Local Government and Communities Committee, 25 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Official Report 250KB pdf

---

Housing (Review of Scottish Planning Policy 3)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of evidence from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, which arises from our evidence session of 23 April on Scottish planning policy 3, "Planning for Housing". The minister is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Stephen Garland, who is from the planning modernisation and co-ordination division, and Aidan Grisewood, who is head of the communities analytical services division. I welcome them and invite the minister to make introductory remarks on SPP 3.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the review of SPP 3 with the committee. My officials have given evidence to the committee on the issue and I hope that my presence will further assist your thinking.

I will not give a full explanation of SPP 3; you have probably had such an explanation. However, it would be helpful if I identified key issues that underlie the review of the policy. SPP 3 is a policy for housing. Its publication in 2003 had a positive effect in setting out the process of planning for housing and the factors that should be taken into account during that process. However, there have been indications that the approach has not resulted in increased provision of land, as was intended.

We know that Scotland's housing system has not responded to demand in recent years and we are aware of a range of perceived obstacles to the building of new houses, of which the availability of effective land is but one. Availability of land is a major factor and by reviewing SPP 3 we seek to ensure an ample supply of land on which to build the right houses in the right locations.

There are several aspects to achieving that aim, the first of which is the interface between the different tools that local authorities can use to assess housing need and housing demand and allocate sufficient land for houses to be built. We are keen to encourage greater consistency and accuracy in the use of such tools. We are publishing a suite of documents for that purpose, such as local housing strategy guidance and housing need and demand assessment guidance, as well as guidance on housing land audits, which is in the revised SPP 3. Taken together, the new guidance should provide more certainty that enough land is allocated to build the required houses.

On top of that, the revised SPP 3 encourages local authorities to make generous allocations of land for housing, over and above the identified requirement. Such an approach should mean that effective land for housing will always be available and it should safeguard against inevitable but unpredictable constraints that slow or prevent development on particular sites.

In conjunction with those elements, we are encouraging local authorities to be more aspirational about their housing provision and to move beyond a simple arithmetic notion of housing need to include their vision for the housing market in their area.

Of course, we are well aware of changes in the housing market that have taken place recently and continue to take place. The affordability and availability of mortgages have been reduced and the confidence of the building industry has been affected. We are engaging with the industry to assess a developing situation. However, the demand for housing will remain constant over the longer term and continues to be pressing.

As the minister responsible for planning, I am clear about the fact that we need to continue to address the issues underlying the provision of new housing; the revised SPP 3 is an important mechanism for doing that. More accurate and reliable allocation of land for housing through the planning system is a key factor in increasing housing supply. In turn, that should have a positive effect on choice and affordability. I realise that the provision of more land is not the only element in achieving more housing completions, but it is one of the fundamental elements that we need to put in place. The revised SPP 3 should enable the planning system to play a key role in the delivery of housing. I will be happy to answer members' questions.

I want to focus on two issues. First, you said that the key role of SPP 3 is to tackle obstacles to developing housing. Given that that is precisely the role of the housing supply task force, why was the task force not consulted on the draft revised SPP 3?

There are differences between the purposes of the task force and of the revised SPP 3. The task force looks at a much broader picture of housing issues, whereas we set policy for planning. There is significant crossover between the membership of the task force and the stakeholder group that advised on the revision of SPP 3. For that reason, the revised SPP 3 reflects the work of the task force. By moving ahead in parallel, we are able to accelerate what is happening.

That is a bit odd, given that previously we were told that the role of the housing supply task force was narrower than that of SPP 3. You may remember that the establishment of the task force was announced with bells and whistles, but since then it has been virtually silent. One might have expected not that there would be crossover between the task force and the stakeholder group or that they would operate in parallel, but that there would be joined-up thinking on issues such as land supply, housing planning and the delivery of affordable housing policy.

I suggest that there has been joined-up thinking. The aspiration for 35,000 houses a year that comes from housing policy is clearly reflected in planning. I invite Stephen Garland to make some additional comments.

This iteration of SPP 3 places strong emphasis on the delivery of housing. That reflects much of the discussion that has taken place in the housing supply task force and with its members.

It would be useful if you could indicate which parts of the document were influenced by the task force. I am concerned that the work of the task force and the revision of SPP 3 have been separated.

The second issue on which I want to focus is the changing context. The minister mentioned that the housing sector is changing and that there are huge challenges. Have you met anyone in the private housing sector who thinks that you can meet the target of providing 35,000 houses each year? I have met no one in the private sector or the public sector who believes that that is achievable in the current circumstances. Private house builders have suggested that support may need to be delivered through the housing association sector, by encouraging housing associations as an anchor at a time of challenges. We have been told that the requirement for 25 per cent of housing to be affordable will not be delivered because developments are stalling, being frozen and being stopped. What discussions need to take place to reflect the changing housing context? We may need to take a step back from the approach that was outlined in "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland".

This afternoon, the Deputy First Minister will make a statement on housing to Parliament—I would be in some difficulty if I pre-empted that. My role is to ensure that the planning issues that affect our ability to build the appropriate number of houses are resolved—what we are doing relates to those issues.

Ms Lamont correctly made reference to the current circumstances and the very real difficulties that exist. I do not think that we are necessarily planning for those circumstances to continue for a huge length of time, but we do not know how long they will continue. That remains to be seen. We certainly hope that 11 Downing Street gets a hold of the economic difficulties that exist at present and puts in place appropriate responses.

The role of planning is to ensure that we are ready for a future that is different from the present difficulties that we are experiencing. In particular, we might be able to make a positive contribution by increasing the amount of land that is designated for housing development. It is largely the ratio between the amount of housing development that goes on, which we accept is reducing, and the availability of land that drives the cost of building houses. We will deliver an increase in land supply because we are looking to the long term. If we increase the supply of land at a point of diminished demand for it, that is potentially a positive contribution to containing and managing the cost of building new houses today and in the immediate short term.

The short-term difficulties, which are not within my brief as planning minister but exist more generally, give us the opportunity in planning to create the long-term future that we need. With some of the problems, we cannot simply look one or two years ahead. We must look a great deal further ahead than that, and that is what we are trying to do in the planning system.

There is a requirement for 25 per cent of housing developments to be affordable housing. How is that being monitored and how will it change? There are concerns that the requirement is not effective. Given that house builders in the private sector are telling us that they are not undertaking developments, how will the gap be met? At the same time, we are not addressing the housing associations' concerns that they will be forced to borrow more.

If I may say so, that is not essentially a planning issue for me to comment on. I am sure that the subject will be covered this afternoon, if not in the substantive statement then in the questions that you and others will ask the Deputy First Minister, who is responsible for housing.

I asked how the 25 per cent requirement is being monitored, given that there are concerns about its effectiveness.

As I said the last time that I came to the committee, new processes have been put in place to monitor the implementation of affordable housing policies. The first report was at the end of April, and the early indications are that a number of authorities have policies in place and are beginning to deliver in relation to the quotas that are required. However, it is early days for the quota system in affordable housing policy and we will continue to keep it under review. Obviously, in the current circumstances, we need to reflect on the matter.

I emphasise the urgency of the matter. It is critical that those who are responsible for planning and housing speak to one another about it. My impression from speaking to those in the private sector is that things have moved quickly and there needs to be a commensurate response from the Government on how it can address the situation.

A significant number of meetings have been held about the issue, between officials and at ministerial level. As the minister noted, the situation is developing at quite a pace, so we are looking to assess it.

It might be useful to make the rather obvious comment that Mr Maxwell and I are in adjacent offices. You can be assured that we keep each other fully briefed on the subject.

The minister commented that there might be a silver lining in the dark economic cloud that is above us, because land might become available at a lower cost. As I recall, Shelter said that there might be a positive in that regard, although the point was not made as positively by the other witnesses at the same meeting. What work has been done to assess the likely impact of more land being available and the opportunities that you describe? Do developers not plan their developments over a longer period? Would they not simply sit on such land? There will be land banks throughout the country, and some derelict and other sites might not be developed. What plans do you have to ensure that that will not be the case?

You make some appropriate points, convener. I would not wish to overegg the pudding by using such phrases as "silver lining", but we can make our contribution through the planning system by relieving some of the constraints on housing development. That does not mean that land that is designated for housing ends up in developers' land banks; neither does it mean that developers move ahead with developments. However, it addresses a frequently cited inhibition on housing development, which is that there is inadequate designation of land. In the complex set of relationships between the private sector, the economic environment and the planning system, it is important to continue to relieve the constraints that planning might put on housing development, and—without using the phrase "silver lining"—that might just bring benefit and opportunity.

There is some evidence that councils have not made sufficient overprovision in the past, by means of designation, to provide flexibility to builders who seek to acquire land upon which to build. As we continue with an aspiration of 35,000 houses a year, with designations that fit with that, the cushion is likely to become much greater. Hence, the constraint could become much less significant for some time to come. In effect, there might be little constraint at all. That would be an ideal outcome if that is what is delivered.

I seek information about houses in multiple occupation and the revised SPP 3. There are great concerns, some of which I share, that young people in particular are being demonised by the potential changes in Government policy, including those that concern HMOs. Judging from my background knowledge, the vast majority of HMOs work quite well under the existing planning process. Why does there need to be a change in the controls that apply to HMOs?

Why is the current legislation on antisocial behaviour deemed to be insufficient to deal with antisocial HMO tenants? How do you respond to concerns that having additional HMOs might lead to increased rents, more illegal HMOs and increased difficulty for poor students in accessing higher education?

Forgive me for the pause in answering—I like to write down the questions, especially when they are from Mr Tolson.

I have met a number of people with interests in this area. I met the head of the National Union of Students to discuss the concerns that have been expressed from his sector. We came to an agreement that, primarily, the HMO legislation provides a legislative framework to protect people who live in houses in multiple occupation. That is not a planning issue as such. The draft SPP 3 that we issued referred to HMOs, and we have taken account of what has been said by a range of people.

We have met colleagues who are responsible for HMO policy and practice. We are going to detach that from the SPP 3 draft, because we think that its being there is inappropriate and has led to some unhelpful conclusions. I have also met representatives of communities—not just students, to be clear—in which people perceive that there are difficulties with the concentration of HMOs. I understand the tension that exists in that regard.

Reference has been made to illegal HMOs. The fines have just been increased from £5,000 to £20,000, and the basis on which they can be levied will change. We hope that there will be greater enforcement with regard to illegal HMOs. The planning system has a pretty limited role to play, because it relates only to situations in which there is a change of use. In many cases, a place moves from being used for one purpose to being an HMO without there being a change of use.

The key instrument for dealing with HMOs is supervision, rather than the planning system. Councils such as Glasgow City Council have policies that they seek to apply to strike the right balance between ensuring that HMOs are available for a wide range of people—students, migrant workers and young professionals—and that the character of communities is maintained.

Different councils take different views. The needs of Glasgow and Edinburgh are quite different from the needs of the Highland Council area, in which HMOs house migrant agricultural workers, or of my constituency, in which HMOs house migrant workers who work in primary food processing. There are different requirements in different areas, and we want to avoid using planning as the instrument of changing what happens with regard to HMOs.

Reference has been made to antisocial behaviour. It is important that we have all the legislative instruments to deal with people's behaviour, whether they live in HMOs, in their own hoose or in rented accommodation. We should not focus only on HMOs: there are people who behave in an antisocial way living in all types of tenure. Dealing with people's behaviour is not a planning issue, nor is it to do with certain kinds of people. It is an issue for elsewhere.

I have a list of members who wish to ask questions, but I will also take supplementaries. Bob Doris and Patricia Ferguson have questions on HMOs. I will take Patricia Ferguson first, to be followed by Bob Doris.

I am afraid that I do not share Mr Tolson's sanguine view of HMOs. The legislation on HMOs is, quite rightly, designed to protect those who live in them—two tragic fatalities in my constituency a number of years ago helped to spark that argument—but my concern is that the legislation does not afford protection to those who live adjacent to an HMO.

You talked about detaching HMO policy from the current planning policy. Can you clarify what you meant by that—are we to presume that the reference to HMOs will be taken from SPP 3 and put somewhere else?

Yes. We intend to take any comments that are made on that and to deal with it through a revision of planning circular 4/2004, "Houses in Multiple Occupation: Guidance on the interface between planning control and licensing". We do not intend to deal with HMO policy within the context of SPP 3.

What would the effect of that be? I am all for there being a greater interface between the licensing of the HMO and the agreement to an HMO existing or qualifying to become one. In my experience, it is the gap between the two that most often causes the problem. I would be grateful if you could clarify exactly what is meant.

By moving the policy on HMOs to a planning circular, we are addressing the bridging of that gap. Stephen Garland will make some detailed comments.

The consultation set out the proposal to detach the annex on HMOs from the revised SPP 3 as a means of taking forward this important issue. Many responses to the consultation commented that the guidance on HMOs did not sit well as an annex to SPP 3. However, as you noted, it is still necessary to have guidance on this issue. We will detach the annex in the revised SPP 3, but we will also publish separate guidance that picks up on issues that were set out in the draft SPP 3. As we have discussed, in planning terms the issue is about concentrations of HMOs and authorities striking a balance between providing enough of the right type of housing, reflecting the need for HMOs, and dealing with concentrations of such properties in particular areas. We propose not to force authorities to take a particular policy on concentrations, but to ask them to consider whether such a policy would be appropriate in their area. The approach very much works alongside the licensing regime, which is, after all, about ensuring that standards are maintained.

I am not sure that that is helpful. Surely if this is all part of the planning system it should be dealt with under planning guidance.

It will be dealt with in a planning circular.

I am sorry; I took your comments to mean that it would be dealt with on the HMO licensing side of things rather than on the planning side.

No. There will be a planning circular on the interaction between the planning system and the HMO licensing system.

But if I understand you correctly, the decision on the appropriate number of HMOs in a particular area will be one that local authorities can make if they wish to do so, instead of one that they are required to make.

Local authorities have always had that ability, and we are not seeking to change that. We are simply encouraging them to consider whether a policy is appropriate.

Has that change been made as a result of lobbying on the issue and the responses to the consultation?

We have—I believe, rightly—taken account of what happened in the consultation and of points that were raised in a useful meeting that I had with Pauline McNeill, in whose constituency a range of HMO issues has arisen, and some of her constituents. We want to ensure that planning does what it needs to do with regard to HMOs but that that activity is properly linked to the licensing regime.

For example, one historical issue that has arisen is whether the planning status for all the HMOs for which licences have been granted actually allows them to be HMOs. I do not know whether we have the numbers to hand—they can certainly be provided—but in Glasgow the number of retrospective changes in planning status made to regularise the position because an HMO has been in existence for 10 years has exceeded the number of HMO enforcements. I am looking to my colleagues for confirmation of that, but I think that someone else might have that information. In any case, there is certainly a mismatch in that respect.

The issue of ensuring that the planning status of a building for which an HMO licence has been granted is appropriate has not been adequately picked up on the licensing system's radar, and we want to join the dots in such cases. Certainly, my meeting with Pauline McNeill was very useful in teasing out that particular difficulty, which touches on the planning system but is primarily to do with the licensing system, and we want to address the question whether the systems can work together better to deal with it.

The consultation and meetings with people have been particularly useful in helping us to understand what the practical difficulties are at the grass-roots level and how we can help local authorities to strike the right balance between the need to provide HMO accommodation and the needs of residents and businesses in a particular area, who have rights as well.

How do you see a local authority enforcing any quota that it might come up with?

A local authority can set its own rules for that, as Glasgow does. We do not plan to change that. There is a broader issue about enforcement, which we will continue to talk about.

Are you confident that the current approach works?

I am confident that it can be improved.

Do you believe that the measures that you are taking will improve it?

We have yet to publish the updated planning circular, but we would expect that to contain the appropriate guidance that will help local authorities. I am happy to continue to work with individual members and local authorities on a process that is about striking a balance and ensuring that there is a strong local input that adequately reflects local needs and circumstances. A minister would be unwise to second guess what happens in areas that are often relatively constrained, within cities. In such areas, the local authorities are best placed to decide what the right balance is.

I offer Mr Stevenson an opportunity to visit some of my constituents who would like to discuss some of the issues with him. I would be happy to arrange that visit.

I was happy to meet some of Pauline McNeill's constituents to discuss the matter. If a meeting with your constituents would be helpful, I will certainly try to accommodate that. There is a tension in the situation that is quite difficult to resolve, and if Government ministers can assist local authorities to strike the right balance, I would, of course, wish to engage in that process.

I will allow a couple of supplementary questions, strictly on the subject of HMOs.

I will start by putting on the record the fact that students and others have not been demonised by the Government's approach to HMOs. It is important to provide some responsible context around the issue of how communities and individuals are affected. If someone has a family home in the same close as an HMO that happens to be a student dwelling, they might find that the students in that flat change every year, which means that, as soon as they have built up a good relationship with one set of students, another set might replace them. An area can experience a complete change of character due to an overconcentration of HMOs. Students have rights, and are not being demonised in the slightest, but other residents also have rights. It is important to say that I have met many people who have concerns about the overconcentration of HMOs but I have not met anyone who attempts to demonise students. It is irresponsible to say that that is what is happening.

As a Glasgow MSP, I have had several representations about concentrations of HMOs in certain areas. One of the problems that I have encountered in dealing with that has involved trying to get a definition of a designated area for the purposes of calculating the percentage of HMOs. Are there Government guidelines on that for local authorities?

The issue that you are asking about is a matter for the local authority. In my constituency, there is a substantial number of HMOs and we probably have around 2,000 or 3,000 migrant workers. However, we do not have multistorey buildings—I believe that we have only one four-storey building, and it is our highest—unlike city centres, which often have many tenements. That is why the local authority must consider what an appropriate definition of an area should be for the purposes of calculating the number of HMOs. The situation is further complicated by the fact that some houses have their own front door and others share a communal stairwell.

When I met the leader of the National Union of Students Scotland, who welcomed that meeting, he recognised that all parts of the HMO community, which is by no means limited to students, can be both good tenants and problem tenants, just as home owners can be a problem for their neighbours. The issue of behaviour is not related directly to HMOs although, because of the comparatively high turnover of people who stay in HMOs, sometimes the system is not sufficiently responsive to catch up with them in time to deal with a problem. Of course, action can be taken against the owner of a house, not simply the tenants, if antisocial behaviour is involved. The people who own premises have responsibilities.

I invite a couple of brief questions on the issue. I am not sure that we are making any progress.

I was following a line of questioning, convener.

No. I am taking brief questions and supplementaries from members. I am not convinced—

I will ask a brief supplementary question.

I let you ask your question ahead of members who had requested to speak earlier. I ask you to respect that courtesy.

I have no choice, convener.

I invite brief supplementaries on HMOs. I hope that we will make some progress on the issue. The minister has answered a number of questions, but not much has changed in his previous four or five answers.

The draft proposal on HMOs was controversial with the NUS and Shelter, which raised the issues of more illegal HMOs, increased rents and shortage of supply. Can you explain the difference between the arrangements that were in place before the publication of the draft SPP 3, what was proposed in the draft policy, and what you are suggesting now? At what point did you decide to issue guidance on HMOs in a circular? There was concern that permitting the establishment of quotas to address concentrations of HMOs would affect supply. Other people say that unless concentrations of HMOs are addressed, they will remain a problem in communities.

I will respond in a couple of ways. It is quite proper that we should respond to consultations; if we fail to do so, the consultation process means nothing. I acknowledge that I am responding to the consultation on the draft SPP 3. When we deconstructed concerns that were expressed about the document, we found that a large proportion of them related to the inclusion of HMO material in a planning document, which appeared to signal a radical shift in policy that we were not trying to make. Our taking the HMO material out of the draft SPP 3 and inserting it in planning circular 4/2004 reflects the need for distance between SPP 3, which is a planning document, and the planning circular, which is about joining up the planning system to the licensing system. The draft SPP 3 did not signal a dramatic shift of policy on HMOs, but the inclusion of HMO material in the document gave rise to concerns. It is right that I should respond to concerns that have been expressed, and I have done so.

You asked about the issue of increased rents, which was raised with me previously and which I failed to address. The suggestion that rents will increase is based on the hypothesis that in future there will be fewer HMOs than there were in the past. It is for local authorities to ensure that their application of planning rules to control and direct where HMOs are and how many there are takes proper account of the demand for HMOs. Planning authorities have done that in the past, and I expect that they will do so in future. We want to see a step change—and the local authorities do, too—in diminishing the number of illegal HMOs. We do not know what effect that might have, but ultimately only local authorities are in a position to ensure that enough HMO housing tenure is available to meet demand. It is their responsibility to do that.

You mentioned illegal HMOs, and I am thinking of the rights of tenants, particularly migrant workers. Does the Government have any idea of what efforts are being made at a local level to identify illegal HMOs and enforce the existing legislation?

That is not directly a question for me to answer, because it is in essence on a housing issue. It is a matter for local authorities, which carry out enforcement on the ground. We expect that the new HMO licensing regime under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 will improve enforcement because rent penalty notices to unlicensed landlords or those breaching licensing conditions can be imposed without the need to go to court and the maximum fine for unlicensed HMOs will rise from £5,000 to £20,000. Enforcement should therefore be easier and more effective.

There has been a pretty broad consensus that that is the way forward, and the practical difficulties in the system are, I hope, now being addressed. You are right to mention the addition of significant numbers of migrant workers, who are helping our economy substantially. We need to ensure that the tragic accidents that Ms Ferguson rightly referred to, which way back in time led to deaths in her constituency and problems elsewhere, are not repeated in the future with the new type of residence in HMOs. It is vital that we do that.

I thank David McLetchie and Kenny Gibson for their patience—we will take questions from them to finish.

Good morning again, minister. I want to return to the acceleration of land supply in the context of the review of SPP 3 as highlighted in "Firm Foundations". On page 17 of that document, it says:

"In areas where there are particular pressures on housing supply, there is a need to encourage the quicker release of land for housing and the more effective use of existing housing land allocations. Importantly, the review will consider how a presumption could be introduced that will enable planning permission to be granted for developments in advance of land being designated in a development plan in circumstances where a demonstrable shortfall of housing exists."

How do matters stand with regard to incorporating a presumption that enables planning permission to be granted for developments in advance of that land being so designated in the development plan?

The more consistent use of land audits allows for modifications where shortfalls are identified, and we want to ensure that plans continue to contain a five-year supply of housing land, as is the case under the 2006 act. Ensuring that there are regular reviews of action programmes is part of the issue. The consultative draft of SPP 3 reinforced the presumption—which I think that you are referring to—that, where there is a planning shortfall, planning authorities can act in the way that you suggest, provided that that is consistent with the overall locational strategy and other council policies.

A network of local development plans is meant to have been rolled out in Scotland under the 2006 act, but there is an indication in "Firm Foundations" that, somehow or other, areas may be designated for housing in advance of communities and local people proposing local development plans and those plans being adopted. That will effectively make a nonsense of the development plan concept in some areas, because any discussions of or decisions on comprehensive development plans for those areas will be pre-empted. Is that correct?

Essentially, we are looking at areas of Scotland in which plans are far from up to date and indicating an area for flexibility while such a situation prevails. We want plans to be updated more regularly, and we want to change the character of the engagement between communities and planners in developing plans. It would be fair to say that there is modest interchange on plans at the moment and that we probably want to improve that, but we want to ensure that the planning system is flexible enough to ensure that we can progress the housing agenda. What has been proposed in part reflects that.

I return to the issue of current market conditions and circumstances. Members have said that there seems to be very little prospect that we will get anywhere near 35,000 houses by the middle of the next decade. Last week, we learned from Homes for Scotland that work has ground to a halt on most new sites in Scotland and that there is a substantial inventory of unsold stock. One would like to think that a rapid recovery will take place, but the outlook is far from promising.

Earlier, we talked about silver linings. Instead of rushing ahead with premature and precipitate additional allocations of land in advance of development plans being devised, consulted on and approved, should we not use the interval or hiatus as an opportunity to ensure that in the areas in which there are the laggards that you have mentioned, we get on and devise proper development plans that have been consulted on with the local communities, and then—and only then—allocate land that has been properly identified and approved for housing? Would that not be a useful silver lining that you could adopt in your policy?

I think that the convener was, as ever, the expert in spotting silver linings.

Ever positive.

I welcome that.

Essentially, Mr McLetchie has described where we are going forward. In the current circumstances, there will be less pressure to grant planning permission when a local plan does not provide for that but, at the end of the day, what the planning system can do—and in the current circumstances this might have a bigger effect than it would in other circumstances—is relieve one constraint in the network of constraints that exist between our desiring to increase housing stock in an area and people getting keys to the front door. Planning has a role to play, but it does not stand alone and is not the only thing that needs to be considered.

The issue is whether a presumption should be written into SPP 3 in the terms that are outlined in "Firm Foundations". In the current and foreseeable circumstances, there is no need for such a presumption to be included in SPP 3. There would be no need for any presumption at all if we focused our energies on getting development plans up to date, because they would reflect the need and demand for housing in communities. Is that not the issue? No presumptions would be needed if the development plans were up to date.

I believe that Winston Churchill said that prediction is difficult, especially about the future. In the changes that we are making, we have not presumed that the conditions that prevail at one instant in time will prevail for the entire period for which the planning policy will apply. If, as a knee-jerk response to the current circumstances, we constrained what we are trying to do in SPP 3, I think that we would find ourselves having to revisit the policy—well, I hope that that is what we would do. We are taking a principled decision that we in planning can make a contribution to changing the way in which things are proceeding. For example, I highlight that our population growth will be substantially higher than that in the European Union 15 countries. Although the global conditions affect us, the local impacts may be different from those elsewhere. It would be difficult to justify not taking the opportunity for planning to make its contribution to relieving future constraints that might be important at a later time.

Planning can make its contribution by having an up-to-date set of local development plans, with appropriate housing allocations identified, from which everyone can proceed with confidence. We are talking about the allocation of land for housing outwith the development plan process. I am glad to hear the minister taking Winston Churchill's name in praise. He was very well aware of the need to have well-laid plans. I suggest that in Scotland we need well-laid development plans. We should be getting on with them and we should not have presumptions that pre-empt the conclusions and outcomes in well-laid development plans.

I am happy to agree with Mr McLetchie that we need and should have up-to-date development plans throughout Scotland. Provisions for the circumstances where that is not the case are sensible fallback provisions.

I am glad that the minister is optimistic about population growth, given that Scotland has had the lowest rate of population growth of anywhere on the planet over the past century. He talked about the network of constraints. Surely one constraint is the way in which local authorities deal with developments. To what extent will SPP 3 ensure greater consistency of decision making by local authorities, with more objectivity and less subjectivity? How will the policy expedite the process? Despite the economic climate, several developers in my area want to progress, but there is an inconsistency of approach. For example, in one part of my constituency, houses have been built on land that is so wet and boggy that grass does not grow in people's gardens, while in another area someone is being told to introduce elaborate flood prevention mechanisms, despite the fact that residents in their 80s say that there has not been a single day of flooding in the past 70 or 80 years. How do we ensure that the best plans that you and your team can devise are implemented expeditiously on the ground for the benefit of our communities?

Consistency and certainty will be important parts of sustaining confidence among the development community as we progress. In broad terms, we wish to speed up the planning system, although not necessarily to give different outcomes. For example, it is as valuable to give an early, "No, this is not appropriate," as it is to accelerate to the point at which we say, "Yes, it is appropriate." If we say no early, we avoid people wasting money and we allow developers to consider other projects. The housing need and demand assessment guide that was published in April sets out the process that local authorities should take, which involves not just assessing housing need but considering a range of important issues, including market demand.

Mr Gibson asked about how we respond to areas that present environmental challenges such as flooding and dampness. Local authorities must take a view on that, because the pressures on them are different in different areas, so the challenges in finding sites for housing are different in different areas. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency provides a lot of information on matters such as ground conditions and flooding, which I hope informs many planning decisions.

In my constituency, developments have been rejected by a planning officer who has no qualifications in hydrology, for example, but who makes subjective decisions about that. I am concerned that, despite the best will in the world to improve the supply of land for housing, decisions are inconsistent. On 18 January, I attended a public meeting in Arran on planning at which one individual said that a staff member had told him to build his property in one corner of a field and he produced a plan for that, which cost several thousand pounds, but when that staff member left the council, someone else was appointed who said that the property should be built in another corner of the field. That cost the applicant considerable time and money. Several such examples were presented at that meeting.

I am interested in achieving a consistent approach to SPP 3 by local authorities and in ensuring that proposals are progressed in a reasonable time. A developer wants to develop land in a year or two years and not in three, four or five years. That is especially important because of the boost that construction can give to a local economy.

Consistency is important. In one planning authority's area, one would expect the consistent and logical application of planning policies. To an extent, the question relates to vacancies and skills gaps in planning authorities, to which the member alluded. We are considering that issue.

I make the obvious general point that I am sure that local councillors would wish to hold their officials to account if the general feeling was that the advice that they received was inconsistent and variable. That would be an important step to take.

I thank the minister and his officials for their evidence.