Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 09 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Official Report 245KB pdf

---

Rural Housing Inquiry

Agenda item 2 is our rural housing inquiry. The two papers for this item have been circulated so members should find them easily enough. The first paper is simply a note on the stakeholder event that we held in Aviemore. The second paper raises issues for consideration on how our rural housing inquiry should be handled. Committee members may want to make general comments on that before we deal with the specific issues in turn.

An optional suggestion is that we should exclude land supply from our inquiry, but I cannot see how, politically, we could do that. I understand the reason for making that an option, which is that the housing supply task force is considering the matter, but I do not believe that we can have a rural housing inquiry that does not address land supply. We can acknowledge that a parallel interest is being pursued by the housing supply task force. That is my feeling on the matter. I can see by members' faces that they probably agree with that.

Are there any other quick comments on that issue before we consider more general comments?

Convener, I entirely support that suggestion. People in rural Scotland would look askance at us if our inquiry did not address the land supply issue, which raises its head so often.

The draft remit that has been prepared is excellent and I fully support it as drafted. I think that we should probably consider rural housing in general rather than affordable rural housing, as suggested in the paper, as that would be a bit limiting. That said, however—

Let me just clarify that point. We need to ensure that we stick to rural issues so that we do not overlap into areas that are not our concern, but the paper also suggests that we might restrict the inquiry further by making it about affordable housing—whether for rent or for owner occupation—because otherwise the remit might be too wide.

Personally, I would not have a problem with the remit being slightly wider and about rural housing in general. That is my reading of it. If I have read it wrongly, I apologise.

There is a more general issue about how wide or how narrow our focus should be. There is a view that, if our inquiry is too wide-ranging, we might have to take an awful lot of evidence across the board and possibly end up—this is my concern—coming to conclusions and recommendations that are not fully substantiated because we have not had time to take all the evidence.

I think that we should concentrate on affordable rural housing, so I take the opposite point of view from Jamie Hepburn. For the record, I think that we should focus on affordable rural housing because that is the really big issue. I do not say that rural housing in the generality is not an issue, but we should focus on affordable housing and the context of social need. That is where we should point ourselves.

Notwithstanding the suggestion that we should consider only the top five issues, I think that we should include the issue of water and sewerage infrastructure, given that anecdotal evidence suggests that the lack thereof is effectively a back-door planning constraint. We should take evidence from Scottish Water on that issue, because there is so much anecdotal evidence about it from elsewhere. Perhaps the location of the seminar affected the weighting of topics. The issue might not be as big in Aviemore or the north of Scotland, but it is certainly big in other parts of rural Scotland. Notwithstanding the topic's low score—it got 15 votes—we should address it. I do not know what other members think, but that is my view.

I am concerned that some questions almost predetermine the answers. Our questions should be more challenging; otherwise, all that will emerge from the inquiry is a reiteration of what might be seen to be a cosy consensus that has existed for 10 years, and we will not pursue matters further.

I have three suggestions. First, rather than focus on environmental sustainability generically, we should ask specific questions about building types, patterns and standards for energy efficiency. In many parts of rural Scotland, a series of detached houses has been built in the countryside, which produces homes that have low energy efficiency. Other approaches that are not being considered might need to be focused on as part of the Government's wider consideration of energy efficiency. That is probably the most specific issue that we could examine to deal with the climate change agenda, but it also concerns effectiveness and sustainability.

Secondly, to talk about a shortage of land supply is almost absurd, except in one or two parts of rural Scotland. The land supply is abundant; the issue is not even whether land is suitable, but whether it is made available and how the planning rules operate.

That is presumed in the land supply question.

I do not think that it is.

For those of us who attended the Aviemore seminar, the land supply question was about how to make land available.

The proposed question is:

"In what circumstances is a lack of suitable land to build on the main obstacle to meeting local housing needs?"

That could be better phrased.

Perhaps, but if you had been at the seminar, the intention would have been clear.

I apologise for not being at the seminar, but there were good reasons why I could not attend.

My third issue is about the implementation of planning decisions, rather than legislation or guidance—perhaps it is more about local authority practice, but that does not capture it. The criteria and mechanisms that are in place in Scotland for agreeing what houses should be built are different from those that operate in the Republic of Ireland, for example, where houses are springing up everywhere in rural areas. We could consider how planning rules and their application in Scotland differ from those in the Republic of Ireland. We should ask questions not just about the legislation, but about how planning authorities make decisions. I do not know whether we or they are right; I simply make the point that many people in rural areas say that obtaining permission to build anywhere in a rural area is a problem and that they cannot build in all kinds of places because planners do not allow that. That is not the case in the Republic of Ireland, so we should examine that.

The Scottish Parliament information centre has already been asked to examine international comparisons, with a view to ascertaining why places such as Ireland can retain a much bigger rural population than we seem to manage. We are actively pursuing that side of things, and when SPICe has put that information together, it will be available to committee members.

That aspect is already part and parcel of the inquiry because it became clear in discussions that there is a different approach to planning in Scotland compared with some other parts of the world. That appears to have come about for real historical reasons—which may no longer pertain to the current situation.

Des, I have noted your point about sustainability because it is helpful. It would allow us to focus specifically on the sustainability of housing. I take it from what you said that you agree with the general thrust that we should not look at community sustainability but instead concentrate narrowly on the sustainability of the houses themselves.

That is right, although there is also an issue with settlements, which we cannot ignore.

We have to try to make the housing inquiry work—although it may prompt further questions that the committee will want to examine in the future.

I want to focus on paragraph 1 of the draft remit and call for evidence in the annex to paper RAE/S3/08/1/3:

"The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is undertaking an inquiry into [affordable] rural housing."

In the seminar at Aviemore, certainly in my group, there was a big discussion about affordability. Everyone around the table thought that they knew what it meant but, when we tried, we simply could not define what affordability meant, so it is questionable whether we should have it as a central part of our remit.

I would prefer to drop the word "affordable" and—I am not being prescriptive—substitute it with something else, so that the remit ran, "The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the supply of adequate housing in rural Scotland." Everyone knows what that means; nobody knows what affordable housing means.

That is an issue; I do not know whether anyone else wants to comment on it. Affordability changes depending on the area of Scotland.

I would be concerned to ensure that any inquiry into affordability related to the living and working area, so that affordability was related to wage rates, especially considering areas in which wage rates are low.

I do not know whether it is possible for us to consider affordability in that context or whether we can ask SPICe for the wage rates for regions of Scotland, including travel-to-work areas. People such as us distort the local populations because we earn our incomes from outside, and that enables us to buy at far higher prices than local people can perhaps afford. The availability of affordable housing varies, depending on local wage rates and travel-to-work time.

That is why I am questioning whether we should use the word "affordable" in our remit.

Is it not about the supply of rural housing to the local community? I do not know how we would phrase that, but it is a question of targeting housing so that it is available to the local community.

We may need a slightly longer discussion about this. Most councils operate a policy of agreeing planning permission to housing developers as long as 25 per cent of the development is designated as affordable, so there must be a specific meaning that local authorities apply to achieve that. It would be useful to find that out.

There must be a definition.

If we can find a specific definition of it, I would be happy to use the word "affordable". My concern is about using it in the title of our inquiry when we are not sure what it means.

I would want to avoid using the word without defining what it meant, at least for our inquiry. Affordable means something completely different in London, Glasgow and Lochaber.

Mike Rumbles's point on affordability is well made, and it is important to note that there are regional variations in affordability. However, from a couple of the workshop groups in Aviemore that I sat in on, I understood that the important point was not so much the regional variations in affordability but that, although someone might be able to afford a house somewhere, they could perhaps not afford to live there. If we are going to make the inquiry specifically about affordable housing, is it worth while asking how affordability is defined?

If we choose to examine it, we would have to define affordability in the context of the inquiry. I am not saying that that necessarily works for everything. The same applies to rurality—rural Scotland is defined slightly differently depending on the context.

Should we ask our witnesses, in our call for written evidence, whether they have a definition of affordable?

Local authorities must have a definition of affordability, because they apply one to developers' proposals. Can we, at least at this stage, keep the affordability issue in, but with the specific understanding that we will define, in the context of our inquiry, what we are calling affordable housing, so that nobody is under any misapprehension about what that means? Is everybody happy with that?

I want to pick up on John Scott's point about infrastructure. Notwithstanding the ranking that it got, which may have something to do with the approach that some of the people at the seminar were taking to infrastructure, I get the impression from what I have read that there is still an issue about infrastructure. We should ask people whether infrastructure is still an issue for them, so that we can get a feel for that. It would be a great omission if we have not sought evidence on it and we discover towards the end of the inquiry that it is an issue. We need to keep infrastructure in, to check that it is not an issue as much as to explore what the issue is.

Are you talking about infrastructure in the context of water and sewerage, or do you want us to widen it out into something much broader?

I am thinking principally about water, sewerage, electricity and roads issues that affect whether a house can be developed. It is principally water and sewerage, but there are issues about roads and electricity in some areas.

You are not suggesting that we address issues such as the availability of schools, health care and so on.

No. I am referring to the hard physical infrastructure that allows a development to take place.

I have a minor point. The impression that I got from many of the delegates was that the infrastructure that we are talking about had been a problem, but they felt that it was no longer a problem. I want us to be careful about the extent to which we introduce it, because the anecdotal evidence could be out of date. I support the idea of asking a question as a check, rather than including a full section on the issue. That means that we could redefine how we are addressing the issue if we find part of the way through our inquiry that every person we speak to says, "Hey, there's a big problem."

We must decide on some specific issues that we have not discussed, which are outlined throughout paper RAE/S3/08/1/3.

The first one is at paragraph 10. We must decide whether to hold at least one external meeting during the inquiry. We are already doing so in the flooding inquiry. I seek the committee's agreement that we proceed on that basis for this inquiry. At this point, there is no need for us to say where it will be held, but obviously I expect that if we hold an external meeting it will be somewhere where rural housing is an issue. We could go to Fort William or Dumfries or somewhere like that. We can make a decision closer to the time, if everybody is happy to agree in principle.

Members indicated agreement.

Given our discussion about the water and sewerage infrastructure, it might be worth going to a different part of Scotland from Aviemore, which was in the old North of Scotland Water Authority. It might be worth going to the Borders or somewhere like that.

We can make a decision on that later, as we have agreed in principle to hold an external meeting.

Paragraph 14 asks committee members to consider possible visits. Rather than have a huge long discussion about where they might be, I want to get agreement in principle to do what we did in respect of the flooding inquiry visits—split the committee up to ensure that the maximum number of places can be visited. After we get the committee's agreement in principle, we can come up with some proposals. If committee members have individual suggestions, they can communicate them directly to the clerk. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 17 asks us to consider whether further reporters need to be appointed. As committee members will remember, I have already been appointed reporter to the Rural Housing Service's conference that is to be held in Dunkeld on 29 February. I do not want to be the reporter overall. If we are going to consider rural housing, we should agree in principle to use reporters as and when necessary on specific issues within the inquiry. Are committee members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The next decision is whether to appoint an adviser, as mentioned in paragraph 18. An overall adviser would probably not be particularly helpful, but it might be useful for us to consider appointing an adviser on the financial side of things. Somebody who has specific knowledge and understanding of the finances that are involved in, for example, land supply—which came up at the seminar—as well as housing finance could be useful. Appointing an adviser takes a fair amount of lead time and advertising, and committee members may feel that it is not particularly necessary. Are there any reactions or comments?

We need to know what questions we want answered. We could find that we have appointed an adviser who is not an expert in those questions.

That is why I think that the only real issue on which we might need an adviser is finance.

I am not sure whether he should be an adviser, but Professor Glen Bramley has done two big studies on the various housing supply issues throughout Scotland. Might we want to ask him to focus on a subset of that information in rural areas?

We cannot identify individuals at this stage, Des. If we are going appoint an adviser, we have to go through a set process.

I was pointing to an area of technical expertise.

I do not immediately recognise Professor Bramley's name. However, he is on the list, so we might contact him in connection with the inquiry in any case, but not in the context of appointing an adviser. I do not detect a great groundswell of committee feeling on the appointment of an adviser.

The final issue on which we need to decide is whether research is needed. To be honest, it is premature to decide that now because we are not at a point at which we can say whether research is needed. However, I would not want to exclude the possibility. Although a great deal of work has been done on housing supply, there may be some distinct gaps or useful updates that SPICe cannot help us with. I ask the committee to allow us to defer a decision until we get a better steer from SPICe as to whether or not further research would be useful or appropriate.

Members indicated agreement.

Could SPICe be tasked to remind us of the legal requirements on local authorities to house homeless people? In Aberdeenshire, the housing list has gone from 4,000 people to 6,500 people who are struggling to find accommodation. It would be helpful if we could have an update on those legal requirements.

That is no difficulty.

I ask to the committee to agree on the record to ask SPICe to provide the international comparisons and information that we talked about earlier. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In addition, might it be helpful to find out the levels of homelessness in each local authority area and receive a breakdown of rural homelessness if one is available?

Referring to what Mike Rumbles said, and bearing in mind the situation in my area, there is a distinct difference between homelessness and people who are on the housing list.

Absolutely.

If we just stuck to the homelessness figures, we would not really—

Considering both those factors would give us a handle on the problem, anyway.

It might be useful to ask local authorities to identify what percentage of their total list is classified as rural, as opposed to urban. Many local authorities have a component of both. We could find out what percentage of people on the lists are technically homeless. Is that the sort of information that you are talking about? That will keep us from just looking at the homeless figures.

Yes.

To recap on what we are asking of SPICe, we are seeking international comparisons on rural housing, and we are specifically interested in making comparisons with Ireland. We have all seen for ourselves the difference between rural Ireland and rural Scotland. We would like to find out how that has come about and how Ireland keeps its rural populations, whereas we do not seem to be able to cater for ours. However, we should not consider Ireland exclusively, if it is possible to get information from comparably sized countries with comparable rural areas. We want a like-for-like comparison.

We are also asking SPICe to give us an update on the homelessness legislation, so that we know exactly what responsibilities local authorities have. We will explore how to get information from local authorities on their housing lists and the percentage of their housing that is rural. The committee might be able to do that directly, through a letter from me to each local authority, rather than going through SPICe. We will explore how best to do that. I think that that covers the SPICe requirements.

That probably brings this agenda item to a close. I think that we have gone through everything that we need to. I should, however, summarise the position on the remit. Are we agreed that land supply has to form part of our inquiry?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we agreed that the sustainability issues that we examine should be focused on the housing itself, rather than on wider matters of communities or settlements? Should we follow Des McNulty's suggestion and focus on energy efficiency issues? The information attached to that might have an implication for build costs, as opposed to running costs. There are two cost issues to consider.

We are agreed that we will look into the affordability issue, but that we will seek a definition of affordability to ensure that the housing inquiry has a specific definition, rather than a broad, non-specific definition of affordability.

What do you mean by seeking a definition? Are we asking for that under our remit? That is what I was suggesting.

The clerks will work on a definition.

We will examine the definition that councils use. We will consider that as part of our inquiry. We will not run the inquiry in general terms and then conclude with a definition of affordability at the end of it; we want to make a clear definition of affordability, within which we conduct the inquiry.

If we are to contact councils, could we contact a few voluntary organisations as well, just to get a broader view and avoid having only a council definition of affordability?

To be honest, I am not sure—

I think it is worth having a—

We are talking about councils because councils give planning permission on the basis of a percentage of any new development being affordable housing. Therefore, they are the bodies that are responsible for agreements about amounts of affordable housing.

Yes, but—

I am not getting into an argument about this. If we start going back out to all and sundry—

I am not suggesting all—

Bill, I said that I am not getting into an argument about it, okay?

I am not suggesting all voluntary organisations—just a couple.

I said enough—right?

We will go back to local authorities and get the definition of affordability that they use.

It is a limited approach.

Then we will consider the situation under the terms of that definition.

We have discussed sustainability, land supply and affordability and we have agreed that water, sewerage and roads will be included as part of our discussion, even if just to check the anecdotal evidence.

We will have to make some slight changes to the final remit, in order to reflect our decisions. Are we happy enough with the draft remit?

Do you sign it off or does everybody do so?

It would be better if you leave it with me to sign off; I do not want to open up every paragraph to discussion again.

Quite—absolutely.

Okay. I hope that the roof is still on by the end of this morning's meeting, given the wind.