Planning
The first item of business is a statement by Margaret Curran on modernising and reforming Scotland's planning system. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Parliament about our plans for modernising the planning system. Today, I am publishing two consultation papers—"Making Development Plans Deliver" and "Rights of Appeal in Planning". I am also publishing our first national planning framework for Scotland. Those are major elements in our drive to modernise the planning system and they will ensure that the system is fit for the needs of the new century. This morning, I will explain why planning remains important; set out why reform is necessary; outline the content of the three documents; and describe the next steps in our programme.
Why does planning matter so much? We all know that people and places are important and it is the planning system that brings people and places together. Planning policies and decisions make a significant impact on our economy, our environment and our communities: get them right and we make real progress on economic competitiveness, environmental protection and social justice; get them wrong and we fail to deliver on our commitment to sustainable development. We must enable things to happen where they should and prevent them from happening where they should not. That is the challenge that I am determined we will meet.
The planning system is often criticised. Sometimes the criticism is unjust, but sometimes it is justified. I believe that there are real grounds for concern about delays in decision making and failures to keep plans up to date. We know and understand that the planning system in its foundation and operation is crucial to encouraging economic growth. However, we need to be clear that different stakeholders want different things from the planning system. For example, community and environmental groups generally expect councils to take decisions in line with the development plan, whereas business and property interests often argue that councils are too inflexible.
The consultation that I am publishing today attempts to strike a balance between those two positions. It supports and takes forward the partnership agreement commitment to
"improve the planning system to strengthen the involvement of communities, speed up decisions, reflect local views better, and allow quicker investment decisions".
That commitment is, of course, set against the background of the Executive's commitments to grow the economy and to secure environmental justice.
Modernising the development planning system to produce up-to-date, relevant and accessible plans is a fundamental reform. The conclusions of the "Review of Strategic Planning", which was published in 2002, set out our decisions on the shape of the development planning system. One of the outcomes was that the current practice of having two tiers of development plans throughout Scotland should be discontinued. We agreed that there would be city-region plans for only the four largest cities—Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow—where land use and infrastructure issues transcend local authority boundaries.
Our new consultation paper, "Making Development Plans Deliver", sets out detailed proposals on city-region plans and ways in which local planning can become more effective in commanding support for and delivering development and regeneration. Discussions with local authorities and other key stakeholders have helped to shape the proposals, as has pilot work with Highland Council and South Lanarkshire Council.
The consultation paper notes the often poor record of local authorities in keeping their plans up to date and achieving measurable outcomes. We propose a range of options to ensure that development plans are kept up to date, including a statutory requirement to review plans at least every five years.
Our proposals to modernise development planning centre around four key themes. The first is consultation. Full and effective engagement with communities, business interests and key public bodies is critical and must be more effectively targeted. Among the options are a statutory duty for key public agencies to engage in the development plan process and the introduction of neighbour notification for site-specific proposals in local development plans.
The second theme is content. We want shorter plans that are focused on genuine planning and development issues, with greater consistency throughout Scotland in the style of plans. The third theme is management. Staff and resources must be managed effectively from the outset of plan preparation. That requires political commitment, effective leadership and a project management approach. The final theme is delivery. Development plans must focus more on outcomes, with action plans setting out the steps required to deliver the plans' aims.
Some proposals will require legislative change, but, for the most part, modernising the development planning system need not necessarily require changes to statutory procedures—it is about better management of the process. Our aim is to change the culture of development planning to one that is managed effectively from the outset, where there is greater consensus on the nature and scale of change and where proper, rigorous community consultation and delivery are key. Statutory development plans matter. They can and must make a difference. It is essential that all key stakeholders play their part.
We all know that the subject of rights of appeal in planning is controversial. Applicants have a right of appeal to the Scottish ministers against a refusal of planning permission or against the conditions attached to a consent. "Third party" is the term that is generally applied to anyone other than an applicant or planning authority. Third parties have many opportunities to participate in planning policy and decision making, but they do not have a right of appeal if they disagree with a local authority's decision. Some people see that as an imbalance in the planning system. Others consider that members of the public have plenty of opportunities to influence planning and that extending the right to appeal might cause significant and unnecessary delay.
"Your place, your plan: A White Paper on Public Involvement in Planning", which was published a year ago, set out our proposals to strengthen public involvement in the planning system. It included a commitment to consult on third-party planning appeals. The paper recognised that the matter is complex and has potentially significant implications for the planning system. The partnership agreement further defined the subject of the consultation. It stated:
"We will consult on new rights of appeal in planning cases where the local authority involved has an interest, where the application is contrary to the local plan, when planning officers have recommended rejection or where an Environmental Impact Assessment is needed."
I emphasise that the consultation that we are launching today takes a neutral standpoint. "Rights of Appeal in Planning" seeks views on whether we should introduce new rights of appeal. If we do not, are there other ways in which to address the concerns that lie behind demands for third-party appeals? If we do, how might we best design the appeal system?
One of our options is to make no change to the right of appeal. We do not want imbalance in the planning system, but it is in no one's interest to have a planning system that does not support growth or provide necessary development such as housing. We know that we shall have to make a hard decision and we shall not shirk that responsibility.
The consultation paper on rights of appeal sets out four possible ways forward, but it does not recommend a specific proposal and we will listen to the views that we receive. The first model that we are consulting on involves a right of appeal for third parties in the circumstances set out in the partnership agreement. Secondly, at the other end of the spectrum, we might not introduce further rights of appeal. However, that would not mean that there would be no change in the planning system; we would still intend to advance our existing programme of reform to tackle the issues that underlie the current calls for third-party appeal. A third possibility is to improve procedures in local authorities for dealing with controversial planning applications without altering the right of appeal. The final model sets out a new system for planning appeals that differs from the current process and involves some related changes to the planning system.
I know and understand that there are passionately held views both for and against a third-party right of appeal. We worked with a stakeholder group that was drawn from a wide range of interests to ensure that we explored those points of view. Some people believe that the issue of a third-party right of appeal is straightforward and that, quite simply, there should be such a right or that, quite simply, there should not. The issues and potential implications are aired in the paper.
The debate is important and it is essential that stakeholders engage in the process. The outcome of the consultation is far from being a foregone conclusion. We want people to respond to us, to inform our final decision; we want them to ensure that the decision that we take is informed and consistent and meets the needs of Scotland in terms of economic growth and social justice.
The third and equally important publication that we are issuing today is the "National Planning Framework for Scotland". We announced the decision to draw up the framework as one of our conclusions on the review of strategic planning. There has been extensive stakeholder engagement in drawing up the framework. We held a range of seminars across Scotland and I am pleased that there was strong support for tackling issues such as economic development, transport, water and drainage, affordable housing and waste.
The national planning framework is a key element in our package of planning reforms and it represents an important first step in addressing the challenges of Scotland's long-term development. The framework examines how Scotland is likely to change over the next 15 to 20 years, analyses the underlying trends in Scotland's development and the key drivers of change, and links with other key Executive policies on economic development and regeneration. The framework will help to guide the spatial development of Scotland and will provide a context for development plans and planning decisions. We plan to update it every four years.
The framework considers key points, such as the challenges and opportunities of Scotland's location and the importance of the Edinburgh-Glasgow relationship. It identifies the east coast as a key strategic corridor and it emphasises Ayrshire—where Prestwick airport and Hunterston play such an important role—and, of course, the key role that rural Scotland plays in our development. The framework is a planning document and will feed into the strategic projects review on transport and into decisions on area regeneration and priorities for expenditure on water and drainage.
In conclusion, the consultation papers, "Making Development Plans Deliver" and "Rights of Appeal in Planning", will be out for consultation during the next four months. The consultation will be a very active process. My deputy Mary Mulligan, officials and I will take the debate to our stakeholders in business and property, in environmental and community groups and in professional organisations. The Deputy First Minister will also continue his dialogue with business and planning will be on his agenda.
It is important to remember that other issues are being taken forward in relation to the planning reform agenda, including e-planning, design and the modernisation of our planning inquiry system. The Barker review of housing supply, our review of affordable housing and the implications of those reviews for the future of housing in Scotland are factors that we will consider in our reform of the planning system.
We are undertaking a large programme of important work and, to assist stakeholders, I will bring our final proposals together in a single document, which will identify elements that require primary legislation, elements that require secondary legislation and elements that can be dealt with through guidance.
The planning system deals with wide and complex issues, but we are determined that it should be modernised to meet the challenges of 21st century Scotland and to balance the needs of community and business. Today represents another stage in our reform of Scotland's planning system.
The minister will now take questions on her statement. I have a long—and lengthening—list of names on my screen, so I ask members to be very tight indeed with their questions.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I know that the Executive is keen on producing documents and, in particular, on consultations, but it has surpassed itself today, with a bumper issue of three documents and two consultations in one go.
I will focus my questions on affordable housing, which is an important issue. The minister is aware of cross-party calls for better planning guidance, more up-to-date local plans and the need to address land availability and price in order to deliver more affordable housing in many parts of Scotland. How will she avoid confusion and duplication and ensure that there is a consistent and coherent approach to the reform of the planning system, given that all those separate elements relate broadly to the same issues? Specifically, how will the new national planning framework and the consultation paper "Making Development Plans Deliver", which have been published today, link with the current review of affordable housing that the Scottish Executive Development Department is carrying out?
I am delighted that so many members are taking an interest in planning and, in the interests of consensus, I say that Shona Robison has asked a key set of questions. The Executive has given serious attention to those matters, which are an issue for us all.
As Shona Robison indicated, we are carrying out our own review of affordable housing. We are also considering the implications of the Barker review for Scotland. Jo Armstrong, who has a considerable record in the field, has joined the Executive for a short period to undertake the financial analysis that we need.
I am clear that there must be consistency and that our proposals on social housing, on affordable housing and on strategic development for housing in Scotland must link with the proposals that we take forward on planning. Indeed, it is opportune that we are conducting the review on affordable housing at the same time as a consultation on substantial issues around planning. We intend to bring those areas of work together and I would be happy to discuss that work and have debates about it in the chamber.
I, too, welcome the minister's statement, the national planning framework and the two consultation papers. As the real Opposition party, the Conservatives will discuss those papers with councillors and key stakeholders in business and the community.
I have a few brief points. First, I ask that we do not allow the debate simply to focus on the third-party right of appeal. That issue should be considered in the wider context of the national planning framework and the consultations. If the debate were to focus simply on the third-party right of appeal—which could happen—the wider consultation that the Executive seeks would not take place and the process would fail.
Secondly, as part of the drive towards the modernisation of the planning system, will the minister ensure that Historic Scotland and others are accountable and responsive to public views?
Finally, page 11 of the advance copy of the minister's statement mentions Scotland's location in north-west Europe. Will the minister also remember north-west Scotland? I do not mean just the Western Isles, which are mentioned in the statement, but Shetland, which faces serious challenges, particularly in relation to fishing, and Orkney.
It will be very tedious if I compliment all the Opposition speakers on the points that they raise. Indeed, that is completely outwith my character, but I am driven to do so. Mary Scanlon makes a significant point and I would be grateful for her support on the matter. It is essential that the debate does not focus entirely on third-party rights of appeal, important though that matter is. We have an opportunity to address issues that are consistently raised about the operation of the planning system and, indeed, the consultation papers raise many significant issues.
I am pleased that Mary Scanlon has referred to matters that are associated with the national planning framework. In drawing up the framework, we did not want to produce a shopping list that said, "These areas are important, ergo other areas are not important." We are trying to provide a spatial framework that emphasises connectivity and the growth and development of Scotland that we envisage. The framework will genuinely allow us to consider matters as we make decisions along the way, so we should not be concerned if a specific area was not mentioned in my statement. The north-west of Scotland will, of course, continue to receive serious attention and, as the debate about the national planning framework continues, I look forward to Mary Scanlon's continuing emphasis on that part of Scotland.
The minister need not congratulate me.
The main thrust of the Liberal Democrats' concern about planning is that we should create a system that has enough well-trained staff to speed up its operation. Complaints about delays in the system come from all sides, so I hope that the minister will focus on that matter. We want to be fair, but above all we must speed things up. Secondly, will the minister ensure that planning takes sufficient account of transport issues, which are increasingly important? We build hospitals that nobody can get to, for example.
Donald Gorrie is particularly reasonable today and I must congratulate him on that. His point about staff is significant and we must give great consideration to the matter. I have talked to a number of people in the field in recent months and I have been concerned about what I understand to be a reduction in the number of students who take up planning courses and the changes that have taken place in some university planning departments. Officials and I have acknowledged that we must give serious consideration to finding ways of assisting students to come forward.
Of course, that issue relates to a programme of staff development. Good staff who are confident and on top of their job and who can engage effectively are critical to much of the operation and implementation of the planning system. The ability to articulate issues about planning in a lively and engaging manner is a technique that I have never mastered, although there are certainly members on the Labour back benches who have done so—I will not talk about Sarah Boyack in particular.
We need to take planning out of the doldrums and have a public discussion of what planning means. Planning really matters to ordinary communities and businesses. We cannot allow it to be regarded as a dry subject. It is vital, which I think is what Donald Gorrie was driving at. We have to encourage staff to consider it in that way.
Transport is vital, too; I wanted to emphasise that more but was short of time. Donald Gorrie will know that Nicol Stephen would whole-heartedly support an emphasis on transport, so I would not have any choice in the matter anyway.
The minister leaves me no choice but to call Sarah Boyack.
That is a bit of a poisoned chalice.
I welcome the minister's statement and the various documents that have been issued this morning, which represent a big step forward towards a more streamlined and focused planning system. I particularly welcome her national planning framework and the four city-region planning documents, which are absolutely central.
I welcome the minister's comments on a third-party right of appeal and ask her to take a genuine overview of the whole system. One of the main frustrations for members of the public is that they do not see the development plans. Many development plans are totally out of date and those that are up to date are often not taken very seriously at a political level by the people who make the final decisions that shape our environment. I welcome the minister's acknowledgement that we need to improve third-party rights—that must be one of the ideas that she acts on in the summer. She has to make the development planning system much more meaningful and she has to give it political weight. I also ask her to ensure that we have appropriate staff resources and that management is improved.
I agree that we will have to give serious attention to how the system is staffed and supported. I may well discuss that with Sarah Boyack again, because it will be an on-going issue.
There is no doubt that the momentum behind the call for a third-party right of appeal has come from deep-rooted frustrations among local communities. Communities have felt left out and disfranchised and I do not doubt that there is substance in that argument. Many development plans are shockingly out of date and we are determined to put that right. When plans are so out of date, they do not serve the purpose for which they were designed. People have no confidence in such plans, which will not have kept up with developments in local communities. People do not feel that their concerns are being paid attention to. Changing and modernising the development planning system is a big part of ensuring that communities are properly enfranchised and properly informed about what is happening in their areas.
The partnership agreement says that the Executive
"will consult on new rights of appeal in planning cases".
However, it seems to me that only one of the four options that the minister outlined really gives such rights. Will the Executive be prepared to settle for something that does not include some form of third-party right of appeal?
The minister did not mention strategic environmental assessment, which will come into force in July under a European directive. How does the Executive envisage incorporating strategic environmental assessment into planning?
When Eleanor Scott reads the consultation documents, she will see that such issues are addressed. I would not want to suggest that we are limiting the consultation in any way. I am tempted to say that we genuinely mean that, although that implies that if we say it in a different way we do not genuinely mean it. The consultation is an attempt at having an informed and proper debate about planning, accountability and democratic participation. This Parliament allows us that possibility—we are small enough to do it and we can have a public debate in which we all engage with one another. We can ensure that proper forums exist for that debate. So many people have access to the Parliament, so many people can influence the Parliament and so many views are represented in the Parliament, that we can have a genuine debate.
Whatever we do, we must achieve two things. We need to address the disfranchisement that many people feel in relation to the planning system—I am sure that Eleanor Scott is familiar with that issue, given her political background. People see a profound imbalance in the planning system and feel that desperately unfair things have been done to them.
We must also ensure that we have affordable housing in Scotland, that we have economic growth and that we provide services for people—be that women's aid refuges or whatever. We have to strike a balance. We cannot run away from that. We cannot allow ourselves to address one point—such as democratic imbalance—without thinking through the consequences for housing, for services and for economic growth. The Executive will have to think those issues through, but we also ask the chamber and the rest of Scotland to think them through. We have a real opportunity to have a debate about planning.
I, too, welcome the minister's statement, the consultation on third-party rights of appeal and the national planning framework. I want to deal with the principles that underpin effective engagement with communities. Existing planning guidelines are robust in talking about involving communities right from the start, rather than consulting after the event, but for too many communities the experience is one of disengagement. Does the minister agree that it is essential to include communities from day one when devising local plans, not least because that will give them a much more strategic role, which will ultimately reduce the likelihood of objections and appeals? Does she feel that local planning forums, involving community representatives, should have a central role?
Yes, that is part of the answer to some of the issues that we face. I have spoken about earlier and more targeted engagement with communities and stakeholders—I presume that that means from day one, but the earlier, the better. We must also ensure that we receive regular feedback so that we know whether people understand what is being proposed and what stage the process has reached. We have to explain the planning process to people.
The possibility of having local planning forums was suggested in "Your place, your plan". We are examining ways of making progress with that idea, with which I am sympathetic. If members have proposals, we would be interested to hear them. I think that we are all agreed on the principle, but it is the delivery that is critical. What we do must be done in a sustained and systematic way. That work is on-going.
I congratulate the minister on responding so promptly to target 7 in the communities section of the "Annual Evaluation Report 2005-06", which says:
"In 2004, we will publish proposals for improvements to the planning system".
If only the minister could achieve such promptness in everything. The "Review of Strategic Planning" was published in 2002 and today the minister has published proposals for consultation, but when will we actually achieve change? What is the minister's target?
We intend the consultation to last four months. Obviously, we will then review the outcome of the consultation. I will be happy to explain the details of that. We have indicated that we want to legislate appropriately and a planning bill will be introduced. When appropriate, I will give details of the legislative schedule for that bill. Stewart Stevenson will appreciate that it is more for the First Minister than for me to determine the priority that will be given to different pieces of legislation, but I assure him and the chamber that we have made public commitments to make legislative change. We will make progress when we hear the outcome of the consultation. I do not think that I will be able to delay things, because I do not think that my colleagues in the Cabinet would allow me to. I am sure that Stewart Stevenson would not allow it either. I will be happy to give details of the timetable.
Does the minister agree that we must have a system that guarantees that local plans are updated regularly and in genuine consultation with communities? Does she further agree that any review of the planning framework must end the inequity that allows communities such as Greengairs in my constituency to shoulder the unacceptable burden of landfill and opencast activities? More than cultural change is required; we need to place obligations on developers that they know will be enforced.
I have listened intently to Karen Whitefield's points on the planning system over recent months. There is a lot in what she says. We have to get local plans right and we have to do so within a proper timescale. Ensuring that the documents are live and real is a big part of that, as is ensuring that there is systematic, realistic and effective local engagement. I am not talking simply about people turning up at meetings; I am talking about people understanding the planning system and being told when decisions are made. People must be kept well informed about their rights in the system.
Often, development is necessary and to be warmly welcomed. However, we must ensure an appropriate balance throughout Scotland. I am on record as saying that certain communities have taken a disproportionate share of certain developments. Things need to be done more fairly.
Karen Whitefield's final point on enforcement is critical. I have always been interested in ensuring that enforcement works. Enforcement will remain at the centre of our agenda and close attention will be paid to it.
I welcome the minister's references to the centrality of economic growth. She will be aware that business organisations are concerned about the third-party right of appeal; I think that businesses are equally concerned that the planning system, as it is reformed, should become less cumbersome, less time consuming and less expensive for all. Can the minister assure us that those principles will be built into any necessary reform?
I feel like I have arrived on another planet: I agree with Murdo Fraser.
Steady on.
I know—I will be agreeing with Mike Rumbles before I know what I am doing. That was too much—I apologise to Mike Rumbles.
Murdo Fraser is absolutely right, and the business community has never hidden its concern about third-party rights of appeal, about the way in which the planning system is constructed and operated—how its day-to-day decisions are made—and about living with the consequences. Jim Wallace has engaged thoroughly with the business community and the Executive will continue to do so. We know that we need economic development in Scotland—I need it to address housing issues. We all need economic development to make Scotland grow.
We will listen intently to the business community. However, wherever people stand on the third-party right of appeal, we can improve and modernise the planning system and make it more efficient and effective. It would be a good signal for businesses if they knew today that there is consensus in Parliament about improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system.
I hope that the minister will agree that it is a discourtesy to Parliament and to back benchers in particular that the national planning framework, the two consultation documents and her statement were not available at the back of the chamber when she sat down at the end of her statement. That is a lapse in the high standards that members have come to expect. Wherever responsibility lies, I think that that has undermined members' ability to contribute meaningfully on the statement.
I apologise. I am sure that Wendy Alexander, of all people, knows that there are procedures to ensure that such things are done. I assumed that those procedures had been followed this morning. I will ensure that it never happens again and that members get all the appropriate documentation that they require.
I am sure that members will appreciate that.
I warmly welcome the statement on the review of the planning system, especially the focus on social housing. I hope that the minister will be considering rural housing.
On the business issue, I draw the minister's attention to Penicuik Home Improvements, in my constituency, which is being crippled because of existing inefficiencies in the planning system. I am grateful to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning for meeting representatives of Penicuik Home Improvements and me. Will the Minister for Communities ensure that the business community has the opportunity to engage in the process, and that there is a clear ambition under the review to reduce burdens on the business community?
I assure the member that there will be full and proper engagement with business on the range and complexity of the issues that we are addressing. We will engage with housing interests and other wider interests under the review of affordable housing. In bringing together our various proposals, we will of course engage with business. We will ensure that the business community's recommendations on improvement of the planning system are taken on board. As Jeremy Purvis would expect, that will be balanced with the other interests that will be represented.
I welcome the statement and recognise the importance of strategic planning at the city-region level. Can the minister assure me that the mechanisms for delivering a city-region approach will allow all the local authority stakeholders in the area to engage fully in the process? Does she recognise the pressures that are faced by small local authorities, such as Midlothian Council, at a time of massive growth in the housing sector and of economic development?
Yes—absolutely. Cases such as Midlothian illustrate the arguments for some of the proposals that we have made through the city-region plan. Wider structural interests must be addressed, so that councils other than city councils can offer input and so that the wider economic regeneration impacts are taken into account. It is up to all councils to work together in partnership and to agree on the priorities for the wider areas concerned. Midlothian Council should have full opportunities to participate in the key decisions that will affect it.
I, too, welcome the minister's statement. As a representative of North East Scotland, where many of the local and structural plans of recent years have been viewed as either shambolic or inaccurate, I hope that we can move forward.
I appreciate the fact that a consultation is being undertaken, but the Executive must have some views, and I would like the minister to confirm two objectives. First, will our communities' views be not simply registered, but acted on and genuinely taken into account? Secondly, in the minister's view, must the planning system be changed to make it easier for land to be made ailable for building affordable housing? Does the minister appreciate that we could throw as many millions of pounds as we like at rural housing, but it will not make the slightest difference? Rather, it will simply make landowners richer unless we use the planning system to make more land available, thus allowing the value of land to be reduced. We could then talk about a genuine increase in affordable housing. Is it the minister's objective to use the planning system to make more land available, not just in rural communities but in urban communities, so that we can increase the availability of affordable housing?
I think that I have addressed a number of those points. We see that there is a need to balance the interests and views of communities with housing and other developments that may be required. There is a trick and a challenge in this. I do not know whether Richard Lochhead has properly acknowledged that communities sometimes want to prevent developments from happening: sometimes they want to say, "We want this all for ourselves." If we were to give certain communities absolutely untrammelled rights, we might kill some housing developments stone dead. As the minister who has responsibility for housing, I must—unfortunately—take that sort of thing into account.
We are trying to achieve a proper balance in which it is appropriate for communities to be involved, so that decisions are consistent and transparent. Communities should be involved not just at the beginning of the process, but throughout it. We should also ensure, however, that appropriate development takes place.
To move on to the issues that Richard Lochhead raises about land, I am very glad to hear about his support for the idea that we do not solve problems simply by throwing money at them. We need to examine the use of land and we need to consider planning systems in different sorts of locality. There are general statistics, but there are different patterns throughout Scotland. As Richard Lochhead knows, there are absolute shortages of affordable housing in certain rural areas. I reassure him that we are considering the details in that regard, both in our planning review and in the affordable housing review.
I welcome the publication of the consultation documents today and I look forward to encouraging my community to take part in the consultation. The minister posed the question why planning matters so much. I hope that all members recognise how much it matters. Unfortunately, local views often come forward only once an application is on the table when the community has not had the opportunity to be involved in preparing plans. I agree about the significance and importance of people being consulted and involved in the preparation of local plans—
Could you ask a question, please?
How will the minister convince people that planning is important to them? How will we not just consult them but involve them in the whole process of developing plans?
I hope that the work that we are talking about today will create opportunity at Scottish level—as part of a big public debate—and locally. It is our responsibility to engage with communities and to indicate to them the significance of planning. It is perhaps a feature of human psychology that we only ever realise the significance of a decision when it is right under our noses, and we wish that we had learned about it earlier. It is our job as political representatives—perhaps it is partly also the job of local authorities—to ensure that communities are informed as early as possible.
As I said in response to Donald Gorrie, it is important that planning is seen not just as a dry issue, but viewed as being critical to the life and the dynamic of communities. That is how we will engage with communities properly. Communities will engage when they think that it is worth their while to do so, when they think that they can influence, when they think that they can create change and when they think that their views really have an effect. That way, we will create momentum and encourage involvement and participation. We need to work hard and seriously at that; the four-month consultation will be about looking at the proposals and details.
Like others, I very much welcome the national planning framework, the test of which will be whether it ends up propping up shelves in local planning department offices, or even in the Scottish Executive's planning department. The framework should be a tool that allows us to develop local initiatives as key elements in delivering national priorities. My test will be whether the framework can be used to help regenerate Clydebank, on which I have spent a great deal of time and effort, as have local and national agencies. Will the minister assure us that the national framework is an instrument for achieving that kind of transformative change?
Yes. I think that I can give Des McNulty an absolute guarantee on that. I acknowledge the work that he has done in Clydebank and on the wider debate on the regeneration of west central Scotland. The national planning framework is about trying to ensure that we have connectivity throughout Scotland, so that big projects and investments benefit not only the areas in which they are located and their immediate surroundings, but some of the outlying areas. In Glasgow in particular, some peripheral estates do not benefit from economic growth in the city centre. That is a big challenge, which we must face.
More broadly, as Rhona Brankin said, we need to ensure that wider areas benefit from the wider regeneration. The national planning framework is designed precisely to take that forward, not so that we can sit and argue about the details of one application, but to help us to see some of the big-picture issues and some of the big challenges that we must face in the coming period.
I welcome the Executive's neutral stance on the third-party right of appeal. Parts of my constituency are suffering from urban cramming because planning law has, on balance, favoured the developer over communities. The third-party right of appeal must be a feature of planning law, so will the minister consider a community right of appeal that would allow a review or appeal based on strict criteria, if it could be shown that that would not significantly delay the process for developers?
Will there be scope for the proposed planning bill to place a duty on planners to ensure that new developments include affordable housing? I am concerned that we might relax planning law and conventions such as green belt at the expense of affordable housing. I do not believe that that is the way forward.
I thank Pauline McNeill for putting the case for a community right of appeal, which we will consider seriously as we proceed with the consultation. It is interesting to see from recent debates that most people have begun to recognise that a completely unfettered right of appeal would be inappropriate. However, other models are emerging. Some ask for a community right of appeal, but there are questions to be asked about that too, such as how to define "community". Nevertheless, some serious models are emerging that would address issues such as those that Pauline McNeill faces daily in her constituency, and which we have all to face in trying to strike a balance throughout Scotland. A community right of appeal is a model that could easily be proposed in the consultation and it is one to which we will pay serious attention as we take the debate forward.
I extended the time that was allocated to the statement in view of the high number of members who wished to participate. I had 21 requests to speak, so I apologise to the remaining four members whom it was not possible to include. We must now press on.