Communities Committee, 14 Sep 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Official Report 272KB pdf

---

Planning

Item 2 is the Scottish Executive's white paper "Modernising the Planning System". I welcome the Minister for Communities, Malcolm Chisholm, and his Executive officials: Tim Barraclough, who is head of planning division 1; John McNairney, who is head of planning division 3; and Michaela Sullivan, who is head of planning division 2.

I understand that the minister will make a short statement before we move to questions.

I had intended to make a longer opening statement but, in view of the time, I will just deal with the issues in questions.

Since my statement to Parliament on 29 June, we have been engaged in a major consultation exercise involving not just the normal written responses—those are still coming in—but various stakeholder events. Indeed, I will attend a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities seminar with 30 planning conveners today between 1.30 and 2.30. That timing might be unfortunate, in the sense that it might create a problem if the committee wishes to detain me for a prolonged period, but I hope that I will be able to answer members' questions satisfactorily so that that will not be necessary. However, we are genuinely interested in the views of a whole range of stakeholders.

There will also be a debate in Parliament fairly soon—I gave that guarantee on 29 June—so our proposals will have been the subject of a lot of discussion before the bill is published towards the end of this year.

I will kick off with a question about the national planning framework. Some might have the inaccurate perception that people object to the very principle of having such a framework, but the concern that many people have is that the framework on which the Executive and Parliament are working might result simply in negative aspects of the current system being reproduced on a bigger, national scale. Does the minister accept that if the national planning framework is not to reproduce on a national scale the current mistrust and resentment about the way in which the planning system works, the highest level of public and parliamentary scrutiny will be necessary? How will that be achieved?

Obviously, my starting point for modernising the planning system is that there are serious problems, both real and perceived, with the current system. Part of the problem is that people feel that they are not meaningfully involved in the planning system, so we hope to have more effective public involvement at all levels of the system, from the national planning framework to local development plans to individual planning applications.

Another important change will be greater parliamentary involvement—in addition to passing legislation, obviously—at national level. As I said on 29 June, we are clear that Parliament should play an important role in the formation of the national planning framework. We are still examining the details of that—they will need to wait for the parliamentary debate not too long from now—but we are certainly strongly committed to the principle of full parliamentary involvement as well as extensive public involvement.

Will public involvement be conducted through a public inquiry?

Are you referring to the national planning framework?

Yes.

That is not part of our current proposals. We believe that Parliament should be the key body that provides final scrutiny of the national planning framework, but there will obviously be full consultation and involvement with other stakeholders.

Once we have a national planning framework, public inquiries might still be undertaken into individual planning applications. The only issue that will be taken up by the centre, as it were, is the question of need. However, even that will not be a change from current arrangements, given that local inquiries can currently only advise on need and must leave it to ministers to make the decision.

We believe that the enhanced role that will be given to Parliament is entirely correct, as Parliament should be involved in strategic priorities such as those that will be contained in the national planning framework.

How often is the national planning framework likely to come back to Parliament for consideration?

The national planning framework will be updated regularly, with the first update taking place about four years after the publication of the first one. Parliament will also have a monitoring role, but the formation of the national planning framework will be on something like a four-year cycle.

A national planning framework that is to be put in place for four years—and possibly for longer than that in future—will be a substantial document that might have even more impact on people's lives than, for example, the budget process has. Given that the parliamentary process for scrutinising the Executive's budget is fairly substantial, does the minister agree that the process for scrutinising the national planning framework will need to be at least at the same level?

It will certainly need to be substantial. The two processes are not exactly comparable, so I am not sure that comparing the process for the national planning framework with the budget process is necessarily very helpful. However, Parliament will certainly need to have a substantial involvement.

I would like to understand what the Parliament's substantial involvement might be. For instance, will the framework be a matter only for the committee or will it be a matter for a plenary session of the Parliament? What is your thinking on that issue?

As I said in my introduction, the details will need to be discussed in the forthcoming parliamentary debate, which will take place pretty soon. As the final details have not been resolved, it would be premature for me to go into issues that have not been finalised. That is all that I can say about that at this stage.

Was the spatial development strategy for London or the regional development plan for Northern Ireland considered as a model for the way in which the Scottish Parliament might handle the national planning framework?

No. Neither I nor my officials looked at that.

Would you consider looking at those models?

Now that you have drawn them to my attention, I am sure that I will.

I would like some clarification on development control, or development management as I believe it is now called. I would like clarification in particular about the four-tier hierarchy of development.

What criteria do you use to define developments of national significance? I cite the example of wind farms which, as you know, are a huge issue in the Highlands. I understand that there is a review of national planning policy guideline 6. I also understand that, under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, you automatically call in any proposals for wind farms that will generate more than 50MW. In future, will wind farms be part of the pre-consultation? Will the designation of land for a wind farm be included in the development plan? How will that fit into the hierarchy of significant developments?

We have someone here who is working on the relevant Scottish planning policy and who may want to add something in a moment.

As I said to you on 29 June, a wind farm would certainly be a major development and would therefore be subject to the measures that are proposed for major developments as a whole in the white paper. There is important work to be done on the planning policy on renewable energy. It is impossible to predict exactly what the conclusions will be, but various options are being considered on how we manage that controversial territory.

At present, major wind farms—those generating more than 50MW—are dealt with under the Electricity Act 1989 and are determined by Scottish ministers. There is nothing in the modernising proposals that cuts across the arrangements for determining the larger-scale electricity consents.

Planning authorities determine applications for wind farm generating less than 50MW, and they will continue to do that. As the minister says, it is likely that the wind farms that they deal with will be classed as major developments, although that is still for consideration. Virtually all of them require an environmental impact assessment. If a wind energy proposal is made, planning authorities must provide up-to-date policies in their development plans to guide developers and to provide certainty for the community. That will remain the case.

National planning policy is set out in NPPG 6 and, as you know, we are at the start of a review of it. We are about to commission consultants to help us to prepare the strategic environmental assessment for it. The review will include various options, one of which is that we provide more prescriptive guidance for planning authorities about what they should put in their development plan, so that communities and developers have much greater certainty about what proposals will be considered acceptable.

That is an important point. It is my understanding that the review of NPPG 6 started in July. However, I believe that the consultation will not start until January. Is that correct?

That is right. It is likely that we will have a draft for consultation at the start of next year.

My concern is that the designation of land for wind farms does not fall within development plans, which gives rise to uncertainty. You are reviewing NPPG 6. It seems that the planning guidelines for wind farms may escape the proposals in the white paper.

I do not see why that would happen.

In future, will all land that is to be designated for wind farms be part of the five-year, up-to-date development plans that are a statutory obligation on local authorities?

It will need to be. Obviously, the issue will depend on what emerges from the new Scottish planning policy, but all of that will need to be carried through into the development plans. There will be nothing in the legislation that will make that happen or not happen, as it will happen anyway.

That is not what happens at the moment, as such developments are currently sited on agricultural land, or in forestry or on mountains. In future, will wind farm developers and objectors face the same pre-consultation process as other developers of land?

Yes.

If I may, I should add that the current approach in national planning policy is based on criteria. We do not say that wind farms should be situated in a particular part of Scotland, as our policy is criteria based.

NPPG 6 leaves it to planning authorities to prepare their development plans, but it also provides that such plans may provide broad areas of search for wind farm development. Although not all development plans do that, our position is that NPPG 6 still provides the current framework for considering wind farm proposals. NPPG 6 is under review to take account of developments in other parts of the United Kingdom, so regional targets and more prescribed areas of search will need to be considered. However, at present, planning authorities have a framework of policies that they can use to determine any proposals that come before them.

Some authorities feel that they need more of a framework than they have at present. As the member will be aware, Highland Council and other authorities are pursuing their own, much more detailed policies to provide a much more robust local framework for determining applications. However, that is fine, as there is a limit to the extent to which the Executive should prescribe what happens locally.

The issue is whether we have an ethos of reacting or of being proactive. For wind farms, most developers and objectors would prefer that consultation was required in the same way as for other matters that are subject to development control or development management.

In future, whatever is in the development plans will be subject to the provisions of the legislation. Therefore, at that level, wind farms will be part of the consultation on the development plan. However, as major developments, wind farms will also be subject to development management and, because of the need for an environmental impact assessment, they will attract all the extra provisions that are mentioned in the white paper such as, obviously, pre-application consultation, hearings and enhanced scrutiny. At both the development plan stage and development management stage, wind farms will benefit from the enhanced measures that are outlined in the white paper.

Thank you. It is important that we have that clarification.

What will happen if a development of national significance is at odds with the policies or proposals of a local authority's development plan?

I am not quite sure how that would arise. Perhaps an issue could arise about a specific site for a development, but we are not saying that we at the national level will decide where a major development—such as a water treatment plant or whatever—should be situated. We will say simply that there is a need for the development to exist, but its precise location will still be for local determination. That is where the development plan will be relevant. Only the need issue, not the whole decision, will be dealt with on a national basis. All the other factors will still be dealt with at the local level.

I have concentrated on wind farms, but I have finished my questioning on that subject. I seek more clarity on what is likely to constitute a major development. Why will that be defined in secondary legislation?

Obviously, we need clarity and consistency across Scotland about what constitutes a major development, but we need a degree of flexibility, as things might change slightly over time and we might want to change the precise boundaries between the different categories. It seems to me that it is better to put those details into secondary legislation, which must also go through Parliament, and to allow the bill simply to outline the general differences between what constitutes a major development and what constitutes a local development, as that will be one of the main dividing lines. For example, we have suggested that larger housing developments will constitute a major development and lesser housing developments will constitute a local development. I am not sure that too precise a level of detail about such matters should be placed inflexibly in primary legislation. However, if you think that that point needs to be put, we will reflect on it. Hitherto, I have not felt that it required that level of detail in primary legislation.

It is a good point, but 100 houses could constitute a major housing development in a small village that currently has 10 houses but not in the city of Edinburgh. It would be helpful if you could provide additional information to clarify your thinking.

Finally, what would be the cumulative impact on the built environment of removing minor developments from the planning system?

It would help to make the planning system more efficient. There is a judgment to be made—subject to the views of Parliament—on what should be classified as a minor development and therefore in effect taken out of the planning system. We are doing a major piece of work on that and are consulting on it. However, obviously we are thinking about household developments within a single household and things of that nature. We do not think that removing such developments from the planning system would have a significant impact on the built environment in any extensive sense, although obviously it would have a minimal impact on particular locations.

Removing minor developments from the planning system would help to make the planning system more efficient. One of the problems with the current planning system is that it deals with the whole hierarchy of planning applications in the same way. That has influenced the thinking behind creating a hierarchy. We acknowledge that there is a hierarchy of importance and that we should have different procedures corresponding to the level of the planning application in the hierarchy. That would not have a significant effect on the environment, but it would have a significant effect on the efficiency of the planning system.

I will pursue Mary Scanlon's point about the fundamentally reactive nature of the present system and the opportunity that we have to change it. She referred to wind farms, but it could just as well apply to any other kind of development. At present, a developer who sees a commercial opportunity puts in an application, which is considered in deliberations and inquiries and all the rest of it.

Is there not a case for turning that round for certain strategic developments, such as wind farms and other infrastructure? As part of the development planning process, the Executive or the local authority could identify preferred areas for certain types of development, such as wind farms, which would avoid the need to go through the futile process, from the developer's point of view, of incurring costs in applying for consent and, from the objectors' point of view, of incurring costs in opposing it. That could be avoided if, following appropriate public debate, preferred locations for particular developments were identified and developments were focused in those areas.

That is exactly what we are trying to do in giving an enhanced role to the development plan. The corollary is that development plans must be up to date, so that if sites are identified on the development plan, the presumption is that there will be development there. We described that in terms of wind farms with the last set of questions, but it could also pertain to housing and many other developments. That is why an up-to-date development plan that does exactly what you say is the foundation of a more efficient planning system. It is also part of a more inclusive planning system, because the other big new thing that we are saying about inclusion is that local people should be involved in the fundamental formation of the development plan in ways that they never have been before. It will make the whole planning system work more efficiently if we have good up-to-date development plans that are the guides for where development will take place.

So the system could be community driven, rather than developer driven.

Absolutely. That is the intention.

I will move on to development plan issues. I agree with making the planning system more inclusive and making it involve local people. The consultation will be interesting, because it will go a long way to encouraging people to become involved in matters that are important to their community. The proposals in the white paper suggest that strategic development issues will be dealt with differently outside the four main cities following the abolition of the structure plans. Could you share with the committee some thoughts on how that will work?

Are you talking about the city-region plans as distinct from—

I am asking about how we will deal with the areas that are outside the city regions.

If an area is outside the city region, it will have a local plan that will form the foundation for the planning system in that area. In the four city regions, a broader view needs to be taken that takes account of the city and its surrounding area. That is new and some parts of Scotland will be covered by only one plan whereas at the moment they are covered by two.

Obviously, every area will have a boundary. How will cross-boundary issues be dealt with and how will local authorities link and liaise with those that are on the boundaries?

I am not sure that I understand your question. There is only one local authority that is in two city regions. Fife goes down to the Edinburgh area and up to Dundee, but every other authority will either be in a city region or not, as the case may be.

I take it that you will be discussing these matters today with the planning conveners.

I am going to let them dictate the agenda because I want to know what their concerns are about the bill.

The intention is that the city regions will draw their own boundaries. It will be for the constituent authorities to decide where the boundaries should fall and what parts of their district belong to the city region. They will then prepare a local development plan for their entire area, including the parts that are not included in the city region.

You seem to be asking about what happens with issues that come up in the corner, if you like, of a local development plan area. I expect that when the authorities involved are preparing their plans, they will consult their neighbouring authorities as part of that process, as they do at the moment. Part of the statutory consultation process for a local plan would consist of sending the plan to the neighbouring authority and inviting its views. The planning authorities also meet one another when the plans are being prepared and they try to stay aware of possible cross-boundary issues. We expect that process to continue in the areas where there is no formal cross-boundary requirement.

So if it was a large-scale strategic development, the authorities would need to discuss and liaise.

Yes, that is right.

The white paper says that local authorities would have scope to go against a reporter's recommendation only if it is

"not in accordance with the National Planning Framework/National Policy or strategic development plan; or based on flawed reasoning".

It further says that

"particularly strong justification will be required from the planning authority"

for going against a reporter's recommendation. What would be "particularly strong justification"?

On your last point, it is important for our inclusion agenda that we should state that a clear public view that is supported by the reporter should prevail. This is an area where I want to hear the views of the planning conveners today. That criterion is in the white paper, but I am keen to listen to the planning conveners about whether we have got the dividing line quite right. I certainly asked lots of questions about the matter, because I knew that local authorities might find it a sensitive one. The formulation in the white paper follows one that was in a planning document from before my time—perhaps it was in "Your place, your plan"—and there was strong public support for that position.

It is a case of getting a balance between the rights of local authorities and those of the public. We want local authorities to be at the heart of the planning system, but equally we have to protect the public when a strong local view is expressed. As I say, I am prepared to look at what the precise dividing line should be, but the current formulation commanded a lot of support when it appeared in the earlier document.

We hope that development plans in which people can have faith will be put in place. People should feel that their communities and everyone who has an interest in the plans has been involved in building them so they can look to their future success.

Perhaps the main development plan is different but, as we know, local plans are notorious for lying on shelves gathering dust because some local authorities have not kept them up to date. In the consultation document you suggest that Scottish ministers would take responsibility for chasing up local authorities when plans were not kept up to date. How do you propose to do that? I presume that Scottish ministers have some power under existing legislation to force local authorities to keep plans updated.

Scottish ministers have the power to intervene and make development plans, but that power has not been used. It is a reserve power. I cannot talk about the history of the past however many years, but we are now placing more importance on development plans. Therefore, the necessity of keeping plans up to date is absolutely central to the reforms that we propose.

The system has been able to tick along, albeit inadequately, without that power being used. We are clear that when development plans are out of date, we will require planning authorities to prepare new plans as soon as practicable after the legislation comes into force. It is anticipated that authorities will commence replacement plans as a matter of urgency as soon as the legislation is in place. We will also require development plans to be prepared at least every five years. That is central to our proposed reforms. The timing of the development plans is crucial.

Going back to your previous question, the involvement of the public in the plans is the other absolutely central matter and that is why we included provision for it. If the public are to be involved in a new way, we must assure them that their views will be heeded rather than just discarded by the local authority at the end of the day.

You have said this morning—and in the white paper—that the Scottish Executive is looking for a culture change in the way that we deal with planning. Will you expand on that and tell us exactly how you want the culture to change?

The two pillars of the process that we describe are efficiency and inclusion—those are the two fundamental principles on which we want to base change. We all know about the inefficiencies of the current system. You highlighted one of those in relation to development plans and another is the speed with which some planning applications are processed. We require a culture change in the primacy given to development plans and in the speed with which they are dealt. However, an equally important culture change will be the meaningful involvement of the public at all stages in the planning system. That might be an even bigger challenge because it includes an even more radical set of proposals. A lot of training will have to be done and a lot of good practice will have to be learned for that to happen.

I will follow up one of Cathie Craigie's questions. The white paper proposals about decisions that reject the findings of a reporter's inquiry would probably have most people's sympathy. When people get to the end of an inquiry they may feel that they have won the argument on the detail and expect that to influence the decision. Why should that principle not also apply to decisions made at a national level when a minister has rejected the findings of a public local inquiry on, for example, an urban motorway project?

In a democracy there is always the question whether we give some status to the decision-making power of national Parliaments or whether that should be subordinate to something else. I find it difficult if you are saying that you do not trust national representatives to decide on national priorities. Remember that they do not decide on all the details of where a development will take place. In the parliamentary debate on 29 June I gave the example of the Borders railway, but my point was that, with our new Parliament, it should not be the right of local bodies to decide whether there should be a Borders railway or compliance with EU directives on water treatment or whatever it happens to be. We must give a proper place to elected politicians, although many others obviously have a strong role in the system.

At last week's question time you answered a question from me about sustainable development. One of the most important aspects of changing the culture of the planning system is to change our understanding of what it is for. You told me that you were looking at how provisions on sustainable development could be worded in the bill. Where has your thinking got to on that?

We will say more about the matter in the debate when the bill is introduced. I certainly regard sustainable development as being at the heart of the planning system, but there is an issue about exactly how that should be translated into legislation. As you will know, it has been done in one way in England through development plans. That has a certain attraction and we are considering such an approach, but no doubt Patrick Harvie and others will make other suggestions.

We want to put a provision in the bill but, as you say, it is even more important to secure a culture change on sustainable development. All the other measures that are in place—such as the SEA that is required for all development plans and for the national planning framework and the enhanced procedures wherever an EIA is required, which I mentioned earlier in relation to wind farms—assure people that the environment will be at the heart of the planning system. A series of measures demonstrate the importance that we attach to sustainable development, but we would certainly also like to include a provision in the bill.

I have a supplementary to one of Cathie Craigie's questions. Many measures in the forthcoming bill rest on development plans being up to date—that is central to the bill. Given that 73 per cent of local authorities do not have up-to-date development plans, what action do you propose to take should local authorities not comply with that provision?

I said something about that previously. We envisage that the preparation of new development plans will be phased because local authorities with up-to-date plans will continue to use those until they expire. Obviously, the focus will be on authorities that do not have an up-to-date plan. I referred to what we required to happen in that case and I mentioned the reserve power that we already have to intervene. Although that power has never been used, that is not to say that it could not be used in the new world in which development plans will be more central. However, I happen to believe that if something is in an act of the Scottish Parliament most local authorities will obey it, so I do not anticipate any great resistance from them. Obviously, if there was such resistance we would take appropriate action and we have the power to intervene if we have to.

The concept of the city region obviously makes good planning sense, but it will inevitably give rise to some anxiety from local authorities outwith the cities—or from surrounding villages, to borrow a phrase from the convener. It is clear that the system will work only if there is a genuine consensus among the local authorities in an area. It would not work, and it would not be acceptable, if Edinburgh made planning decisions for East Lothian, West Lothian or Dunfermline, and the same applies to Glasgow and Lanarkshire. Do you have anything in mind to ensure that there are proper checks and balances and safeguards?

This is not a new situation. We propose that officials are seconded from all the authorities to work on the new plans. I do not know whether Michaela Sullivan wants to say any more about that, but presumably the lessons from structure plans will be applied.

Yes. The most successful example of structure planning is probably the Glasgow and Clyde valley structure plan. It uses a team of people who are seconded by the local authorities and are dedicated to structure planning rather than going in and out of other duties. It is their role to prepare the structure plan, and that is the model that we are looking to use. At the moment, the local authorities in Edinburgh and the Lothians have their staff going in and out. There is no continuity or consistency because there is no dedicated team responsible for preparing the structure plan. That has led to problems, so we want the city regions to have a dedicated team of staff who are responsible for preparing the city-region plan. Those staff will not have the individual local authority ties that staff have had in some areas.

That explains about the staff, but when it comes to the crunch and a difficult decision has to be made can you guarantee that people in the counties around Edinburgh, Glasgow or wherever will not be dictated to by the city authorities?

We have to approve the plans. I am sure that you will have great confidence in me to ensure that East Lothian is not overlooked in such a situation.

We will have to wait and see.

Enforcement has been flagged up as a key part of the legislative proposals. Many communities believe that, in the past, enforcement has been extremely lax. Do you believe that the proposals on enforcement are sufficient to rebuild communities' confidence that when a breach occurs it will be dealt with so that it does not happen again? Most important, will the proposals enable us to get away from the culture whereby developers think that it is acceptable to start off by breaching the terms of their planning consent and to wait until they get caught rather than policing themselves?

We certainly regard that as important. Obviously, we think that our proposals will improve the situation, but, as I said in June, we are open-minded about anything else that may be required. There is no doubt that we have to discourage unauthorised development and breaches of planning control. We have to deal with breaches quickly, efficiently and rigorously and we have to promote public confidence that the planning system operates fairly and in the public interest.

In summary, we propose proactive enforcement. We will introduce a notification of initiation of development, which will require persons with planning permission to notify local authorities when they are about to start development. That will enable authorities to monitor on-going development. We also propose temporary stop notices to allow local authorities to stop development immediately where there has been a breach of planning control. That cannot happen at present, so that is a new power. We will also clarify use of the planning contravention notice to encourage its use by authorities as it is important where prosecution is intended.

We also intend to investigate restrictions on the right of appeal against enforcement notices. There are other measures, but the convener might not want me to go through all of them. They include the raising of fees for retrospective applications and a requirement on all local authorities to produce enforcement charters.

We are confident that our package of measures will improve the situation. However, as I said, if it is shown to be inadequate, we are open-minded about doing more. Indeed, we will listen constructively to any proposal for doing more that is made during the legislative process.

The range of measures that the minister proposes has considerable merit and the potential to work. My concern is whether the local authorities will be in a position to enforce them. Unfortunately, despite the fact that planning consent often has a range of requirements attached to it, the reality is that nobody ever checks up on whether the conditions are met.

Again, my concern is that the emphasis and burden of having to police planning consent will rest on communities. We have to have a culture where the whole community takes responsibility for enforcement. Will the local authorities have the resources to properly enforce the terms and conditions of planning consents when granted?

The issue of resources relates to several aspects of the bill although, equally, other proposals will free them up. For example, the overall package of measures on simplifying development should enable local authorities to manage and reorder their budgets more efficiently. In the context of the pending review, issues of resources can certainly be looked at as far as anything to do with the legislation is concerned.

Obviously, the Executive is trying to encourage and enable local authorities to monitor development more closely and to take a more proactive approach to planning enforcement. The situation will be helped by local authorities being given new powers, but the fact of the matter is that they do not always use the powers that they have been given. Perhaps part of the culture change relates to that. I am confident that the local authorities will respond on enforcement, which is one of the main areas of public concern.

I am interested in what the convener said about planning conditions. It may well be that we should think about having fewer conditions attached to the granting of planning consent but ensure that those conditions that are attached are enforced. That may be part of the culture change too.

I could not agree with you more, minister. Quite often, planning applications are granted with a whole raft of conditions but, as the conditions are never enforced, they are meaningless. Communities come to feel that they should oppose any future development, not because they are against all developments or because they are nimbys, but because their experience of development is negative. It is about time that planning consent conditions came to mean something; people should be able to have confidence in them.

Minister, you said that you will meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities later today. COSLA and the local authorities are not the only organisations that make an input into enforcement. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has particular enforcement responsibilities. Are you in discussion with SEPA? Are you also in discussion with the Crown Office about prosecutions where appropriate? The experience in Scotland of enforcement has been pretty poor. I am thinking in particular of court cases involving breaches of planning consent.

I have not personally held discussions with SEPA, although I imagine that the officials have. I will ask them to speak on the matter. In am aware of the point that you raised on the Crown Office, convener, and I will discuss it with the Lord Advocate.

Right from the outset, we have kept SEPA involved in the development of the proposals. We are fully aware of the enforcement issues that the convener mentioned. Obviously, there are differences between the enforcement of planning decisions and the enforcement of environmental legislation. We have to work within the boundaries of both regimes. SEPA is fully involved in the process.

But the two things mesh together.

Yes, they do.

I am thinking in particular about landfill and opencast sites and the breaches that occur, such as discharges into the watercourse. SEPA has to work in partnership with the local authorities.

I turn to resources, which Karen Whitefield has already mentioned. If we are to be effective on enforcement, we must have the resources, but it is not just on enforcement that there is a problem. A number of planning authorities have a severe problem in recruiting and retaining planning professionals. Given that we are to put more demands on planning authorities, are you confident that there will be sufficient numbers of qualified staff to carry out the necessary work? Karen Whitefield is right—there is a problem not just with the conditions that are attached to planning, but with the lack of staff at appropriate levels in the planning process to deal with the current workload, never mind what might come along in future.

That is obviously an issue, although to some extent it is addressed in chapter 7 of the white paper. Pages 50 and 51 list a series of reforms that will require more resources, as well as reforms that will release resources. I will not go through the lists. I simply state by way of introduction that there is a bit of balance in the white paper.

That is not to take away from the need for more staff and for culture change within planning departments. We are mindful of that. I am glad that we do not face as much of a crisis as many parts of England. When I examined some matters in London this summer, I was told that some authorities there had no planners at all. We are certainly not in that situation, but we must keep attracting planners into the public sector. We are keen to do that and have a series of measures to help us to achieve that goal. There is the planning development fund that I announced a few months ago, which is helping to deal with the training of people who are already in positions in local authorities. One of the officials might have some broader comments on the recruitment of planners.

We have been in discussion with the planning schools and the Royal Town Planning Institute as key players in ensuring not only that the right flow of planners come into the system, but that they have the right set of skills. The planning development budget, which is aimed at existing planning professionals, is partly intended to address that major issue.

We must ensure that roles within planning departments are allocated to the right level. It might not be the case that we need many more planning professionals, but that planning technicians—people who are not fully graduated planning professionals—could play an enhanced role. For example, the processing of applications could be done by planning technicians rather than by planning professionals. We are discussing a range of issues with the RTPI, the planning schools and the planning authorities, including the allocation of resources, the supply of planners and their recruitment and retention. The issue is live.

I will try to be brief. My question relates to public involvement in planning, which the minister and his team have already addressed. On resources, I notice that you will increase funding for Planning Aid for Scotland. According to the white paper,

"the Executive has made funding of up to £100,000 available for each of the next two years."

Additional funding will also be provided through the sustainable action fund.

If we are to create a level playing between first party, second party and third party—the community—we must give communities a genuine opportunity to present their case, which they are often not able to do throughout all the stages of the planning process. Much of what is proposed is welcome, such as pre-application consultation, which will help to remove difficulties early on in the process.

How do communities get to know about organisations such as Planning Aid for Scotland? Like many members of the committee, I meet communities that are firefighting and do not know about the resources that are available. How will you inform them of that funding so that they can have a proper input from the start? My question is about funding and where communities can get information on how to obtain it.

We must introduce a culture change on community involvement and we have a lot of work to do on the detail if that is to be effective. If I am committed to anything in the white paper, it is to ensuring that the community involvement process works. That is central for me. If extra resources are required, we must consider that. However, I am sure that that is not the only issue and that there are many other things that we require to do, not least to change the culture of planning departments in local authorities in terms of the public involvement agenda.

We must also ensure that the developers are part of this. I am encouraged to hear that, at present, some developers are seeing the advantage of the proposals, taking on board what local communities are saying and getting their planning applications through more quickly. There are already some good examples of communities being involved at an early stage; we want to build on that and do a lot more of it.

The other area to mention, which I have already touched on, is the new involvement around development plans. There will now have to be a consultation statement, which is a new feature and something that we will look at when we look at development plans.

There is a whole series of proposals around the white paper, and I am not saying that resources may not be part of that. If more has to be done to support the white paper's proposals from a financial point of view, that is what we will do.

That is interesting. Let us move on to good neighbour agreements, which are an excellent proposal. You are going to work up a system that we will no doubt hear about in due course. I see that you are going to introduce a hearings system linked to that whereby parties can object. We are informed that under the proposed system,

"developers and objectors can present arguments for or against a development prior to the committee making a decision."

That is very adversarial, although perhaps it has to be in certain places. Would you consider inserting in the proposed planning bill a mediation procedure? I have batted on about this in the chamber many times, having been converted on a visit to Maryland. Such a procedure is used there in many commercial situations, and there may be an opportunity to engage the public throughout the process through hearings, and then to proceed to mediation. People are not always opposed to an entire development; they are sometimes opposed just to bits. A mediation procedure could be put in place and the outcome could contractually bind the parties—the developer, the person granting the application and the community—to certain issues right away. Would you consider putting such a procedure in place? That would be a new procedure in Scotland.

I am open to considering that suggestion. It is not something to which I have hitherto given attention, but it could be relevant either to the general process of pre-application consultation or to the formation of good neighbour agreements. The purpose of the agreements is to encourage developers to take into account the views of local representative groups in their operation of a site or facility. There may well be a role for mediation in that; it is something that I am happy to reflect on.

Even so, I am disappointed by the white paper's complete disregard for a third-party right of appeal. I am not in favour of a full-blown third-party right of appeal in all circumstances, but there is a role for such an appeal, given what you say in the white paper about equality in the planning system.

We are told that there will be robust pre-planning consultations, hearings and then—perhaps—mediation. There is still a place, at the end of all that, for a third-party right of appeal in certain circumstances; for example, when a planning authority or planning officer says that a development should not proceed but it still gets the go-ahead, or when there are environmental issues but a development still gets the go-ahead. If there was substantial community objection—that would depend on what constituted a community in the case of an individual application—that community should at least be entitled to a third-party right of appeal. There could be a filter system, just as there would be for developers, if there was a substantive interest. That would restore confidence to communities. Such a right of appeal would be limited, but I understand that it works in Ireland, where 60 per cent of appeals have led to revised conditions. Why has the white paper taken such a stance against the third-party right of appeal?

I know that some members in each of the four main parties in Parliament take that view; however, the fact is that none of the four main parties takes that view as a matter of party policy.

We do.

I am going by how parties represent themselves in Parliament; obviously, I do not know what is written in documents. From what parties' front-bench members and leaders say, it is clear that none of the four main parties supports a third-party right of appeal.

The idea of a third-party right of appeal is attractive at a certain level. The issue exercised me more than any other in the planning white paper in the past few months. However, I am not sure that such a right would satisfy communities in the way that Christine Grahame suggests it would. Involvement of people at an early stage will offer a better chance of enabling them to have meaningful influence on what happens in the planning system.

Other problems with a third-party right of appeal relate to the ways in which it would act contrary to the efficiency of the system. We know that the process is already too protracted; the third-party right of appeal would exacerbate that situation. A large volume of third-party appeals would have an even more fundamental effect on the working of the system as a whole. I accept that the third-party right of appeal is attractive at a certain level, but its overall effect on the planning system would be detrimental. It would not satisfy communities, which would be far more likely to influence the system if they could be involved earlier.

What I said was predicated on the fact that I think that are many good things in the proposals. I agree with the elements that put everybody—local authorities, the developer and the community—on their mettle, but my point of view is not based on fantasy. The third-party right of appeal is my party's policy and that policy is working elsewhere in limited circumstances. Obviously, I will continue to press you on the issue and I will seek to persuade you to our point of view. We are in favour of a strong bill that will make the planning system much more responsive throughout all of its levels.

As I said on 29 June, I look forward to the debate on the subject. Obviously, the third-party right of appeal will be one of the major issues that runs through discussion of the bill in Parliament. However, it seems to me that there are more effective ways for people to be involved in the process. Furthermore, the third-party right of appeal would take decision-making power from local authorities. I know that people ask why, if that is the case, developers have a right of appeal. However, you can be sure that I have considered that issue as well. I am aware that there are severe difficulties in the area and that it would be impossible to remove that right of appeal from European law. I know that people want to equalise the planning system, but that cannot be done by removing that right from developers. Of course, it is possible to do what we have done and to restrict that right as far as possible by reducing the time that is available for appeals and by ensuring that the appeals procedure does not start from scratch but involves an examination of the issues that were before the planning committee in the first place. We are doing what we can to curtail the appeal rights of developers within the constraints of European law. That is what is best in terms of the overall efficiency of the system and the aim of effectively including communities.

Are you saying that no third-party right of appeal would be European convention on human rights proof, in the sense that communities would not have had their rights under the ECHR sidestepped?

The ECHR issue that I raised was to do with the rights of appeal of developers—

I understand that, but communities also have ECHR rights.

Obviously, a third-party right of appeal would not be against the ECHR, but it is obviously not a right that is enshrined in the ECHR; the Irish example notwithstanding, most countries do not have a third-party right of appeal.

Sometimes, the way that some arguments lead into the third-party right of appeal is quite tricky. I would like to ask a question about the developer's right of appeal.

If there is to be an appeal stage, people must have incentives to engage in it. You are right to say that, if communities can engage at an early stage, they will have more influence on the process. If we can get that right, it will be hugely beneficial. However, if we want people to do that, they must have a sense of trust and a feeling that they will be listened to—not just that they will have a voice, but that the voice will be heard and their opinions taken into account. Will you ensure that planning authorities have an obligation to take account of people's views when they are expressed in pre-application consultations or hearings?

I understand that we cannot abolish developer appeals and I support your moves to reduce the timescale for such appeals and the number of grounds on which they can be made. However, do you share my niggling concern that shortening of the timescale will simply lead to more developers automatically appealing for fear of running past the shorter timescale? I am also concerned that the inability to introduce new arguments or evidence at the appeal stage might be problematic. For example, if a change in market conditions in an industry results in the economic case for a development becoming marginal and being outweighed by its social and environmental cost, should not that be taken into account? I am sorry that I asked so many questions, but they all lead in the same direction.

You obviously support the changes to developer rights, although you flagged up concerns about the two parts of those changes.

I support the principle or intention behind the changes.

On your final question, we cannot be inconsistent on that matter. I understand why you say that an issue should be considered if it is advantageous to those who object to a proposal, but we need a level playing field in the procedures that we adopt. I understand that what you describe might happen in theory, but I am not sure how often such a situation would arise in practice.

On reduction of the timescale for appeals from six months to three months, we will have to wait and see what happens, but I do not think that your argument is a case against making the change. Another proposal is to screen out appeals that will self-evidently not be successful, which will cut down the number of appeals that will be heard and which will pull in the opposite direction from that which you fear.

I suspect that you made another point, but I cannot remember what it was.

It was about giving people a sense of having rights, to give them an incentive to participate earlier.

That is an important point. I have given a commitment today that it is a major priority for me to ensure that the system works. Obviously, part of that will be to ensure that people's views are taken into account. I do not know how we can put that into legislation or what words we could use, but we should consider how to do so. Some people may suggest that local people's views should automatically be the determining factor, but others can see the difficulties with that; important and socially necessary developments might not go ahead if we followed that principle. I sense that I have discussed the issue before, when I held the health brief. We must ensure that involvement is effective and that people's views are taken into account. I am open minded about finding the correct formulation of words, but it is perhaps even more important to ensure that we develop practice that makes that happen. We are developing the planning advice note on public engagement and a programme of work is being carried out. However, I do not say that part of that should not be to find the right words, for either primary or secondary legislation, to describe what we want to happen.

My final question is not specifically about developer rights, but about the balance between the two sides at the appeal stage. Do you accept that, given the current pressure that the system is under in some parts of the country, the presence of a developer right of appeal puts planning authorities under a great deal of pressure to avoid being taken to appeal, with the result that they grant planning consent for developments when they would prefer not to do so? Is not that another argument for rebalancing the rights at the appeal stage?

I do not know. One of the officials might wish to comment on their much wider experience of individual planning applications. I know that people say that what you have described happens from time to time, but I do not know to what extent it happens. I am not quite sure what we can do to eliminate altogether the developer right of appeal.

I am not sure that we are aware of any evidence that what Patrick Harvie described is prevalent in any part of the country.

I am happy to send you details of some of my favourite examples in Glasgow, if you like.

One of the other important changes, which is relevant to this, is the requirement that planning authorities give reasons for their decisions on both approval and refusal of applications, which will help to make the system more transparent.

You do not, however, see the appeals stage as being one of the drivers of the imbalance in rights in the system. It is one of the things that results in decisions being made overwhelmingly in favour of developers rather than in a more balanced and equitable way.

We have the determination under section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, under which applications are supposed to be determined in accordance with the development plan. I do not think that there is a huge body of evidence that determinations are being made just to avoid an appeal if they are not in accordance with the development. That is the purpose of the development plans.

Perhaps once they are more up to date, things will be better.

I think that we can all agree that development plans should be up to date. I ask Cathie Craigie to keep her points brief, because another member requires to ask questions.

I will do that. The call for a third-party right of appeal came before we got the planning consultation document and before we started talking about involving communities much more in planning decisions. The debate on that has not moved on to address what is in the planning document. However, there does not seem to be a level playing field—we have talked about that quite a bit—given that a developer can appeal against a decision but an objector cannot. I do not agree with a blanket third-party right of appeal. Ms Sullivan spoke about the development plans. We are now going to have development plans that involve communities. If a planning authority deviates from the development plan that we have all agreed, a developer should have a right of appeal. If the consent deviates from the development plan, an objector should have a right of appeal. That seems fair to me. I ask the minister to address that before a bill is published. Given that we are encouraging people to put so much time and resources into developing the plans for the future, if there is deviation from the plan, there should be an appeal process.

I have another brief point to make on the pre-application consultation. Consultations are only of worth if people feel that as well as being consulted, they are involved and can participate in decision making. Most members of the Scottish Parliament welcomed the Executive's decision to introduce pre-application consultation when we were dealing with telecommunication masts. Do you have any research findings on how pre-application consultation has gone that you could share with us, perhaps not today but as we consider the bill?

On your first point on the enhanced and more central status for development plans, you are right that many decisions should be a lot clearer. I described the sifting procedure whereby a developer has the formal right of appeal, but if the appeal is against something that is clearly in the development plan, it will be discarded very quickly; the matter will not go to a full appeal. Developers will be exercising their formal right of appeal, but that is precisely the kind of thing that will get screened out at an early stage. I think that that goes a considerable way towards meeting Cathie Craigie's wish.

Although Cathie Craigie spoke against the third-party right of appeal, she seemed to be saying that if something was agreed against the development plan there should be a right of appeal. We propose for such situations the enhanced procedures, including the pre-application consultation, the hearings and the enhanced scrutiny arrangements, whereby an application would be referred to the whole council. Of course, there would also be the call-in option for the Executive. There are many other things that can happen when local authority goes significantly against a development plan. Are you suggesting that, in that situation, there should be a third-party right of appeal?

It will be interesting to look at the matter more closely. If a local authority refuses an application, a developer has a right to make an appeal. If the local authority refuses or grants an application where there are objectors, will they be protected by the call-in situation? If the local authority has breached its development plan, that has to be reported to you or your officers, so is the proposal that the plan would be called in?

You will see from page 40 of the white paper that, as part of the enhanced scrutiny procedures, such an application must

"be notified to Ministers, to consider whether to clear the application back to the Council or call in for determination."

In that situation, an application would be notified to ministers, who would obviously have then to make a decision about it. That is an important part of the enhanced scrutiny procedures. We are reacting in various ways to the situation in which a local authority goes against a development plan, but we are not doing that through a third-party right of appeal, although our proposals will have the same effect.

We shall need more explanation of that as we go on.

I think that we probably all agree that there is a need to restore trust in meaningful and effective consultation, but what are the criteria for a meaningful and effective consultation? I understand that you are working on the planning advice note. When will it be available? It would be helpful, given that we are taking so much evidence from local people and developers, to have that information during our deliberations, so that we can perhaps reassure people that they are being listened to.

On consultation on the new PAN, I ask the minister to take into account an important point about an incident that happened last week. I am sorry, but it was in relation to a wind farm. The developer consulted Berridale and Dunbeath community council very meaningfully, effectively and honestly in December 2004, but the siting of the turbines and their visual impact have changed significantly since then. However, the developer is refusing to meet the community council and is saying, "We've already consulted you," and it will not see the community council until after the consultation process is over. When you are drawing up the new planning advice note, will you consider whether there should be secondary consultation if significant changes are made to a development between consultation and processing of the application?

That is a detail that we would certainly want to think about and, I hope, incorporate. I accept what you say about wanting the guideline to be finalised as soon as possible, but my response is that we must do it as effectively as possible. We are quite proud of our consultation procedures in the Parliament, and not least in connection with this matter. We shall have a stakeholder group that includes people who have been involved in local campaigns, as well as planning professionals.

We have to do the work properly, but I cannot guarantee that it will be finished in time for stage 1 of the bill, if that is what Mary Scanlon has in mind. However, we can provide updates and the committee will have the opportunity to provide feedback. I accept that the committee wants to be sure that the process is effective.

During the passage of the bill, Parliament will have many ways of feeding its views into the process. I am sure that people will even be able to think of amendments to the bill, if they think that that would help to make it meaningful. In his question, Patrick Harvie suggested that the views of local people should be taken into account. There will be lots of opportunities for that, but I cannot guarantee that the specific work on the planning advice note will be finished in the time that Mary Scanlon suggests.

You are currently consulting on the new planning advice note.

We are forming a stakeholders group at the moment.

The minister is right: we might come up with one or two amendments.

You talked about consultation that Parliament conducts. Do you realise the scale of people's scepticism about consultation—particularly the consultation on third-party right of appeal? There was an overwhelming response in favour of such a right of appeal, but it fell on deaf ears. Do you realise the scale of the scepticism that you will have to get over if you are going to give people reasons to get involved in the planning system?

There is obviously scepticism to do with people's involvement in planning and many other issues. Patrick Harvie raises a specific example but, with third-party right of appeal, there are acute divisions within all sorts of groupings. Christine Grahame corrected me on the SNP's policy earlier, but all four major parties in Parliament contain a strong body of opinion against a third-party right of appeal. It is not for me to say what the official SNP policy is, but the four largest political parties in Parliament—although perhaps not Patrick Harvie's party—certainly contain people who fall on either side of the fence on that particular issue. The majority in my party opposes the third-party right of appeal.

There is division within groups in the community as well. In the consultation on third-party right of appeal, a certain number of people said one particular thing. However, opinions are very strongly divided. I am trying to build a greater degree of consensus around meaningful involvement from the earlier stages of the planning process. We can make progress on that front, although we have to accept that all sorts of groups are acutely divided on the issue.

That concludes our questioning, minister. Thank you very much for your attendance and for your patience in waiting to appear in front of the committee.

Meeting closed at 12:53.