As we move to the part of the bill that deals with development management, I would like—at the risk of sounding like a stuck record—to take a moment to reiterate the Government’s purpose in introducing the bill. The aim is to streamline the planning system and remove unnecessary process for 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. That is because the independent panel did not find that any major changes were needed in that area. The decisions that are made—which are made mainly by local planning authorities—are led by the development plan, but the material considerations that may be relevant to each case are also taken into account. Planning authorities have substantial flexibility in their ability to request additional information from the applicant, to consider the individual local circumstances that apply in each case and to 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 that basic system.
The flexibility for planning authorities to consider what is relevant in each case is essential, given the wide range of issues that the planning system deals with and the different circumstances that apply in every case. I recognise that many of the amendments that have been lodged 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 the 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 that are involved in order 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 in which they are not necessary. Although the impacts of individual amendments may be small, I ask members of the committee to consider the cumulative impact of all the amendments that have been lodged.
The first group of amendments relate to the meaning of development with regard to what does or does not require planning permission. Essentially, section 26(1) of the 1997 act provides that building and engineering operations, or any material change of use, are development, which requires planning permission. Section 26(2) excludes certain things from that, such as works that affect only the interior of the building, ordinary use of a house and garden, 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 such a change would be—for example, what sort of changes of use in relation to agriculture and forestry might be considered to be material and would therefore require planning permission before they could be carried out. It would certainly have a significant impact on those sectors and the rural economy of which they are part, as well as on planning authorities. Even where planning permission was not required, people would need to stop and consider it, and perhaps request a certificate of lawful use or development, just to be sure. All of that would introduce delays and costs to business and regulators.
Some of the activities that would be brought into the planning system by amendment 43 are already regulated by other means. Environmental impact assessment regulations apply to proposals 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 that covers the regulation of forestry in Scotland is in the process of being modernised, and forestry will be fully devolved to the Scottish ministers from April 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 26(2A) of the 1997 act, is subject to control under other environmental regulations, managed by SEPA. On the other hand, the removal of the clarification in subsection (2A) that drainage and water management projects are development, and are therefore currently subject to planning controls, could lead to some of those activities being left unregulated.
Overall, I am concerned that amendment 43 would unravel an interlocking system of regulation, resulting in possible duplication and adding unnecessary burdens and confusion.
I 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 found in a discussion with our officials. It is not obvious how the person carrying out an activity would obtain the planning authority’s opinion first. The wording is taken from the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, but it relates to mapping and assessment at a strategic level and is not intended to be used in the planning system.
The final subsection of amendment 140 is particularly broad; it applies to anything that affects the 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 which 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 the amendment.
SEPA and local authority flooding officers already have a significant 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 and 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 has been passed. I ask Claudia Beamish not to move her amendment. I will be happy to include her in the discussions when the time comes.
I turn 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 why a property might 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 of course aware of the concerns in parts of the country, particularly 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 while not undermining the economic benefits of tourism, particularly in areas that want to increase holiday accommodation.
I am very sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments. However, there are significant difficulties with their wording, which means 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 these issues. Principally, the types of accommodation that would be controlled by the 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, defining what is a holiday home, second home or short-term let requires detailed consideration of for how long, how often or in what circumstances a property needs to be used in order to fall into those categories. If someone is working on an extended contract in another part of the country and is living in 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 whether a provision for regulations might help to clarify those issues better than guidance would.
11:30
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 second home or a holiday home, it does not exclude other changes in purpose. For example, it is not clear whether that would include secondary uses such as turning one room into an office or a childminding facility, which currently do not necessarily require planning permission. That needs to be clarified.
Amendment 45 would exclude a residential lease and a letting property that is the sole or main residence of the landlord from being considered to be a short-term let. However, under amendment 44, such properties might be considered to change the purpose of the dwelling, which would make those exemptions irrelevant.
We must be conscious of the implications of addressing such problems through planning legislation. First, the proposals would apply across Scotland, requiring additional planning applications in areas that want to increase holiday accommodation, as well as in 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 that any decisions on applications could withstand challenge.
Thirdly, neither amendment would affect existing second homes or short-term lets. Although owners might want to apply for certificates of lawful use that establish the planning status of their property, the proposals might 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, Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale, calling for the extension of licensing controls to short-term letting. In our exchanges on a 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 in the programme for government to consider the matter further, to look at what the evidence tells us and to ensure that local authorities have the appropriate powers to manage short-term letting. To that end, we have set up a short-term lets delivery group of officials from across Government.
As I have said, we cannot accept the amendments in their current form, but I am happy to work with Mr Wightman in advance of stage 3 to see what we can take forward to enable the planning system to contribute to addressing the problems. I ask the committee not to support the amendments in this group.
Thank you for your forbearance, convener; I had to address a number of technical issues.