and 240, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated with amendment 232. Invite minister to move amendments 237 to 240 on block. Moved, convener. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 237 to 240? The question is that amendments 237 to 240 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. I call amendment 241, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out the following pre-emptions. Amendment 242 pre-empts amendment 13 in this group. Amendment 156 pre-empts amendment 20 in group, simplified development zones, land value capture. Minister to move amendment 241 and speak to all amendments in the group. Convener, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee suggested that types of land that may not be included in an SDZ or master plan consent area should be set out in the face of the bill. I accepted that point and undertook to bring forward an amendment to that effect, including a power to add or remove entries by regulations. My amendments in this group fulfil that commitment. I want to see master plan consent areas being used in a wide range of circumstances and I also want to make these provisions as clear and easy to follow as possible rather than adding complexity. My amendment 250 provides restrictions on world heritage sites in their buffer zones, European sites, SSIs, national scenic areas, Ramsar sites, marine protected areas and places covered by orders under part 2 of the Nature Conservation Scotland Act. These are all international or national designations and I believe that this is clear, easy to understand and the appropriate level of restriction to set in primary legislation. I suspect that it is unlikely that authorities will want to introduce master plan consent areas in these designated areas but I am happy to provide clarity on this to avoid any doubt or confusion. We have worked with the relevant agencies on this, specifically Historic Environment Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage and they agree with my approach. I want to see this mechanism used more widely and confidently to promote good placemaking. Significant restrictions in locally designated areas would continue to curtail the scope for planning authorities to proactively plan for the right kinds of development in their places. I am not proposing to include local designations within the restrictions in the act so that we can give authorities the opportunity to decide for themselves what works best in their area. Turning to amendment 13, in the name of Mr Simpson, I have serious concerns about preventing master plan consent areas in conservation areas in Greenbelt land. Preventing master plan consent areas in conservation areas would take away the opportunity that they have for planning authorities to actively plan for and support time centre investment and regeneration. Many local authorities may want to use this approach to deliver on the time centre first principle. For example, schemes could allow for certain changes of use within time centres, helping vacant units to come back into productive use. The committee also heard at stage 1 from Petra Beiberbach, from Paz, that there are currently more than 30,000 empty homes, most of which are in time centres. She emphasised the need for a more imaginative approach to unlock them and to repopulate our time centres. I know that some authorities are already keen to follow the example of the Renfrew town centre and use existing provisions for simplified planning zones to support their time centres but are unable to because of existing restrictions on SPZs in conservation areas. The committee supports Mr Simpson's amendment 13. It would significantly limit the potential of master plan consent areas to make a real difference to our time centres and to support their vitality and vibrancy. Mr Simpson's amendment would also restrict master plan consent areas in the Greenbelt. Scottish planning policy makes clear that Greenbelt designation is a tool for local authorities to direct development to suitable locations. Local authorities can set out uses that are appropriate within the Greenbelt, such as the reuse of historic agricultural buildings or recreational uses compatible with an agricultural or natural setting. Indeed, we have been approached recently by one local enterprise who sees the potential to support reuse of steadings and supporting the rural microeconomy. A master plan consent area could facilitate that kind of development that is appropriate within Greenbelt. A full restriction in Greenbelt would lose that opportunity. I agree that it is important to provide clarity on the scope of master plan consent areas on the face of the bill, but any restriction should be set at the right level and not limit the ability of local authorities to proactively and positively plan good quality development and investment in their local areas. I would be happy to discuss this further with Mr Simpson before stage 3 to make sure that we get the detail right on this issue. I move amendment 241. Graham Simpson, to speak to amendment 13 and other amendments in the group. Well, thanks very much, convener, and can I first of all welcome the minister's comments there. My amendment 13 simply set out to replicate what was the existing position around simplified planning zones and where they couldn't be set up. That's all I was trying to do. The Government amendment 250 places similar restrictions on where these areas can't be set up, but in some respects it goes further than my own amendment that doesn't include Greenbelt and conservation areas. Having considered it, not just listening to the minister today but speaking to stakeholders and others, I am minded to agree with the Government and I will not be moving my own amendment. I welcome the fact that Mr Stewart is responding to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee again. As I say, I'll not be moving it and I will be supporting the Government amendment 250. The Government amendments 241 to 248 in this group, along with 293, can best be described as technical and we'll be supporting them as well. Amendment 156 appears to be a tidying up exercise, rolling together regulation making powers to be dealt with by the affirmative procedure and we support that as well. Amendment 13 and 250 implements the recommendation of the committee's stage 1 report to place on the face of the bill where master plan consent areas cannot be designated. In principle I've got no objection to that but I do not agree that the list of such designated sites should include national scenic areas. National scenic areas include settlements where there's a need for more affordable housing. I have the map here, large parts of Westeros, Ascent, Sutherland, the whole of Harris, South Lewis, Contail, Loch Sheill, quarter of the Cairngorms national park. SNH has a consultative role as the ministers are aware in national scenic areas where development of more than five houses is proposed. They do not have a consultative role where any of those proposals are specifically provided for in the local development plan. The minister will probably be aware of recent controversy over affordable housing in North Skye, etc. He'll also be aware that circular 9 slash 1, 9, 8, 7 contains the relevant rules in this regard. It's my view that master plan consent areas could play an important role in providing rural housing, especially where the land value capture provisions are made use of but certainly where they're not. To exclude them by law from being available in national scenic areas is illogical when development can already take place under existing planning provisions. When master plan consent areas have the potential to provide a more effective means of providing rural affordable housing in many areas, for those reasons I cannot support amendments 12 or 250. I would welcome further discussion with the minister on the points that I have made with the view to possible amendment at stage 3 to remove national scenic areas from the list of designated sites. I'm grateful to Mr Simpson for his indication that he won't move his amendment. I'm more than happy to have further discussions with Mr Wightman and others around national scenic areas so that we get this absolutely right for stage 3. Thank you very much. The question is, that amendment 241 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. If agreed, call amendment 242 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 241. Minister, to move firmly. Agreed. Moved, sorry, convener. Agreed. The question is, that amendment 242 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 and 250, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and invite the minister to move amendments 243 to 250 on block. Moved on block, convener. Injection here. Okay, given that a member has objected, I put the question on each amendment individually. I have no objection to 243 to 249 being taken on block. Okay, well does any other member object to 243 to 249 being taken on block? No, right, okay, we will take 243 to 249 on block. Yes, we all agreed on 243 to 249, thank you. Okay, in that case. Minister to move 250. Yes, minister to move 250 please. Moved, convener. Thank you. The question is, amendment 250 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. Okay, those in favour of amendment 250, 6, those opposed to 250, 1, amendment 250 is agreed to. Call amendment 296, in the name of Monica Lennon, grouped with amendments 297, 298, 299, 300 and 301. Monica Lennon to move amendment 296 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move the amendment and good morning. I welcome the minister's earlier opening remarks on simplified development zones, reframed as master plan consent areas. My view is that the use of master plan consent areas has to be as transparent as possible and should support the local development plan as the foundation of a plan-led system. The best way that could happen is for master plan consent areas to be designated during the formulation of the local development plan. If that is not possible, the local development plan should be amended to include any new master plan consent area. I believe that we have to be careful not to undermine the local development plan making process, especially when we are all trying to increase community involvement. It is right that master plan consent areas align with the local development plan. Those amendments would restrict the ability of planning authorities to bring forward master plan consent areas at any time. I have been a little bit sceptical about SDZs during the scrutiny of the bill. The simplified planning zones, for example, have been completely underused. I think that we have heard of two examples. Master plan consent areas can be a potentially very good tool, but they will be resource intensive. I hope that that will be looked at. I will be moving amendments 296, 297 and 298. Adam Tomkins was to speak on 299. Graham, are you going to be speaking on his behalf? I will speak on behalf of Adam Tomkins. That's okay, convener. He's in another committee at the moment. Yes, indeed. Mr Tomkins has amendments 299, 300 and 301. His amendment 299 simply ensures that there's a regular time period where a planning authority must evaluate whether a simplified or master plan consent area would be beneficial to an area. It ensures that they have to basically take a look at this every five years. I think that's entirely sensible. Obviously, we'll support that. His amendment 300 really goes with 299. His amendment 300 simply sorts out some rather woolly drafting. I'll move those. Monica Lennon's amendment 296, 297 and 298 seem to me to be fairly straightforward. Should it help to improve the process, we'll be supporting those. Okay, thank you very much. Minister. Thank you, convener. 296 to 298, in the name of Monica Lennon, would greatly damage the appeal of master plan consent areas and restrict their use, and I cannot support that. Throughout the process of planning reform, I've been clear that we need to strengthen the ability of planning in Scotland to deliver good quality development. Master plan consent areas could be a powerful tool to support the delivery of local development plans, but I don't believe that their preparation can or should be tied to the local development plan preparation cycle, and there are several reasons for that. Firstly, master plan consent areas are a delivery mechanism, so they should be prepared within the plan's delivery period. Planning officers from Glasgow and Edinburgh told the committee that this mechanism could support the delivery of the development plan. I agree with that, and to do that effectively, it follows that there has to be a plan in place first. However, Ms Lennon's amendments would mean that preparation of master plan consent areas would need to be twin-tracked with the preparation of the local development plan, and that could lead to authorities wasting effort and valuable resources in preparing a scheme to support a proposed allocation, but it may not end up being included in the final plan. That would be costly and ineffective and a real and damaging deterrent to the use of this mechanism. For many sites, it will only be once they are into the delivery phase of the plan cycle that the need for a master plan consent area might emerge. For example, if nothing is happening on a site that is part of an area spatial strategy, and land supply, the authority might want to prepare a scheme to support its deliverability and to attract investors. Secondly, we need to ensure that master plan consent areas can be brought into play to react to changing circumstances in any area. Ms Lennon's amendments would limit the ability for planning authorities to respond quickly and decisively to significant events. For example, if a major local employer was going into administration and its site was threatened with closure or was closed, the local authority should be able to step forward and take action at that point to support jobs for its people in its area. The authority could set out alternative uses for that site, putting in place conditions for the right kind of development, protecting and enhancing their local economy and working with the community to provide a new vision for that place. If Ms Lennon's amendments were supported, the authority would have to hold back, possibly for years, while it gets its local development plan under way. Thirdly, those amendments could place significant pressures on local authority resources. We have to be careful about overloading the development plan process with full technical appraisals. There will be upfront work required from planning authorities to prepare master plan consent area schemes, and we want to allow them the time and the space to do that properly when they are not caught up in the midst of working on their local development plan. Indeed, we have seen the implications of that in each of the pilots we are supporting, where the local authority planners have been trying to progress their scheme at the same time as they prepare their local development plan. This has led to resourcing issues and impacted on timescales. We need to learn from these very real experiences. Both the Renfrew town centre and Hillington Park SBZs were prepared outwith the development plan process. They were fully consulted on, but did not attract objections. To delay schemes like this, waiting for the local development plan is not necessary and would delay investment in places around Scotland, such as the £25 million the Hillington Park SBZ has generated for its local area. The preparation of schemes must not be limited to being twin-tracked with the preparation of the local development plan, and I would strongly urge the committee to reject these amendments to ensure that master plan consent areas are properly considered and taken forward by planning authorities at the most appropriate times in a way that they can have the greatest positive impact. Turning now to Mr Tomkin's amendments 299 to 301. The bill includes a duty in paragraph 5 of schedule 5A for authorities to publish a statement setting out how they have considered which parts of their area it would be desirable to make a scheme for to help bring this type of mechanism further to the fore in authorities' thinking. Under the current legislation, planning authorities are already required to consider in which part or part of their area it is desirable to create simplified planning zones for and to keep that question under review. But given the extremely limited number of zones that have come forward today, I'd say it's arguable that planning authorities have not been regularly considering this matter. Opportunities to radically reposition planning as a leader and an enabler of development should not be lost. So I've set out a more transparent approach where planning authorities have to regularly publish a statement of how they have fulfilled their duty to consider making schemes. It might be possible to link this with the local development plan delivery programmes which are to be updated annually. That could help to provide us and the wider community and industry with a picture of how each authority is considering delivery of their local development plans and the use of schemes as part of that. The bills provisions allow ministers to use regulations to prescribe minimum standards as to how frequently planning authorities must consider the question of which part or parts of their area it would be desirable to make a scheme for. Mr Tomkins' amendments would require authorities to do that at least once every five years. I'm happy to accept that requirement and leave it open to authorities to report more often if they so wish. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, and Monica, to wind up. Thank you, convener. I welcome the minister's remarks. It gives me an opportunity to come back. It's regrettable that we've heard quite a bit of scare mongering there. The minister began by saying that these amendments would be greatly damaging. If we can just go back a step, because what we have in front of us in the bill is proposals to shift local development plan making to a 10-year cycle. That provides a high-level document that sets out a vision and a 10-year strategy for an area. I welcome the fact that we will maintain a plan-led system in Scotland, but that's a highly discretionary system that allows very skilled planning professionals and their colleagues to apply the right discretion and flexibility. We hope to have a generation of local development plans that provide certainty and guide development. In a moment, minister, and guide development to the right places. I think that we all hope that these plans will remain flexible in their approach. I think that it would be unfair if we let it hang there that when it comes to shocks to local economies, businesses closing down and so on, that the sole responsibility to sort that out lies with planning departments. I can think of many times in the last few months when East Kilbrides, in particular, Scotland's first new town, has been closure after closure in the high street and business parts locally. I raised that with the former cabinet secretary for the economy. It took six weeks to get a response about what government could do to work with local government, and I had to raise that with the first minister to get a reply. It's not simply a case of what planning does. I don't think for a minute that planners would be sitting on their hands and not facing up to those challenges, but it's not planning alone. The minister talked about resource, and he thinks being resource intensive. I don't think that the biggest barrier is what isn't in the local development plan. Is the resource around the table not just in terms of having the right number of planners? We've talked at length about a 23 per cent reduction in the planning authority workforce since 2009. You can't be serious about economic growth when you're cutting council budgets and we're looking at that level of decline in the planning workforce. So what we do need are highly skilled planners, people who can do economic development, people who can do that, lead on with the private sector. So we don't get to a point, minister, where we have to react to shocks in the economy. We have robust local development plans and I have to say strategic development plans that can prepare for those challenges to our economy, but I'm happy to give way at this point, convener. I would have to say that, first of all, convener, that I'm not scaremongering. I'm giving very real examples of what can happen. I'm not saying that economic shocks in areas are the sole responsibility of planning departments far from it, but we have to be able to give people the tools to react to these difficult situations, which can arise even in the best of economic times. As I've clarified, master plan consent areas are a tool to support the plan's delivery rather than an integral part of the plan. So it's not necessary to trigger an amendment to an LDP whenever a scheme has to be made. Ms Lennon is not suggesting, I don't think, that LDP should be amended every time the planning authority grants planning permission. So why should they have to when they issue a master plan consent? Ms Lennon's amendment risks putting planners back on the constant treadmill of updating plans, rather than focusing on place making and delivery, which is ultimately what matters rather than added procedures. I'm finishing now, convener. We've included provisions around consultation, engagement and publication of master plan consent area schemes, so there's no need to amend a local development plan to ensure that those steps are carried out. Okay, thank you. Okay, so if I can go back to one of the reasons why I've put the amendments forward is because we all want to increase public confidence in the planning system. So we've talked at length about the local development plan making process and the need to get more people from the community around the table to make sure that we're making sensible decisions about the communities in which they live. If we have a situation where a local development plan has just been signed off, has just been adopted and then weeks later there's various different master plan consent areas coming forward, what does that say to the people who gave up their time to come to public meetings to get involved as stakeholders and things rapidly change? So I welcomed the minister's initial clarification this morning about the master plan consent areas. I think there's other worthwhile amendments which would curtail the minister's right to designate them because minister, you're not a planning authority. It's the planning authority that knows best about the area working with the community. So in principle, I've come round to the idea of your master plan consent area but I think it's really important that we maintain public confidence and that there is, I don't see the problem in making sure that this process is properly aligned with the local development plan. I don't think that anyone needs to be frightened that there's a lack of master plan consent areas. The most important thing for master plan consent areas to be effective is for hard cash to be available to invest into areas and it's not the planners that hold the push strings on these things so I think we have to remember that too. OK, thank you. Can I ask if you're going to press or withdraw? I'll be pressing the amendments. The question is that amendment 296 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 296? Those opposed? Sorry, three in favour, four opposed? 296 is not agreed to. Call amendment 297 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 296. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. Those in favour of amendment 297? Sorry, the question is that amendment 297 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. OK. Another head is not quite the same. Those in favour of amendment 297? Three, those opposed? Four, amendment 297 is not agreed to. I call amendment 251 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 232 in the minister to move formally. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 251 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 298 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 296. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 298 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 298? Three, those opposed? Four, amendment 298 is not agreed to. I call amendment 299 in the name of Adam Tompkins already debated with amendment 296. Graham Simpson to move or not move in behalf of Adam Tompkins. Move. The question is that amendment 299 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 300 in the name of Adam Tompkins already debated with amendment 296. Again, I ask Graham to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 300 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 301 in the name of Adam Tompkins already debated with amendment 296. Adam Tompkins to move or not move? Graham Simpson to move. The question is that amendment 301 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 93 in the name of Andy Wightman grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out the following pre-emptions. Pay attention. The amendment is agreed to. Amendment 95, amendment 9 and 9 amendment Jenna하다 착ryf ar snod threatenum is ideal. Members of the Parfцуke Amendment 14, songs of pain, mentions of social security amendment 19 and 24 amendment 6. Amendment League of Nations pay attention. Amendment 93 pre-empts Amendment 56 greet directions etcetera form publication. 95 priempts amendment 57 in group directions, etc., form and publications. Amendment 96 priempts amendment 254 and 255 in group simplified development zones renaming. Amendment 304 priempts amendment 256 in this group. After that, I ask Andy Wightman to make some sense of that, please, and to move amendment 93 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I suspect we'll have to make sense of some of this at a later stage. The amendments in this group, in my name, are designed to limit the power to initiate the designation of masterplan consent areas to planning authorities alone and to remove the various powers of ministers to direct planning authorities otherwise. In other words, masterplan consent areas are not to be considered as an alternative form of statutory planning application procedure open to anyone to pursue, including my sister in Switzerland, who featured in stage 1 debates. In our stage 1 report, we recommended that proposals for masterplan consent areas should form part of the local development plan and that only planning authority should have the statutory right to bring forward proposals for a scheme. This recommendation was never intended to prevent anyone, any party, including my sister in Switzerland, from requesting or suggesting or advocating that there be masterplan consent areas. It merely removes the statutory right to make such a request. Amendment 93 removes the power of Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority to make a scheme, and I move amendment 93 in my name. Amendment 14, in Graham Simpson's name, removes the statutory right of third parties to apply to have a scheme made and have the right of appeal where that is refused. Amendment 94 removes the power of direction of Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority to notify them of any proposed scheme. Amendment 95 removes ministerial powers of Colin. Amendment 96 removes the power of Scottish ministers to make or alter a scheme where a direction has been issued under paragraph 6, which said that paragraph 6 is deleted by amendment 93. Amendment 97 removes ministers' direction in making powers over procedures. Amendment 97 removes provision in schedule 5A, which I think I agree with, but I'll listen to what she has to say. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 14 and other amendments in the group. Thanks again, convener. Amendment 14 is one of those many amendments where it must be completely baffling to people what it actually means. It's one of those where you have to check the bill and see what lines 29 to 39 are and work out what it means if they go, so I can save members the effort of doing all that and explain. The amendment removes the power to request master plan consent area from third parties or individuals. During stage 1, Andy Wightman, as he's already said, referred several times to his sister in Switzerland and questioned whether she could request such a zone. I'm going to call this amendment the Andy Wightman's sister amendment because it makes a change to schedule 5A inserted into the 1997 act by section 10 of the bill so that it no longer allows for any person to request that an authority considers setting up a master plan consent area. That's achieved by deleting paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of schedule 5A. It's quite straightforward. It's what the committee recommended, so I'd urge the committee to support it. I welcome Monica Lennon's amendments 302, 303, 304 and Andy Wightman's amendments 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97, which he's already explained. Thank you very much. Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 302 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm supportive of the amendments to delete the minister's ability to direct planning authorities regarding simplified development zones. That's the amendment in Andy Wightman's name. Just to clarify for Andy Wightman my amendments 302, 303 and 304 are consequential to previously debated amendments 296, 297 and 298, which sought to tie simplified development zones into the local development plan timeline and procedure to prevent contradictory and parallel procedures. I explained to you that that was to ensure consistency and remove any potential duplication with the 97 act. I'm trying to follow this. Those amendments are consequential on amendments that have just been voted against, so I presume that Monica Lennon will not be pressing them. Oh, yeah, because Andy lost me the vote. We'll take the convener's advice. That would be the position of a thing. It's up to you. I'll give Andy Wightman a chance to change his mind, so I'll press him in. Okay, right. We'll see how we got on. I'll finish that by saying that, in support of Graham Simpson and Andy Wightman's amendments, I made a point earlier on that ministers are not planning authorities. They don't have the same expertise as a planning authority, and neither have they gone through the indirect process of consulting with the public and putting together a local development plan. I said previously that I'm happy for master plan consent here to be part of the tools that a planning authority can use to meet the needs of their local population, but I don't believe that they should be at the disposal of ministers. I'll finish there, convener. Thank you very much, Monica. Minister, to speak to amendment 256 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendments that we've heard about in this group would have a severe impact on the operation of this positive new part of the planning system. The process that we've set out for making or altering a master plan consent area is well thought through and we have been testing it in a series of pilot projects, as I've already mentioned. Our provisions are more streamlined than the existing provisions for preparing simplified planning zones. They ensure that appropriate and tailored engagement is carried out and that representations are taken into account. We have explored the new process with planners working on the simplified planning zone housing pilots who are grappling with the old legislation. They view our changes as a marked improvement. They are proportionate whilst ensuring greater early engagement. Ms Lennon's amendments 302 to 304 propose removing numerous sections of the process without replacing them with an alternative. I recognise that Ms Lennon sees this approach as supporting her other amendments that have already fallen to tie master plan consent areas to local development plans, but all of what she proposes would create a vacuum. To put it in simple terms, local development plans set out spatial strategy for a whole local authority area whilst master plan consent area zones issue actual consent for the development of a specific area with any associated conditions. I do not consider that the procedures and consultation requirements for local development plans are appropriate for master plan consent areas. I cannot see how Ms Lennon's amendments would allow both processes, again following on from my last situation, to function properly or be achievable in a reasonable timescale and with the resources that are available to planning authorities. I would ask Ms Lennon not to move those amendments. Mr Wightman's amendment seeks to take ministers out of the picture in relation to master plan consent areas. However, I do believe that there is value in ministers having these powers. The power to direct a planning authority to make or alter a master plan consent area scheme or for ministers to make or alter a scheme themselves could be used to very positive effect in Scotland, for example, to pursue the delivery of priorities in the national planning framework, which of course will have been fully scrutinised and approved by this Parliament. Ministers could also direct a scheme to be brought forward to support other projects of national or regional significance, for example, again in the case of a serious economic event like the closure of a major employer. A scheme instigated by ministers could help to drive forward action with all levels of government working together to enhance the place's prospects. As an example, there is a very similar provision in Ireland where orders can be made requiring a planning authority to prepare a strategic development zone scheme and bring it forward within two years. That has been used in a very positive way to deliver developments of national significance, including the redevelopments of Dublin docklands and strategic housing developments. That is not about centralisation or taking control away from local authorities. I do not anticipate that the power will be used often. I will actively encourage and support authorities to be proactively bringing forward master plan consent areas where they are clearly needed. In terms of notification and call-in, I am proposing that master plan consent areas should have fewer notification stages than the current simplified planning zone provisions require. The bill does not repeat the requirement for planning authorities to notify ministers as soon as they decide to make a master plan consent area or when they place it on deposit for representations. That is not necessary. I have taken a more proportionate approach allowing ministers to issue a direction setting out particular types of schemes that should be notified to them. That should work in a similar way to the notification of applications direction under which certain planning applications are notified to ministers where there are potentially issues of national importance involved. For example, that could be where there are objections from a statutory agency or where the planning authority has a financial interest in that master plan consent area. A scheme will issue a consent and, for consistency, I think that it is right that the planning authority should notify ministers of their intention to adopt the scheme just in some limited circumstances. Ministers intervene very rarely in planning applications, and I would expect that to be the case also for master plan consent areas. Amendment 97 deletes the provisions that would allow ministers to issue directions about procedure and provision of information. I would not expect to use that power on a regular basis. It is important to cover those unique situations where, in relation to a specific scheme, something specific should be done that would not be applicable to all schemes. Examples could include requiring the planning authority to consult a particular local organisation with a special interest in that scheme. Such case-specific requirements could not be predicted or set out in regulations but could be issued as a direction to the relevant authority. The power in paragraph 24.1b of the new schedule 5A could be used by ministers to require additional information from the planning authority to inform their decision as to whether they should call in a particular scheme before it is made. Those are important powers to have in place in the interests of full and proper engagement and in ensuring decisions made by ministers in exercising their functions are made on a fully informed basis. Amendment 14, put forward by Graham Simpson, would remove the power for a person to request a master plan consent zone to be made. That is an established process and we are not aware of any wider evidence or calls to remove it. It is worth looking at the Hillington simplified planning zone as an example. Since it was adopted, it has seen the planning authorities notified of approximately 28,000 square metres of additional floor space equating to over £25 million of investment in the area. That scheme was initiated by a party other than the planning authority. In the case of Hillington, that was the landowner, but it is not just removing a right of landowners. We see master plan consent areas as a positive delivery tool that can support all kinds of developments offering benefit to different types of groups. For example, a community group could request a scheme to support delivery of their local place plan on a business improvement district or local chamber of commerce might propose one to support town centre regeneration. It could be used to put in place the consents needed to help their vision to become a reality. That could also unlock funding streams for the community to take those plans forward. We have proposed a well-structured process for master plan consent areas. With proportionate powers for ministers to intervene in appropriate circumstances in line with similar arrangements for planning applications. The amendments proposed by members would leave that process unbalanced and full of holes and I would ask the committee not to support them. My own amendment in this group 256 is a technical amendment. It simply makes clear the exact day on which a period ends when the start and end months of a different number of days. Given the length of this group, I hope that we can avoid a debate on the wonders of the Gregorian calendar. I will take Mr Simpson. I will be brief. I have listened carefully to what the minister has said. He has made some cogent arguments around amendment 14. I will still be pressing it. From what he has said, there is an opportunity. I hope that he agrees to have further discussions about this and perhaps be rather more specific in the bill over who or what organisations could bring forward those areas. I am always happy to have further discussions. I am sure that the committee would not want to stop community groups and business groups in areas from putting forward their own vision. To conclude, there is considerable and growing support for planning to actively enable the delivery of high-quality development. Master plan consent areas will be an important tool in the box for achieving that. This part of the bill has been carefully designed and we have been working with authorities to fully test it out. I would ask the committee to reject amendments that will undermine our good work on this important area. However, in saying that, I am more than willing to have further discussions with people about aspects of this area of the bill. I welcome the observations of the minister. I think that the concerns that some of us had at stage 1 were that master plan consent areas confer or the process by which they could be applied for confer wide powers that could very easily pass planning authorities and give a lot of power to ministers to influence development against the wishes of planning authorities. That is where some of the concerns came from. I want to respond to the minister's arguments about places such as Hillingdon or chambers of commerce or community groups. Nothing in those amendments prevents any party, including my sister in Switzerland, advocating or requesting, suggesting, publicly campaigning for, tabling motions in local authorities to have master plan consent areas. Indeed, I think that there are very useful mechanisms, and I think that, potentially, many people should argue for them. All they do is remove the statutory right to have that application. I certainly want us to be moving over time to a more public-led model of development planning, rather than the system that we have at the moment that is dominated by private interests. I am content to revisit some of those amendments. I also want to say that I listened carefully to what the minister had to say, and, in light of his comments, I will not be pressing amendments 93, 96 or 97. I think that he gave some cogent reasons why those provisions are in the bill. I listened to what Graham Simpson had to say as well. I still support amendment 14. I think that it should only be introduced by planning authorities, but I also agree with Graham Simpson that we could perhaps have some further discussions to widen that out before stage 3. I am withdrawing 93. I shall not be moving 96 or 97. Thank you very much. Andy Wightman wishes to withdraw the amendment 93. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 56, in the name of Alexander Stewart, already debated with amendment 55. Alexander Stewart, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 56? Four, those opposed? Three, amendment 56 is agreed to. I call amendment 14, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 93. I remind members that amendment 14 pre-empts amendment 252. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 14? Four, those opposed? Three, the amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 302, in the name of Monica Lennan, already debated with amendment 93. Monica Lennan, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 94, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 93. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour? Four, those opposed? Three, 94 is agreed to. I call amendment 303, in the name of Monica Lennan, already debated with amendment 93. I remind members that amendment 303 pre-empts amendments 293 and 253. Monica Lennan, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 293, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 241. Minister, to move formally. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 293 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 293 is if agreed to. I call amendment 253, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 232. Minister, to move forward. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 253 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 95, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 93. I remind members that amendment 95, pre-empts amendment 57. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those agreed? Four, those opposed? Three, the amendment 95 is agreed to. I call amendment 96, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 93. I remind members that amendment 96, pre-empts amendments 254 and 255. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you very much for your support, Annabelle. Amendment 96 has not been moved. I call amendment 254, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 232. Minister, to move forward. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 254 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 254 is agreed to. I call amendment 255, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 232. Minister, to move forward. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 255 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 97, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 93. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 304, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 93. I remind members that amendment 304, pre-empts amendment 256, Monica Lennon, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. Amendment 256, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 93. Moved, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 256 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Therefore, the question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Right. Thank you. The question is that section 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 305, in the name of Lewis MacDonald, already debated with amendment 2. Welcome Lewis to the meeting and ask him to move or not move? Move to the meeting. Thank you. The question is that amendment 305 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 305. That's four. Those opposed. That's three. The amendment is agreed to. I think this may be an appropriate time to have a very brief break. If you can make it five minutes and come back. That would be great. Thank you. I call amendment 43, in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendments 44, 45 and 140. Andy Wightman, to move amendment 43 and speak to all amendments in the group. Section 102A of the Town, Country, Plans Scotland, in 1947 provided that the use of land for agriculture and forestry and the use for those purposes occupied together with the such land did not constitute development. That exception was restated in section 262E of the 97 act. Amendment 43 removes that exception and brings agricultural land use and forestry land use into the planning system by classifying such uses as development for the purposes of planning laws. There are a number of reasons why I think that this is right that this has been done. Section 57 of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 introduces the duty and ministers to prepare a land use strategy. Work on this is still ongoing, but it is a strategy that is spatial and covers rural land itself evident that such a strategy be part of a planning system in order to provide democratically accountable decisions to be made about two important land uses that cover extensive areas of land. It's worth noting that the impact of this will be minimal as far as agricultural land is concerned, since virtually no new land is coming into agricultural use that would constitute development. However, by bringing agriculture firmly within the planning system will allow for more coherent spatial planning in relation to hydrology, flood control, soil and vegetation management and the protection of vital areas for food growing. In relation to forestry, this is clearly a land use that is expanding and the impact of this change will be most keenly felt in this sector. Currently, Scottish planning policy provides for local forestry and woodland strategies in the form of supplementary guidance, and indeed Highland Council has been consulting this year on its latest such strategy. Given that forestry development has important implications for landscape, road infrastructure, hydrology, industry employment, et cetera, it should be governed by the planning system rather than as a present by a Government department, the Forestry Commission operating outside the spatial planning system. I move amendment 43 in my name, which I think I've already done. Thank you, you have, but… Amendment 44-45, introduced into primary legislation a definition of what constitutes a change of use in relation to a dwelling house that is intended to be used as a holiday home, that's amendment 44, or a short-term let, amendment 45. Currently, either of these two changes of use might constitute a change of use according to the land use class orders depending on the circumstances. Amendment 44 seeks to bring holiday or second homes as they are also known into the planning system. The Scottish Government defines such premises for council tax purposes as homes occupied for at least 25 days per year and not being the main residence of the owner, Scottish statutory instrument 2013-45. That means that those properties are only being occupied for specific times of the year with the majority of the time being left vacant. Data published by the national records of Scotland published in May this year indicate that there are 25,713 holiday homes in Scotland, although the true figure could be much higher, as it's been reported and it is known that owners are increasingly reclassifying properties as commercial holiday lets in order to take advantage of taxation loopholes, most notably the small business bonus scheme. Indeed, some councils such as the City of Edinburgh and Western Bartons no longer record how many second homes there are in their localities because of this complication. The impact of second homes on local housing markets has been a long-standing issue in rural Scotland and remains a serious problem in areas such as Apple Cross, Arran and the East Nuk of Fife, for example, in the neighbouring data zones of Ely and Erlsferry out of a total of 937 dwellings. 422 or 45 per cent of those properties are second homes and my understanding is that the local school has closed as a consequence. None of that has been governed by any planning decision made by a democratic planning authority. Over the summer, I conducted a consultation on this amendment that received responses from residents, industry and planning authorities. The Cairngorms National Park, for example, pointed to one of its publications, which called second homes, I quote, problematic and I quote, ineffective stock. Amendment 44 ensures that where a property is currently used as a main home and there's an intention to change this use to anything else, including use as a holiday home, this proposal cannot be given effect to without any consideration of the possible impacts on local housing markets and availability. That will allow planning authorities to regulate the use of domestic property to ensure the most appropriate balance between homes for local people and holiday homes for external interests. I turn now to amendment 45. Amendment 45 seeks to provide a clearer and simpler definition of what constitutes a change of use from a domestic dwelling to a short-term let. As members may be aware, I've been working on this topic for over a year in response to widespread concerns over the rapid growth in homes used, not for home sharing, where the owner rents out a rumour to or perhaps even a whole property for a few weeks, but still remains their home—that's historically been taking in lodgers—not concerns about that, but concern about commercial lets where the property ceases to be a domestic dwelling and is converted into a commercial property let-out for a short period of time, typically on global online platforms. Currently, short-term lets are not included in the town-country planning used-class Scotland's Order 1997. Class 7 covers hotels and hostels but does not include short-term lets. That means that the use is sui generis or otherwise in a class of its own, and that any proposal to change the use of a class 9 use, which is houses used as main or sole residences, to a short-term let is, on paper, a change of use requiring consent. However, currently, such a change of use has to be material before any consent is required, and the principal means of assessing materiality in Edinburgh and elsewhere has been to take account of the intensity and frequency of use by visitors. For example, an application for a certificate of lawfulness for a short-term let operating in South Queensbury without consent was refused on the basis that the intensity and frequency of use exceeded 30 per cent of the year. That and many other applications in Edinburgh have been upheld on appeal by the reporter. However, such assessments are incredibly time consuming, and to undertake and rely typically on neighbours documenting the comings and goings of visitors and submitting it as evidence of a breach of planning is hugely disproportionate. In addition, the current planning provisions are open to legal challenge. One case that was planned to be brought before the court of session by a woman who lives in California and uses her property in Edinburgh as a short-term let has been dropped but others are in the pipeline. What is required is a straightforward definition in planning law as to what constitutes a change of use, from a dwelling house to a short-term let. The key issue here is the distinction between a property used as a permanent home, a solo main residence, a place for a family to live and, on the other hand, as a commercial short-term letting property. Amendment 45 puts that distinction into law. The purpose of this amendment is not to prescribe the number and locations of short-term let, so that is a matter for planning authorities through their development plans and development control. Amendment 45 will allow them to develop policy and implement development control in a more effective and meaningful manner, however. Finally, I would note that a number of detailed issues have been raised in consultation responses that I received on this. Again, I will be publishing them and I shall be seeking to address them between now and stage 3. I invite members to support amendments 43, 44 and 45. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 140 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning to you, committee and minister. Amendment 140 and, in the later groups 10 and 12, the consequential amendments of 141 and 142 were initially submitted by myself to protect areas of flood risk from agricultural permitted development rights, which can proceed without a full planning application. An example of this in my own region saw permitted development rights used to ultimately develop housing on a flood plane. Land was raised under permitted development rights on a flood plane for the purposes of an agricultural shed. Although SEPA had concerns over this, it had no remit to give the permitted development rights status. The changes made the issue of the flood plane a serious concern, and unfortunately led by the developer to a subsequent successful application for housing, housing that had previously been declined. SEPA voiced their concerns over the application, given the history of the site. However, the decline by the local authority was overruled by the Scottish Government inquiry reporter. The reporter concluded that, as the land had been raised and was now out of the flood plane, it should not have been rejected. I do believe that this is a concerning loophole in the law as it stands. While I would stress that the developer was adhering to the planning process and did not breach it with the application for housing, it created tremendous anxiety and resentment within the community who were perplexed by a system that appeared not to be able to protect them. Only two years ago, we saw unprecedented destruction from flooding across the country due to adverse weather conditions, and the likelihood of this recurring increases with the climate change challenges that we face. It is therefore vital that we protect our flood planes and have legislation in place to do so. That means future proofing. However, following discussions with the Scottish Government and with SEPA, I am considering withdrawing those amendments and I understand that work is already under way looking at extending permitted development rights. I note that, in the sustainability appraisal scoping report, the removal of permitted development rights from areas of flood risk has been highlighted as an area for consideration. I am reassured that SEPA will be engaging further on this issue. That said, I am also hopeful of seeking reassurance from the minister today that this is the case and that he will also consider this issue within the national planning framework and the national policy review. Convener, as we move into this part of the bill dealing with development management and at the risk of sounding a bit like a stuck record, I would like to take a wee moment to reiterate the Government's purpose in bringing forward this bill. The aim is to streamline the planning system and remove unnecessary process for both planning authorities and applicants so that resources can be focused on creating great places and delivering the development that our communities need. There was very little in the bill as introduced on development management and this is because the independent panel did not find any major changes needed in this area. Decisions are made mainly by local planning authorities, led by the development plan, but also taking into account the material considerations that may be relevant to each case. Planning authorities have substantial flexibility in their ability to request additional information from the applicant, consider the individual local circumstances that apply in each case and impose conditions on the development if that seems necessary. There are practical issues that we need to address through training and guidance and improvements in technology, but we do not propose to change the basic system. The flexibility for planning authorities to consider what is relevant in each case is essential, given the wide range of issues the planning system deals with and the different circumstances that apply in each case. I recognise that many of the amendments that have been put forward seek to address important issues, but a blanket requirement in primary legislation is not always the best solution. The committee has agreed that, in future, policies should be an integral part of the development plan through both the national planning framework and the local development plan. That gives policy additional weight and scrutiny while still allowing planning authorities to decide which policies are relevant in individual cases. Members have said that they do not want the bill to be centralising, but many of those amendments would limit authorities' ability to deal with applications in a way that suits their local and individual circumstances and to balance the various issues involved to make the best decision in the overall public interest. Blanket statutory requirements also run the risk of imposing additional costs and delays in cases where they are not necessary. While the impacts of individual amendments may be small, I would ask members of the committee to consider the cumulative impact of all the amendments that have been put forward here. The first group of amendments relates to the meaning of development, what does or does not require planning permission. Essentially, section 261 of the 1997 act provides that building and engineering operations or any material change of use are development which requires planning permission. Section 262 excludes certain things from that, such as works that only affect the interior of a building or the use of a house and garden and maintenance of roads, sewers, water pipes and so on. Andy Wightman's amendment 43 seeks to remove the exclusion for the use of land for forestry or agriculture so that any material change of use for such purposes would require planning permission. It is not clear what the implications of that change would be and what sort of changes of use in relation to agriculture in forestry might be considered to be material and so require planning permission before they can be carried out. It would certainly have a significant impact on the sectors and the rural economy that they are part of, as well as on planning authorities. Even where planning permission was not required, people would need to stop and consider it and would perhaps request a certificate of lawful use or development just to be sure. All of this would introduce delays and costs to business and regulators. Some of the activities that would be brought into the planning system by this amendment are already regulated by other means. Environmental impact assessment regulations apply to propose us to carry out a range of agricultural operations and woodland creation projects where the result would have a significant impact on the environment. The legislative framework covering the regulation of forestry in Scotland is, of course, in the process of being modernised and forestry will be fully devolved to the Scottish ministers from April of next year. The updated regulatory regime has been consulted on widely and is expected to work effectively for landowners, local communities and consultees. It includes well-developed procedures for preparing and assessing forestry projects such as woodland creation, felling and restocking against internationally recognised sustainable forest management criteria. Irrigation, which would be brought into the definition of development by the removal of section 262A, is subject to control under other environmental regulations managed by SEPA. On the other hand, removing the clarification and subsection 2A that drainage and water management projects are development and therefore currently subject to planning controls could lead to some of those activities being left unregulated. Overall, I am concerned that this amendment would unravel an interlocking system of regulation resulting in possible duplication and adding unnecessary burdens and confusion. If I could turn to Claudia Beamish's amendment 140, which would require planning permission for any of the operations and activities that are currently exempt from planning control where certain flood risk criteria were met, the criteria themselves are not necessarily clear cut, as Ms Beamish has found in our discussion with our officials. It is not obvious how the person carrying out an activity would obtain the planning authorities opinion first. The wording is taken from the Flood Risk Management Scotland Act, but it relates to mapping and assessment at a strategic level and is not intended to be used in the planning system. The final clause is particularly broad. It applies to anything that affects those features, even if it improves them and could impact on clearing vegetation, even in gardens or on road verges. I am aware of some of the concerns about activities that are already classed as development, but are granted planning permission by permitted development rights, such as excavations and engineering operations for agriculture. What benefits from permitted development rights is, however, a separate matter from the definition of development and would be unaffected by that amendment. SEPA and local authority flooding officers already have a significantly and highly technical role in the planning system. Flooding is a material consideration and flood risk is considered fully through the system. Reducing flood risk is a priority for the Scottish Government, and we will be working through national planning framework 4 and Scottish planning policy in due course. We will consider, in discussion with SEPA and others, whether any changes need to be brought forward to strengthen policy in relation to development in areas of flood risk. We will also be reviewing permitted development rights after the bill, and I ask Claudia Beamish not to press her amendment, and I will be happy to include her in those discussions when the time comes. Turning to amendments 44 and 45, I share Mr Wightman's concern about the availability of homes in popular tourist areas. The Government has taken a number of measures to encourage the use of existing properties as main residences, allowing local authorities to remove council tax discounts on second homes and supporting the work of Scotland's empty homes partnership, which tackles the wide range of reasons a property may be empty and helps to provide case-by-case solutions for people. We also introduced the land and buildings transaction tax additional dwelling supplement in April 2016, which has made it more expensive to purchase second homes in Scotland. I am also aware of the concerns in parts of the country and particularly in Edinburgh about the effects on long-term communities of houses and flats being used for short-term letting. We need to consider how we can address those concerns whilst not undermining the economic benefits of tourism, particularly in areas that want to increase holiday accommodation. I am very sympathetic to the intention behind those amendments. However, there are some significant difficulties with the wording that mean that I cannot support them in their current form. I hope that Mr Wightman will be open to further discussion before stage 3 to see whether we can resolve some of those issues. Principally, the types of accommodation that are to be controlled by those amendments are not clearly defined. There is provision for ministers to issue guidance, but that does not allow us to refine what would require planning permission. Interpretation of legislation is a matter for the courts. Clearly, what is a holiday home or a second home or a short-term let does require detailed consideration of how long or how often or in what circumstances a property needs to be used to fall into those categories. If someone is working on an extended contract in another part of the country and rented accommodation, would one or other of the properties constitute a second home? If someone is staying in a short-term let on a business trip, is that different from a holiday let? I wonder if a provision for regulations might help to clarify those issues rather than guidance. Amendment 44 would change the definition of development to include any change in the use of a sole or main residence that changes its purpose. Although it refers in particular to use as a holiday home or second home, that does not exclude other changes in purpose. It is not clear, for example, whether that would include secondary uses such as turning one room into an office or child-minding facility, which currently do not necessarily require planning permission, and this needs to be clarified. Amendment 45 would exclude letting property, which is the sole or main residence of the landlord and residential leases from being considered short-term lets. However, under amendment 44, these might be considered to change the purpose of the dwelling, which would make those exemptions irrelevant. We must also be conscious of the implications of addressing these problems through planning legislation. First, they would apply across Scotland, requiring additional planning applications in areas that want to increase holiday accommodation, as well as those that see a need to control it. Secondly, creating a requirement for planning permission does not translate into being able to refuse permission if there are no material planning considerations involved, and it is not clear whether a change in how a dwelling is occupied would be a material consideration in all cases. Robust development plan policies would also be needed to ensure any decisions on applications could withstand challenge. Thirdly, neither amendment would affect existing second homes or short-term lets. Although owners may want to apply for certificates of lawful use that establish the planning status of their property, it may even create a premium price for existing properties in some areas, making it even harder to bring them back into use as a main residence. Fourthly, planning permission is a one-off decision and would not address the various concerns that have been expressed in relation to the management of short-term letting, such as health and safety and antisocial behaviour issues. Andy Wightman has written to me jointly with Alex Cole-Hamilton, Rhys Davison and Kezia Dugdale calling for the extension of licensing controls to short-term letting. In our exchanges and our recent parliamentary question, he sought clarification on whether any such licensing scheme would give all local authorities powers and allow them to decide whether to develop their own schemes or choose to have no scheme in line with local needs. That degree of local flexibility on the need for control would not apply with a national requirement for planning permission. We have made a commitment as a Government in the programme for government to consider this matter further. Look at what the evidence tells us and to ensure that local authorities have the appropriate powers to manage short-term letting. To this end, we have set up a short-term lets delivery group of officials from across Government. As I have said, I cannot accept these amendments in their current form, but I am happy to work with Mr Wightman in advance of stage 3 to see what we can bring forward to enable the planning system to contribute to addressing the problems. I would ask the committee not to support the amendments in this group. Thank you for your forbearance, convener, but I had to address a number of technical issues there. Thank you very much Minister. Andy Wightman, I apologise again, my apologies. Thank you convener. I will try to be brief, but this is an important group. If I can first of all address Andy Wightman's amendment 43, which seeks to bring agriculture and forestry in the meaning of development, committees have heard that it has had correspondence from the National Farmers Union Scotland on this. Their strong view is that it would be wholly impractical for farmers when going about their everyday business. They went on to say that it would introduce a vast burden for local authorities and potentially jeopardise food production in Scotland. They are strong words, convener, and I am pretty sure that Andy Wightman would not wish to jeopardise food production. As the minister said, it could have a significant impact on agriculture. To cut to the chase, we will not be supporting that amendment. If I can turn to Andy Wightman's amendments 44 and 45, which are slightly different, amendment 44 says that it should be regarded as a change of use requiring planning permission if a property stops being used as someone's main home and is used for, quote, any other purpose. With ministers issuing guidance on what is meant by that, as the minister said, that could include something like using a home as a child mining business or any other business for that matter. That is far too wide, far too vague, far too open to interpretation, so we will not be supporting that amendment. Amendment 45 is slightly different. Home is in specifically on people's homes being let out as short-term holiday lets. We have to be careful that the self-catering sector is very important. It generates £723 million a year in economic activity in Scotland and supports 15,000 full-time jobs. However, it must surely be right that local council can control things and can protect areas from losing their identity and their desirability as places to live permanently. We have to recognise there have been concerns in parts of the country over this, but particularly in Edinburgh. We think at this point that amendment 45 can be supported, but I would say to anyone in the sector who has misgivings to carry on talking to us. If changes are needed for stage 3, we will look at them. I hear the words of the minister that he is open to discussions around this. I would encourage him to move forward with that offer and talk to everyone. I am reassured by Claudia Beamish signalling her intent to perhaps withdraw amendment 140, which deals with flooding. I can see where she is coming from, but I do feel that the amendment that is currently drafted is too widely drafted for us to support at this stage, so hopefully she will withdraw that. Before I let Monica Lennon in, I looked round at the appropriate time to ask if Members wanted to get in. Nobody was indicating that they did. In the future, can we just make sure that before the minister or the last speaker response that you draw, you catch my eye? Monica Lennon You are very fair. It is hard to catch your eye when we are sitting side by side, but I will be very brief. Amendment 43 would represent a major shift in where decision making power lies when it comes to forestry. I do not believe that a shift would be without its merits, but I would like more time to speak to colleagues and other stakeholders on this change. I have not abstained on any vote yet with the bill, but I will abstain today. I would like to speak to Andy Wightman further about that amendment. I think that the minister made some really valid points on amendment 44. It takes me back to my development management days and reminds me, convener, that I should have declared my register of interests as a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, so I think that there could be unintended consequences of 43. It needs a bit more work, so I am not going to support that. In contrast, amendment 45 is more tightly drawn, so I will echo some of Graham Simpson's remarks, so I will support 45 today, convener. Thank you very much. Now, Andy Wightman, could you wind off? Andy Wightman Thank you very much, convener. To cut to the chase, I will be withdrawing amendment 43 when it comes to the vote, and I will not be moving amendment 44. The minister talked about some places wanting to control, i.e., limit, and some places wanting to increase short-term lets. That is precisely what the planning system is there to do, to provide planning authorities with the means to regulate the use of land and property in the way that they see fit. The essence of 45 is to draw a distinction between property that is a home, that is someone's main home, and property that is no longer a main home. That seems to me to be a legitimate and very valid distinction between two very separate uses. Now, as I indicated in my remarks, my main difficulty with your amendment 45 is about the definition, which is not within that amendment. I am, as I say, more than happy to have further discussions with you and with other members to see how we can deal with that. However, I cannot support an amendment at this moment in time, which is not giving the full story and all of the information that is required. I am more than happy to have the discussions with Mr Whiteman, convener, and with any other member to get that right. However, I am not happy to support amendment 45 at this moment. I understand that. There is drafting in 45. I indicated that in my opening remarks that there is drafting work to be done. As I say, the key distinction here is between a solo or main residence, which is language that appears in 44, but does not appear in 45, I concede that, and property that is not. We have planning authorities right across the country who are deciding or determining applications to build self-catering accommodation. I can give you any number of them during the course of my research. Typically, those consents are granted because people want to support the tourism economy, and typically such consents prohibit the use of such property as a solo or main residence. Planning authorities are not unused to doing that kind of regulation. The problem that we have in terms of short-term commercial lets, particularly the conversion of existing homes to commercial letting, whether it is no longer somebody's home, is that the materiality of that change is currently being assessed on the basis of intense tune frequency views, which is a virtually impossible task to do. Notwithstanding that, Edinburgh has over 100 enforcement actions out on those grounds, but it is not easy. I noted in the programme for government the commitment to bring forward or to explore licensing powers. I want to be clear about the distinction between licensing and planning. For example, in the Licensing Scotland Act 2005 on alcohol premises, the first condition one has to satisfy in that legislation if one is applying for a licence is that the premises from which one intends to conduct that activity of selling alcohol has got planning permission for that purpose. That is the first test that you have to satisfy. Similarly, for short-term lets, I would envision a licensing process that is designed to ensure that standards are adhered to in fire and safety and gas safety checks and all the rest of it. I would envisage circumstances in which those licences could only be granted to premises that had planning consent for that use. I reiterate that the current means by which that planning consent is being granted is on a very difficult time-consuming means by which intensity and frequency of use is the key criteria. I will be pressing amendment 45. I want to get this on to the bill and I want to say in unambiguous terms to the minister that I very much welcome sitting down with him at the earliest possible opportunity to make sure that we bring greater clarity within the planning system on what constitutes a change of use in this field because it is the necessary precondition to any licensing scheme that might be brought forward. If it is not, the danger of any licensing scheme is that a licensing process being quasi-judicial and having limited discretionary grounds for refusal, one may very well find that a licence is granted for a short-term let in circumstances where that is introduced. However, the property from which that activity is planned to be carried out does not have planning consent and that seems to be a bizarre state of affairs. I will be with drawing 45, not moving 43, and I am moving 45. Andy Waiman wishes to withdraw his amendment 43. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? Thank you for that amendment that is withdrawn. Call amendment 44 in the name of Andy Waiman already debated with amendment 43. Move or not move? Not move. Thank you. And amendment 45 in the name of Andy Waiman already debated with amendment 43. Move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is amendment 45 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment is passed. I call amendment 140 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 43. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. The question is therefore that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 207 in the name of Pauline McNeill. I do it with amendments as shown in the groupings and I notice that Pauline is not here. Has she made any indication? She doesn't plan to move it so much. Right, okay. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 228 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This amendment is in the same vein as my amendment 220, which did not pass, which members will recall was to establish a low-carbon infrastructure commission with responsibility for establishing national infrastructure needs assessments. Amendment 228 places an additional requirement on applications for planning permission for a national or major development. It would require developers to include a national infrastructure needs assessment within the meaning referred to in 220. The amendment stands in its own right, so I will explore it briefly today with members forbearance. As the most substantive amendment did not pass, I will not press this amendment today, however, but I would reiterate that there is a high level of investment. When there is a high level of investment in a development, it should last for a considerable distance into the future, and it is vital that those developments are in line with a low-carbon future. In view of the international panel on climate change report on the need for emissions to be below 1.5, this is now even more of an imperative. We must not build any infrastructure that will need retrofitting or become quickly out of date. I would welcome any comment on 228 in that context, and I would consider bringing forward something at stage 3, if that is appropriate, to ensure that we design infrastructure and major developments that are appropriately future-proofed. John Finnie, to speak to amendment 229 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I will restrict my comments to this particular amendment, which is about inserting further consideration into the Town and Country Planning Act 1997, after section 32. That would involve an instance where an application for planning permission is made by a local authority or a health board. The application must include evidence that matters of population growth and population projection have been considered in relation to the development to which the application applies. That would be an evidence position, and that evidence could indeed be drawn by the local development plan and the local housing strategy. I will give examples of where I think this had it been in place would have helped, for instance, and I'll spare the authority of the blushes, but if, for instance, a primary school were constructed and on day one it was found to be grossly inadequate to the needs of the population, then that will result in additional costs, additional disturbance in the neighbour, a further build. Similarly, with health authorities, particularly with challenges in rural areas, understanding population and the impact that that can have can affect capital building programmes, too. Longer term, things like the relationships between housing and employment could have a factor on, and strange though it may seem, we'll come to that at a future date. The issue of demolition of property could be covered by that, too, particularly if, like me, you want to see areas that were previously populated, repopulated, such as many highland glens and other rural areas. The minister in my previous intervention encouraged us to stop and consider, while I would hope that issues of population and population growth should be considered a mediatorial fact, and I hope that members will support that amendment. 113, in my name, would require ministers to bring forward regulations about the types of health impacts that have to be considered. It's basically about making sure that there are health impact assessments for major and national developments. I've had a whole sort of package of amendments to this bill that are health-related, and that's because planning has the ability to impact and also transform our physical and mental health. Some of the things that could make it into a health impact assessment could be housing quality, access to natural environment, pollution, walking cycling routes, car dependency—I'm sorry, I was getting distracted there. I bring into sharp focus the positive and negative impacts that development and planning decisions can have on health. There's another toolkit available to planning decision makers. I do believe that it's proportionate because it would only apply to national and major developments, which are of a scale that's likely to have potential impact on significant numbers of people. Daniel Johnson isn't able to be here, so I'll also move amendment 307, in Daniel's name, and that would ensure that MSPs, MPs and councillors in a locality must be informed when a major development application is made in their constituency. I think that's quite straightforward and to be commended. Alex Rowley, to speak to amendment 114. This amendment aims to bring about greater information and transparency on the impact of a development on the capacity of local public services. I believe that this is an issue that I certainly have experienced in five, but I believe that it's an issue across Scotland. There is a requirement on the developer to consult with public authorities and bring forward, as part of the application, a report that sets out what the impact would be or the potential effects on capacity. The amendment also means that local authorities would have to take that into consideration when determining a planning application and would be able to take the opportunity through the 675 planning obligation to negotiate that. I thought that there was a note that came around yesterday, last evening, from Homes for Scotland, which I actually thought was helpful, although it was in opposition to the amendment, but I think that it was helpful in the sense that what it states is that it's important to anticipate and plan for the infrastructure needs of Scotland's grown population. I think that we would all absolutely agree with that. It then says, but Alex Rowley's amendment 114 seems to support the unsustainable tenant that those who build new homes should be responsible for their customers' other needs. There is, I would argue, a responsibility, both in terms of the developer, but also in terms of the planning authority, that if you, for example, are building x-amount family homes for children, then there is a responsibility to say that there should be the education facilities in place in those local communities for those children. That does not necessarily mean that it is the responsibility of the developer to then pay for a new school, but the developer may have a responsibility if that puts pressure on the capacity within a school to ensure that there is the additional classroom, for example. There is an interesting potential amendment. It's modelled on the environmental impact assessments that are required in certain instances. One of the problems with environmental impact assessments, particularly for major developments, is that they are drawn up and paid for by the applicant and are frequently found to be deficient. Indeed, there's a strong argument for taking it out of the hands of applicants when it's something as important as environmental impact assessments. The danger, presumably, is that if the applicant has to prepare a report about a proposal that would impact on education, health, leisure facilities, they'll be motivated to try and minimise those impacts. Surely planning authorities at the moment have provision in planning laws at stands, section 75 agreements, et cetera, to ensure that any consequential other services that need to be upgraded can be upgraded. Indeed, I'm aware of many planning determinations that have been made that are sitting their own hold awaiting the construction of a new school or a new GP surgery. I'm just wondering what the added value of requiring the applicant to prepare this report would be. I think that the next point for Homes for Scotland feeds into your point. Applicants, in any case, have no hope of being able to prepare this information in the absence of information from public authorities. The responsibility would be on the applicant to have dialogue with the public authorities so that the public authorities would need to respond and say what the implications of that development would be. If you take an example of where you live in the village of Kelty at the current time, the local development plan set out for a development of 900 houses, there was no input for NHS 5 work consulted, there was no input for NHS 5, and there is no mention within that proposal that will have any impact on local NHS services. The local health centre has repeatedly written out to the planning authority and objected to the application on the basis that, if that development goes ahead, it would not have the capacity within the existing health centre, within the physical building, to be able to take people from that development or people moving into the village on to their books. They have been quite clear that they would have to close their list, not in terms of just simply a GP but of being able to provide the rounded medical services that would be required to service 900 homes. In discussion with the developer, the developer has agreed to make a contribution, but then in discussion with the planners, the head of planning in 5, their response was that that could not be linked to a section 75 agreement because the NHS 5 had never identified at the local plan stage that there was a health need that would go with those 900 houses. The point that I am making is that by putting the responsibility on to the applicant to consult with the local public authorities, he would bring about a greater transparency because those local health authority or whatever the authority is would have to respond. If they did not respond when it came to the application stage, it would be clear that they had not responded. The responsibility in taking it to the next stage sits with the authority as well as with the applicant. They also go on homes for Scotland, which is, I think, another impressive point, present the ability of those authorities to provide this information or to calculate it in a way that is reliable and proportionate is not where it should be. Homes for Scotland, the representatives of the developers, are saying that the authorities and their ability to calculate that information at the current time is not where it should be. That needs to be addressed and, as part of a requirement, putting the onus for the developer, for the health authority or whatever authority to respond would mean that that information would need to be brought forward. They also say that infrastructure requirements of planned development, both shown on maps and as required by the wider policies and targets, should be anticipated years ahead of the application stage by the public authorities responsible for meeting the needs of society. That is not happening. There is nowhere in the current legislation that suggests that that should take place. I think that that has been a really helpful exchange. It just strikes me that for major planning applications, which talks about major development, there is already a requirement to do early consultation with stakeholders and communities. The type of questions that the public asks when they come along to those events—I am sure that we have all been along to them—is about what will impact be on local schools and local health services. If you are a developer and you come to those events and you do not understand the area and you have not done that baseline work to understand the data, you are not really bringing a well-thought-out proposal. I accept that there might be issues around data sharing in the public sector, but, by putting the onus on the applicant, that could only improve good practice. Is Alex Rowley saying that the critique of that report would still lie with the planning authority to look at the numbers, understand the data and, hopefully, get the best outcome for communities? At the end of the day, if an applicant comes forward and says that there will be no impact on health—take my example, the village that I live in, where there are 900 houses to be built and the view is that there would be no impact on health—that can be challenged at the planning stage—but it means that, as the application is submitted, the application says quite clearly that they have consulted with the different authorities and this will be the impact on local public services. The current time is not working and houses are being built and built and built. On the pressures being put on public services, just look at the incredible— I will alienate you for that. It is important, convener. Just look at the incredible situation with education in the Dunfermline Eastern expansion, where there is catchment review after catchment review, kids being put further and further away from their communities because nobody properly planned for the education of the children in that major development. That cannot be allowed to continue and, therefore, we need to get some kind of legislation in there that ensures that the impact on local services is very clear when these developments are being put forward at the early planning stage. Thank you. I am sorry, Graham, and then yourself. Graham, you wanted to come in. Convener, I am well aware that we are up against the clock here, so I am very happy not to speak to this group. I have listened carefully to what Mr Rowley has said. As the constituency MSP for Caginbeath, I am well aware of issues that are raised constantly by constituents across the constituency with concerns about how the planning process interfaces with a look at health service impact. However, I would have thought, looking at taking into account all circumstances, including particularly considering potential inherent conflicts of interest, that it would be the planning authority that would be best placed to consider and deal with the health service capacity impacts. It is the local planning authority, and I would have thought, in terms of the present situation, that is what they routinely should be doing in any event. In terms of the bill, the member may be aware that, in fact, further to amendments that have been passed by this committee at stage 2, there are a number of changes that will be coming to ensure that, for example, the local development plan takes into account the capacity of health services, and that the local development plan also looks at issues of the impact on education services, and that the national planning framework considers the impacts of the development on the capacity of existing health services in the area. I appreciate that the member is not currently a member of this committee, but he may not have been aware that, actually, the committee has been looking at these issues very carefully, these very important issues, and further to discussion in committee has agreed that these issues should indeed be far more front and centre focused in the planning process. So, for those reasons, I think that we have moved on apace from what the member is talking about, and I will be not supporting that particular amendment for those reasons. Okay, thank you very much, Annabelle. Minister? Can I ask for some clarity, First Convener? Is amendment 2207, in the name of Pauline McNeill, and the amendment 210? It will not be moved. It has not been moved. It will be moved or it won't be moved? It won't be moved. It's not been moved. It's not been moved. It's 210. Oh, nine and ten. Sorry. It's not been moved. It's Daniel Johnson's. Yeah, 207 to 9 to 10. You're not—those won't be moved. No. Okay. Right, so we'll miss out Pauline McNeill, and we'll move straight on to amendments 228, 229 and 114, which all require applications to include information that relates to the capacity of infrastructure and services. These are, of course, key issues that planning authorities must consider, and, in particular, they should be considered in development planning in partnership with other parts of the local authority and community planning partnerships. One of the aims of having a chief planning officer is to make sure that the planning service is fully involved in on-going conversations about the capacity of services and where additional provision is needed. That information will then be taken into account in considering applications, but I don't believe that those proposals put the responsibilities in the right places. Amendment 228 from Claudia Beamish appears to require an applicant for a national or major development to submit a national infrastructure needs assessment as prepared by the Low Carbon Infrastructure Commission proposed in Ms Beamish's amendment 220. Since that amendment was not agreed, this provision now has nothing to refer to, and I hope that Claudia Beamish will withdraw that amendment. Of course. I thank the minister. It's simply to ask the minister if he recognises the importance of these issues in terms of future-proofing major infrastructure projects and if he could clarify how that is being done or will be done if it's not in this place. Well, one of the things that we are doing, conveners, many folk are aware, is ensuring that the next national planning framework will be aligned with national transport strategy to get that absolutely right. At a regional and local level, one of the things that I have argued not only as a minister, not only as an MSP but also as a councillor, that local authorities need to take more cognisance of their local development plan when they are putting together their capital spending plans to make sure that there is alignment in that regard. If I can turn to Mr Riley's amendment 114, which would similarly require applicants to prepare a report for any major development on the likely effect on a range of services, Scottish ministers would be required to make regulations on what consideration is to be given to those issues before planning permission is granted. It would also require such a report to be considered before the planning authority enters into a planning obligation. The amendment specifies a somewhat arbitrary category of development and a list of issues that must be considered in all cases. It seems to me unlikely, convener, that a large wind farm would have any impact on the services, for example, while a relatively small housing estate that would not count as a major development could have a significant impact in a particular area. There is also no detail on how those assessments are to be carried out, and it leaves it to the applicant to decide what other public amenities might be relevant. However, the information on the capacity of those services lies with the local authority and the local health board anyway. Surely they are better placed to consider the impact of new development on their services, rather than an applicant. The planning authority is already legally obliged to consider those issues where they are relevant. The amendment would only add a necessary process to the system, and I cannot support it. Mr Finlay's amendment 229 would require that all applications for planning permission from health boards and local authorities include evidence of consideration of population growth and projections. As I said before, it is important to carefully define the developments affected by such requirements. In this case, the requirement would apply to all applications by local authorities and health boards, no matter how small the development is, so even making a new entrance to a building or putting up a fence would count in those regards. On the other hand, applications relating to new service provision may not necessarily be made by the health board or the local authority, they may be made by a private sector development partner or a separate provider, such as a GP or dental practice. I do not believe that this amendment hits the mark that it is aiming at. Discussions on population projections and the need for a new service provision should be happening at the development planning stage and be taken into account in all relevant cases that information should not need to be provided separately for each application. The amendment would add a necessary requirement that I think in many cases would be irrelevant to many of the applications that it applies to. Indeed, I will take Mr Finlay. Will the minister accept that there is always discretion to go into layers of detail? In any case, that information should be readily available to informed decision making? It is the definition again of the amendment, which I have spoken to you on many occasions during the passage of this bill. If any member requires help with definition and getting an amendment right, I am more than happy for them to talk to officials as Ms Beamish and certain others have around about this. If Mr Finlay wants to talk to officials about how he wants to actually get this spot on, I am happy for him to do so, but I hope that he does not press his amendment today. Amendment 113 in the name of Monica Lennon would require Scottish ministers to make regulations on the consideration of health effects before planning permission is granted for major or national developments. Health can indeed be a material consideration in deciding an application depending on the nature of the development and other circumstances in the case. Where it is a material consideration, planning authorities are required to consider it. Part of the vision of the national planning framework is the creation of living environments that fosters better health. Of course, we will be reviewing that together with relevant parts of Scottish planning policy after the bill. In addition, the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Scotland's regulations 2017 include requirements to consider significant environmental impacts regarding, among other things, population and human health. Those regulations have their own detailed list of criteria regarding the applications to which they apply. That may not necessarily cover every single major or national development, but it identifies those where such assessment is relevant, including some local developments. I therefore believe that we have sufficient provision in place to allow for consideration of health impacts where appropriate, and I do not support amendment 113. I will take an intervention from Ms Lennon. The issue that has been frustrating locally where I am in South Lanarkshire is that, for some major applications, let us just use the example of an incinerator. Stakeholders have been told that health would be considered at a later stage by SEPA through the licensing regime, so it is not always the case that health is front-loaded and fully considered by planning authorities. Does that mean that planning authorities are not upholding the law and planning requirements, or is there a lack of guidance that facilitates consistency across Scotland? As Ms Lennon is well aware, as she raises the issue on a regular basis, I cannot comment on live applications. I will ensure that officials write to Ms Lennon on all the details and guidance that are applied in those cases. I think that Ms Lennon said that she was going to move 209 from Mr Johnson. Is that correct? No, no, no, she was going to move 307. Right. Let me turn to 307. I am not aware of any particular calls for councillors MSPs and MPs to be directly notified of planning applications. All local authorities publish weekly lists of new applications for planning permission, which are available on their websites, and information relating to major applications can easily be extracted from authorities' online systems. Major developments will also have been subject to pre-application consultation, including local advertising, and may have been included in the consultation process for the local development plan. I should warn members that, as drafted, the amendment would require notification of a range of subsidiary applications for approval, in addition to the main planning permission. List MSPs in particular may find that they receive more notifications than they might expect. However, this is not a significant burden for planning authorities, and I am happy to support the amendment. Thank you very much. Can I ask Claudia Beamish to wind up? I do wish to wind up. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. In that case, can I call amendment 228 in the name of Claudia Beamish? Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not moved. Press or withdraw? Press or withdraw, so I apologise. Sorry. Withdraw. Withdraw, thank you. Claudia Beamish wishes to withdraw her amendment. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? In that case, the amendment is withdrawn. Call amendment 229 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 207. John Finnie to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 229 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of the amendment? Those opposed? The amendment falls 7-0. I call amendment 113 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 207. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Those opposed? Those opposed? Those opposed? The amendment is carried. Call amendment 114 in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 207. Alec Rowley to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 114? One. Those opposed? Six. The amendment falls. The question is that sections 13 and 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 181 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 2. Minister to move formally. Move, Candela. Thank you. The question is that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of amendment 181? Those opposed? The amendment 181 falls 4-3. I am delighted to say that that brings us to a close of the planning bill stage 2. Day 5 of the planning bill, day 5 of stage 2 will take place on the 31st of October when the committee's target is the end of section 26. Any further amendments for provisions up to that point should be lodged by 12 noon on the Thursday 20th of October tomorrow. Day 7, do we vote on that? Yes. Oh no, that can't be right. That can't be right. We didn't vote on 3-0-7. Yep, 3-0-7 is it next time? Does that come through 3-0-7? Yeah, that will come through next time. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can I get clarity in terms of where you intend to be to next? Right, okay. Day 5 of stage 2 will take place next Wednesday Now the committee's target is the end of the section 26, which is a bit ambitious I suspect, if we will, we are just now. Any further amendments for provisions up to that point should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday. Yeah, close the meeting. I thank the minister and close the meeting.