Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Official Report 613KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development and Use Classes) (Scotland) Miscellaneous Amendment Order 2023 (SSI 2023/35)

Agenda item 2 is evidence on a Scottish statutory instrument from Tom Arthur, Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth. Mr Arthur is joined by Tom Winter, head of development delivery at the Scottish Government. I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here to provide clarification on what we are doing around permitted development rights and the use classes order.

As you will be aware, the Government is carrying out a substantial review of permitted development rights as part of its wider planning reform programme. The review is being taken forward on a phased basis, with each phase focusing on new and extended permitted development rights for specific types of development. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 grants planning permission for certain types of development. They are known as “permitted development rights”.

Permitted development rights—PDR—help to provide certainty and save the time and expense associated with applying for planning permission. Phase 2 of the review has focused on new permitted development rights and changes to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 related to electric vehicle charging infrastructure, town centre changes of use and ports.

A 12-week public consultation on proposed changes was carried out between May and August last year. The statutory instrument will bring into force a package of measures stemming from that consultation. The measures it contains will help to support the roll-out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure across Scotland, including modern high-powered chargers; promote the resilience and recovery of Scotland’s centres; and provide greater flexibility to Scotland’s port operators.

I understand that the committee seeks clarification on the provisions that are intended to support our city, town and local centres. In summary, they provide greater flexibility to change the use of certain buildings and place furniture outside specified hospitality premises. Taken together, the changes are intended to meet a number of aims: to make places more vibrant and welcoming by encouraging the use of outdoor spaces and the reuse of vacant shops and other premises; to promote diverse and mixed uses in our centres, helping them to become more responsive to changing circumstances; and to encourage local enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation as well as the establishment of 20-minute neighbourhoods.

The permitted development right that allows hospitality businesses to place furniture on the pavement adjacent to their premises without a planning application will simplify the process by reducing the number of separate consents that need to be sought. At present, placing furniture on a public road requires the consent of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 if it would cause an obstruction. Planning permission might be required if the works are taken to involve development. Local authority licensing may also apply.

Although the new regulations grant planning permission for furniture on pavements, they do not withdraw other controls addressing safety or access issues using roads legislation and local licensing requirements. The new PDR makes it clear that consent from the local council, in its capacity as the roads authority, continues to be required if placing furniture on the road under the PDR would cause an obstruction. Section 59 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 states that the consent of the roads authority is required before anything, such as furniture, is placed on a road if it would cause an obstruction. The definition of “road” includes the pavement. A roads authority can refuse consent or impose conditions if it thinks that an obstruction will have an unacceptable impact on access or safety. Placing something in a road that causes an obstruction without the relevant consent is an offence. Roads authorities have powers to remove obstructions and recover the cost of doing so.

We have been keenly aware, throughout this phase of the programme, of the potential for furniture that is located in the public realm to cause obstruction and adversely impact on accessibility. Public spaces should be as accessible as possible. We recognise that street furniture, if located insensitively, can create difficulties for disabled people. That is why accessibility considerations were explicitly highlighted in the public consultation process and we specifically sought views on those points.

It is important to reiterate that other existing controls will continue to apply. Those controls ensure that authorities can continue to restrict and remove furniture that has an unacceptable impact on safety or access. The measures strike a sensible balance between supporting hospitality, by removing overlapping consenting processes, while retaining proportionate controls over obstructions that block pavements and the public realm.

On that, I conclude. I am happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much for that opening statement. I am sure that we will have a number of questions to go a little bit deeper.

I will start with policy objective 1B, which is on centres. During the pandemic, great work was done on spaces for people. The idea was to move towards a more European approach, with outdoor spaces to create interaction between people and outdoor activity. The measure is commendable in that sense, but we have a number of concerns. You will be aware of the concerns that have been raised by the Royal National Institute of Blind People and by Living Streets around how, if there is a problem, those communities find a way to have changes made. I know that you laid it out but, if there were a problem, how would it work in effect? If somebody who is blind finds it difficult to move around the street furniture and needs something to be changed, how would they go about that?

As I said, under the provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, there is a means for local authorities, as the roads authority, to ensure that the public realm is not being blocked or being made less accessible. They have enforcement powers to ensure that they can take action, where appropriate. If anyone experienced circumstances in which furniture was placed in an insensitive way that impacted on accessibility, they would be able to raise that directly with their local authority, which, through the existing statutory provisions, would be able to take action to ensure that any obstruction was removed.

Thanks for that.

I wonder how the public get the opportunity to object to the appropriateness of an outdoor hospitality area. If you move into a town or village centre and are near a pub or restaurant, you know what you are going to and you know that, if the scope of that community is to change, you will, generally, get the opportunity to object to a planning application. There are many young families in the small towns and villages that I represent who live near a local pub and would not necessarily want to see outdoor seated areas, given the general noise that is associated with them. How will those people get an opportunity to have a say in how the area in the immediate vicinity of their house will change?

I touched on the points about concerns around obstructions. It is important to bear in mind that many hospitality establishments will be subject to local licensing requirements. As a former councillor, you will be familiar with the established processes for achieving that. There is an opportunity through direct engagement with a local authority to engage in issues. Clearly, there are other provisions to which every hospitality establishment is subject, around levels of noise, impact on amenity and environmental health. A range of mechanisms are in place. We have overlapping consenting mechanisms. It is also important to recognise that outdoor furniture does not always constitute development for planning purposes. There can be instances where outdoor furniture is not captured by the planning system as it exists. There are other means of addressing any particular concerns that a local community has, whether they be around obstruction or things that perhaps impinge on existing licensing arrangements.

Tom, do you want to add anything?

I think that that covers it well. The other thing to note is that it is open to local authorities, through the roads consenting process, to seek the views of stakeholders or the public if they see fit to do so, even though it is not necessarily a statutory consultation process in the way that it is under planning.

I appreciate that the roads authority would look at it, but it would do so on a very technical basis to do with access and safety. I am more concerned about the noise and nuisance impact on families who live in the vicinity. To clarify, will any outdoor seated area require an amended licensing application? That would give local families and residents the opportunity to feed in their views to the licensing authority.

These matters, obviously, are decisions for the local authority, as the licensing authority, to take, and they will be based upon the specific circumstances there. I have confidence and trust in the local authorities to apply the existing legislative provisions and to do so in a way that is proportionate and takes account of concerns raised by local people.

The important point to remember is that we are seeking to remove overlapping consenting regimes that exist, so this does not impact on roads, as we touched on, or on any existing licensing requirements. Any development at the moment that comes into the scope of licensing issues is not impacted by the change around planning, so these existing provisions would continue as they are.

On the specific issue of noise, as the minister said, that is subject to environmental health and nuisance controls, which, again, are unaffected by these changes.

Okay.

I have two questions. Has the right of the public to participate in the decision-making process to grant street furniture outside hospitality effectively been removed? Has the right to be part of that consideration been withdrawn?

The important thing to bear in mind is that street furniture does not necessarily constitute development under planning so, as things stand, decisions will not necessarily be taken either by delegated authority to officers or by a planning committee or a local review body within a local authority. It is important to recognise, however, that the views of the community will of course be taken into account by a local authority. Therefore, where issues arise, whether they be around obstruction or the impact on areas pertaining to licensing or environmental health, the existing opportunity to make representations to the local authority, and for the local authority to take action under those separate statutory provisions, which are unaffected by the changes to permitted development rights, will continue.

Will the public be able to see applications that the roads department is about to consider? Otherwise, the public will not know.

That will be characterised differently in different local authorities. It could be cafe permits, outdoor seating permits and things like that, depending on how different local authorities characterise it. As Tom Winter touched on, there is no statutory requirement for local authorities, as roads authorities, to consult on this particular issue, but they are at liberty to do so. Clearly, where issues impacting on accessibility are identified by members of the public, they can make representations to local authorities through the usual channels. Local authorities are empowered to take action to address those issues should they choose to do so.

After a facility has been installed and is operational, the public may still have issues with and complaints about it. You made it clear that people can raise a complaint with the local authority about it. If it is still the subject of dispute, what criteria would apply if the roads team said that it meets the specifications, the distancing and so on. If the public, particularly people with disabilities, still had an issue, how would that be resolved?

09:45  

Ultimately, those decisions will of course be for local authorities to take, just as decisions around planning applications, for example, have to be taken in the context of the existing legislative framework. If it accords with the development plan, it should go ahead unless material circumstances suggest otherwise and vice versa. Ultimately, it is incumbent on local authorities or any public body to take into account the representations that are made, but it is still for them, as the relevant body, to determine the decision that they want to take.

Another point is that local authorities typically grant consent under section 59 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 for a limited period. On local authority websites, under the “roads permitting” section—as Mr Arthur mentioned, it is sometimes referred to in different ways by local authorities, as “street cafe permitting”, for example—almost all the examples that I looked at say, “This is granted for a temporary period.” That would allow for issues, if they arose, to be dealt with, because the consent is time limited.

The other thing is that PDR apply only to public roads—roads owned by the roads authority—so you have the control of the authority owning the land. In extremis, as the landowner, it could withdraw its consent to use the land in that way.

Okay. Thank you.

I want to ask a couple of specific questions, because many blind and visually impaired Scots are concerned about this, and charities have raised concerns. The fact that there is no specific guidance attached to the order is an issue, especially when you think of what my city of Edinburgh will look like during the festival, with businesses potentially just setting up roped areas. That is one of the main concerns. Why was specific guidance not developed to go along with the order so that councils could look at it in more detail before it is rolled out, especially, for example, in Edinburgh during the festival?

I will make two points in response to that. First, we have sought to provide significant detail through the policy note. Secondly, to specifically address the point that you raised, the way in which street furniture is situated will ultimately be highly site-specific. It will be determined by the local context so, if guidance is deemed to be desirable, it would be better produced by a local authority reflecting the circumstances of its place. I believe that one local authority—Aberdeen City Council—already has guidance.

The opportunity is there for local authorities, with their local place-based knowledge and understanding of particular circumstances, such as the impact that the festival has on Edinburgh, to ensure that suitable advice or guidance is provided, if the local authority deems it appropriate and proportionate. Ultimately, that is a decision for the local authority.

In my time as an MSP, one issue has been about what street furniture starts to look like, especially during the festival, with A-boards and things like that. My concern is whether the order relaxes the approach in many businesses’ views and how things will change. People want assurance about how that will be enforced by the council at what could be an incredibly busy time.

My other question is about the electric vehicle charging infrastructure. What consultation has taken place on that with stakeholders, specifically the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the stakeholder groups on cladding?

I referred to the 12-week consultation that we ran over the spring and summer of last year.

Do you want to pick up on any further details on the consultation, Tom?

I do not believe that those groups responded to the consultation. What is the specific concern with cladding? Is it cladding in respect of EV charging equipment?

It is the wider issue of attaching electric charging points to buildings. I wondered whether consultation had taken place on their being freestanding under the changes and whether the issue has been discussed with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the stakeholder groups that are still undertaking significant work on cladding issues in Scotland.

I am afraid that I do not quite understand the connection to cladding. There are already permitted development rights for freestanding EV chargers located in car parks across Scotland. The changes allow larger equipment, including higher-power EV chargers, to be installed under the PDR. They increase the current height limit of 1.6m to 2.7m and allow the PDR to apply in a wider range of car parks.

My specific issue, and where stakeholder groups would want to have been involved, concerns the proximity of electric charging points to buildings and the relaxed rules around installing them. From what I am hearing, I am not sure whether that work is taking place.

There has been a 12-week consultation that speaks to existing PDR being enhanced. Local authorities can, subject to confirmation by ministers, use an article 4 process through the general permitted development order, which can restrict or exempt particular areas from permitted development rights. That addresses some of the other points that have been raised. It is important to put that on the record, because, beyond the other consenting regimes to which I referred, in extremis, if a local authority deems it required because of unintended consequences, there is a means under the existing provisions, subject to ministerial confirmation, to exempt a particular area from permitted development rights.

Tom, it would help if you could go over what the proposed PDR do specifically in relation to EV charging infrastructure.

There are existing permitted development rights that have been in place since 2014. They allow for wall-mounted plug-socket style chargers and EV charging upstands. At present, the PDR apply only in car parks but not car parks located in certain designated areas, including national parks, and that is a key consideration when thinking about the range of electric vehicles. The changes get rid of those restrictions where the car parks are in designated areas. They allow for larger equipment and also make clear that the PDR cover the supporting bits of equipment, such as cabling. Speaking to certain EV providers, we heard that there was an element of doubt as to whether that kind of supporting kit, which is necessary in order for the EV chargers to function, was covered. We have also introduced new PDR for solar canopies that will provide power to chargers, further increasing the sustainability of the overall package. That is a summary of the changes.

I am specifically concerned about wall-mounted charging and what that now presents. If I live in a block of flats and have an electric car, can I attach a charger to that building without there having been proper pre-planning?

I think that th at is already the case. I can recheck whether any concerns were raised through the consultation process about fire risks presented by wall-mounted chargers, but I am not aware of any.

I support the principle of what the Government is trying to achieve, but I am not sure where direct engagement has taken place on safety with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the stakeholder group on cladding on high-rise buildings. Their knowing about the consultation is one thing, but responding is another, and I do not know whether they did. You suggest that they did not respond.

If I may interject, we are straying into the territory of equipment standards, and that is in a different sphere from the planning discussion that we are having. We have long-established PDR, now nine years old, for wall-mounted EV charging infrastructure. The majority of the PDR focuses on established parking areas and expanding capacity to reflect increased demand. Clearly, for the installation of chargers on buildings, other factors come into play in the decision-making process, such as ownership of the building. The safety of particular kit is covered by different regulatory regimes. It is important to clarify that.

I accept that. Some of the work that the stakeholder group on cladding has been doing is specifically around the proximity of electric charging points to buildings. I am concerned about that and am not sure that it has been captured or specifically been considered.

To reiterate the point that I made earlier, we held a 12-week consultation and there has been an opportunity for engagement throughout the process. To the best of my knowledge, no specific concerns have been raised with us on what is being proposed. I am not aware of any specific concerns being raised with us around the long-established PDR for EV infrastructure.

I am not aware of any.

We are more than happy to engage with stakeholders who wish to engage with us and to consider any proposed changes that come out of that. To the best of my knowledge, no concerns have been expressed to us directly regarding the existing permitted development rights and nothing has come to us through the consultation on the proposals to expand PDR for EV infrastructure. As I said, should there be a need to exempt any particular area of a planning authority from permitted development rights, that can be done through an article 4 direction. Of course, we continue to keep all legislation under review. Should any specific concerns be raised with us about planning provisions, we will take them on board seriously and will engage with them closely. As I said, nothing of that nature has been brought directly to my attention.

There are a couple of things that I want to raise. I want to come back to the issue of centres—policy objective 1B—and add into the mix that we have our fantastic national planning framework 4, which is pointing us towards more town-centre regeneration. That is something to keep an eye on, because, as we try to retrofit houses and create more housing in town centres, we will be adding additional pressures; for example, Mark Griffin talked about issues with families living nearby. If that is the direction of travel for how we want our town centres to regenerate, it is worth keeping an eye on the fact that we will have a higher population and more activity in the streets. I take on board the mechanisms that you described for offering people a way to bring things to our attention.

I have some concerns about objective 1C in the paper, which deals with port development. Our paper mentions green ports specifically, but they are not in discretely defined areas. A number of the ports are Edinburgh ports. I want a little bit more detail about the order of what is happening. That comes from a concern about a potential loss of community voice, for communities of interest and communities of place. If a development starts to happen that is affecting them, what recourse or ability do they have to raise that concern? The paper states that the order

“provides for development to be undertaken by the statutory undertaker’s agent.”

Can you tell us a bit more about who those agents are?

I will ask Tom Winter to come in on that in a moment. In general, the amendments are fairly minor and apply to all ports, not just the aforementioned green ports. They are really seeking to bring about parity with the PDR regime that exists in England. I will ask Tom Winter to respond to the detail.

As the minister said, these are minor and technical changes to ensure parity and a level playing field between English and Scottish ports. The point about agents is to clarify that it does not necessarily have to be the port operator itself that is carrying out the development: it could be a contractor or agent working on its behalf, potentially a kind of tenant of the port operator.

That is very helpful. I understand that the desire is to have parity with what is going on in England, but there are some things going on in England with which we do not want parity, so it is important to look at the issue. Will the changes expand the ability to create non-port infrastructure?

The development has to be operational: it has to be connected to port operations. The works that could be carried out under the amended PDR are not especially significant. We spoke to port and airport operators on that. Airports are relevant here because the permitted development rights for airports and ports are very similar, and the order would bring the wording into line. We engaged with some of the airport operators to understand the language around services and facilities and to find out what kind of development falls under that scope. An example would be bus stops within airports. The wording would enable that kind of works by the undertaker to be covered by its statutory powers.

10:00  

You described something very specific there: bus stops. What else could be brought in under this?

It is not defined. “Services and facilities” covers a range of things, such as bus stops and toilet blocks—those kinds of operational facilities—but not substantive new development, which, if it falls outside permitted development rights, is subject to a planning application in the normal way, as you said.

That is helpful; thank you. If something that is taking place in a green port or any port—in a town or village, even—starts to encroach on public interest and it sits within the PDR offered by this Scottish statutory instrument, what recourse is there for the community of place? How does it have a voice?

As happens with the current PDR, when situations arise in which there is a view that the amenity of an area might be impacted negatively or there are unintended consequences or, given the nature of an area, the current set of permitted development rights is not appropriate, there are means—with the usual channels in mind—by which members of the public can make representations to their local authority. As I said, the article 4 direction is an opportunity for local authorities, with confirmation from ministers, to restrict or, indeed, remove permitted development rights for a particular area. It is not a case of our legislating for permitted development rights in Parliament and them being set in stone and not able to be changed, other than through a repeal of those rights or by amending instruments. That means is there. That is a reflection of how the planning system operates and how permitted development rights have operated for a number of years.

I accept that PDR can be a bit of a blunt instrument and that there has to be consideration around how they are used—that is why we are taking this methodical, phased approach to them—but one of their advantages is that they can free up capacity in the planning system where routine cases no longer have to go through the planning system. I recognise that the committee will have a keen interest in that, particularly given its interest on the issues around the resourcing of the planning system, which will be absolutely vital for delivering on the ambitions of NPF4 and the preparation of the new-style local development plans that we will see over the next five years.

We always seek to take a balanced, proportionate approach to permitted development rights. That is why we are taking the phased approach and will continue to do so. Later this year, we aim to move forward with the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 provisions for masterplan consent area schemes, which will create other bespoke opportunities to ensure that there are proportionate flexibilities to incentivise the development and redevelopment that we want to see in not only our town centres but a range of settings and which will be essential for realising the ambition behind NPF4.

I will add one thing on the ports PDR: reflecting the fact that it is a broad permitted development right, there is a notification requirement, which means that the operator needs to notify the authority before carrying out the development. That provides a mechanism for the authority, if it is concerned that the works proposed do not constitute development that is covered by the PDR, to say that a planning application is required or that the development is an environmental impact assessment development, in which case the environmental impact assessment provisions would apply. That is another important point with permitted development rights: anything that is within the scope of the environmental impact assessment regulations does not have PDR.

Okay. Thanks very much for that. That has been helpful. We clearly have some pathways back, in case things start to go awry. I totally take on board the need to relieve pressure from local planning authorities, and I see that the measures do that, but, at the same time, we need to make sure that we are keeping communities in mind.

I have a quick question. The planning process has neighbour notification, which means that people who will be affected by a change will be proactively notified, but, with the other regimes that would remain in place, whether that is licensing or roads, there is no neighbour notification, which means that there is a danger that people would need to proactively seek out any changes rather than being notified by an authority. Is that the case?

I take the point that you are making. I stress that, although it may be the case that the process of obtaining a permit, for example, through the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 provisions, is distinct from what would normally take place through the planning process, it is important to remember that street furniture, for example, would not always constitute development. As things stand, there could be scenarios where street furniture that does not constitute development would not be subject to the planning system. However, I stress and reiterate that there are other consenting regimes and they have to be adhered to. There are existing enforcement powers, and where members of the public think that an obstruction is taking place or that an amenity is being affected by noise and nuisance, there are means for seeking remedy via the local authority and those other regimes. Is there anything that you want to add, Tom?

That is right. As the minister has already said, if permitted development rights are causing issues, there is the ability to use an article 4 direction, which is a mechanism to withdraw or restrict permitted development rights in particular locations.

I hope that the committee agrees with the intent behind this, which is to create an environment that is supportive of our hospitality sector. I note the strong welcome that the proposals have had. However, I recognise that local authorities, on the basis of engagement with their communities, may deem the application of those permitted development rights to a particular area to be incompatible with wider aims and concerns around the wellbeing and amenity of people living in that area. Other mechanisms are there to raise issues retrospectively that can be enforced through our regimes and, as Tom Winter said, for local authorities to decide that the application of PD rights for a particular area is not important, and to seek to amend, restrict or remove the PDR entirely for a particular area through an article 4 order.

I stress that, as we introduce this legislation, local authorities will monitor it, and they will be best placed to make decisions based on the impact. Where issues arise, they will have several means to address them.

Thanks for that. I will briefly suspend the meeting.

10:09 Meeting suspended.  

10:31 On resuming—  

Thank you, minister, for your patience. The committee has discussed various issues, and we want to seek reassurance from you on a couple of points of concern.

With regard to policy objective 1A, on electric vehicle charging points, 105 buildings are part of the cladding review process, and there are concerns about whether the wall-mounted EV charging points will interact with any of those buildings. Are you aware of that situation? How can we handle that?

I am happy to take that issue away and look at it, but it speaks to existing PD rights, which have been in place for the better part of a decade. These regulations primarily focus on existing parking spaces and enhancing capability in that regard, which the industry and the sector have been calling for. In relation to identifying the number of EV charging points that have been installed on, or are in close proximity to, buildings with cladding, I am happy to take that away and ask the relevant ministerial colleague to write to the committee with that specific information, if we hold it.

If you find that there is the potential for there to be wall-mounted EV charging points on one or some of those 105 buildings, we could look at an amending order. There is great concern for safety.

The point that I am making is that, if that is the case, it is because of the PD right that has been in place for nine years. If there is concern, the local authority could seek an article 4 exemption. That would be the means of addressing the issue. We could look beyond that if there was a need to do so, but we have consulted at length and, to our knowledge, have had no specific correspondence on that issue. Nothing came up in the consultation, so we would need to look at the evidence base for the concern. I am conscious that there are other aspects—building standards and product safety—that pertain in this set of circumstances.

I am happy to go away and look at whether there are any issues relating to existing PD rights. The concern here today is with a package of PD rights, of which EV infrastructure is one part. The package does not introduce a new right relating to wall-mounted chargers—as I said, such rights have been in existence for the better part of a decade—but it includes a number of other measures. I am happy to go away and see whether we hold specific information on the number of pieces of EV kit that are mounted on, or are in proximity to, buildings with cladding. If we do, I will write to the committee or ask the relevant minister to do so.

Thank you very much for that.

On policy objective 1B, on town centres, there is concern about the ability of the public to participate in anything that might affect their lives and about the removal of the neighbour notification. Can you give the committee some reassurance about how people could participate? The concern is that, if a business makes a move to set up an outdoor seating area, it will be difficult for the public to find out that that is happening on their doorstep.

The reality is that a lot of the various scenarios—for example, tables and chairs being set up—that we associate with permitted development rights are already not captured as development. As such, the appropriate regulatory provisions are found in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. If there are requirements for a permit, local authorities define that permit in various terms—“cafe permit”, “pavement permit” and so on. There is a means through that process for a decision to be made and, indeed, enforcement action to be taken. If issues around accessibility and obstruction are identified, there is a remedy available to the local authority. Of course, local authorities are democratic bodies that are accountable to the people within their authority area. I can give a reassurance that that means exists.

As I have set out, should any issues arise as a consequence of the regulations coming into force, there is a means, through the article 4 provisions, for local authorities, with the approval of ministers, to restrict PD rights in particular areas or to remove PD rights entirely in particular areas. It is not the case that, if a local authority found itself in a situation in which it had seen development take place that would usually require planning permission but planning permission or a planning application was not required because of PD rights, it would have no recourse—it would not be centrally mandated and something that it could not change. Notwithstanding the provisions in the 1984 act, there would be means to seek an article 4 direction, which, with the agreement of ministers, could remedy the situation.

Thanks very much for laying that out. You touched on some of those things earlier, but it is good to hear that said again in a slightly different way so that we start to get clarity.

We are also interested in when this Scottish statutory instrument will be reviewed. How will you keep it under review? If problems start to arise, what is the process for that?

If the SSI comes into effect, it will do so at the end of this month—I think that we are approaching the end of the 40-day period. We will continue our phased approach to PD rights. We hope to commence phase 3 later in the spring. As part of our pivot to implementation and delivery following the adoption of national planning framework 4, we will have far closer engagement with planning authorities and a range of other stakeholders. The monitoring process for the implementation of NPF4 will capture broader monitoring of the implementation of a number of aspects of planning reform, of which PD rights is just one. I said earlier that we are looking to commence other provisions in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 later this year, including those relating to masterplan consent areas.

There will be continuous close engagement with planning authorities, and that will build on the collaborative approach that got us to the situation in which we were able to command such overwhelming support for NPF4. As that collaborative approach pivots towards implementation, monitoring will be a key part of that. Our delivery programme for NPF4 will be revised after six months and then yearly. We engage with various bodies, we convene or co-convene groups on planning performance and there is the planning, infrastructure and place advisory group, so there are a number of forums in which planning issues can be raised more widely.

More generally, that culture of close engagement and partnership working with our planning authorities will mean that, should any issues arise, they can be brought to our attention at short notice. When problems are identified, we will, of course, seek to remedy them. We will consider whether that can be done through, for example, article 4 directions or by amendments to the 1992 order, but we need to take a proportionate and evidence-based approach, and we will be able to establish an evidence base through that continued engagement.

It is good to hear that the approach will involve continuous monitoring. As NPF4 is taken forward, there will be lots of changes and moving parts, and we will need to keep track of them and how they interact with each other.

I welcome the constructive points that the minister has suggested in relation to writing to the committee, but I am still concerned about electric vehicle charging points and, specifically, about the 105 buildings that still have to be surveyed. I looked at the terms of reference for the cladding stakeholder group. I do not believe that its members have a responsibility to take part in Government consultations. The minister might need to take that issue away, have a conversation with them and the Fire and Rescue Service and consider whether he could commit to introducing an amending order to exempt those buildings while they are still to be surveyed.

I am happy to give an undertaking to take that away and to engage with the advisory group and relevant ministerial colleagues on the matter in order to identify whether any issues of concern have not been identified through the consultation. I certainly do not rule out an amending order, but, in the first instance, I would want to establish an evidence base for such an order. I am happy to ensure that we undertake that work and write to the committee with an update. Any further action that emerges, up to and including changes to legislation, can be considered as part of that process.

That is helpful. Thank you.

I wish to put on the record my concern that there is a danger that a young family could see an outdoor drinking area pop up outside a child’s bedroom. Without the gold standard of a neighbour notification, there is no responsibility on a local authority even to consult on an application to a roads authority, so there is still a danger that things could pop up in communities that would have a real impact on young families in particular but of which they would have no prior awareness. That is my concern with this instrument.

As members have no other comments on the instrument, does the committee agree that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? Obviously, we are seeking the reassurances that we have discussed.

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the minister for spending time with us and for allowing us to go into detail in our scrutiny.

10:42 Meeting suspended.  

10:47 On resuming—