Planning Reform
The next item of business is a statement by Derek Mackay on planning reform: next steps. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
14:04
The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 contained the most significant changes to the system in 60 years and has bedded down well. An Audit Scotland review at the end of last year confirmed that and acknowledged the Scottish Government’s leadership role, and progress that Government agencies and planning authorities had made on working together. However, it also raised concerns about performance and that the gap between planning authority income and expenditure would become unsustainable.
Since my appointment in December as the minister responsible for planning, I have spoken to a wide variety of stakeholders about their experiences of the planning system. Three main themes have emerged. First, economic circumstances have changed and the planning system has a vital role to play in supporting economic recovery and growth. Secondly, leadership and culture change are the key areas on which we should focus in the next stage of planning reform. Thirdly, we should improve the system without having to go through another fundamental review of the legislative framework for planning. I will, however, pursue legislative options when and if they are required to secure the necessary improvements and outcomes.
Today, I am announcing a package of measures that provide a clear road map for planning reform. Central to that is the statement on planning reform, the next steps, which builds on the 2006 act and focuses on four key areas: the promotion of a plan-led system; driving improved performance; simplifying and streamlining processes; and delivering development. I am not seeking to reopen earlier debates on the structure of the planning system; I am looking to challenge processes and practices that add little or no value. I am not proposing change for change’s sake. The proposals are about taking action, working with a range of stakeholders, to support an approach to planning that is based on place and pragmatism.
The approach is not about dispensing with essential procedures or appraisals; it is about ensuring that those that are in place add value, are proportionate and are an aid, not a barrier, to better-informed discussions, including with individuals and communities, on the impact that development projects will have on each area. I firmly believe that quality of place should take precedence over purity of process, but our processes must be fit for purpose. The key to making them so is less about legislation and more about leadership that drives changes in culture and behaviour.
The national planning framework set out our long-term spatial development strategy. Today, I am pleased to publish the monitoring report for the second national planning framework and to commit to starting work on the third national planning framework in the autumn. I share the aspirations for a plan-led system that promotes confidence and brings certainty for investors and communities. However, it is clear that we need to do more to realise what I believe are shared aspirations. We will take forward a series of initiatives to deliver better results in local development planning, including using the charrette approach to better involve communities and using informal gateway review processes to keep plan preparation on track.
I have become increasingly aware of concerns about the local development plan examination process taking longer than expected and costing very substantial sums of money in addition to significant staff costs. Some local authorities have concerns about the impact on their ownership of the plan of the binding recommendations from reporters. Therefore, I am today launching a consultation on the options for those examinations.
At present, planning performance is measured solely by speed of decision making. Although I am in no doubt that speed matters to investors and communities, certainty of timescales and predictability of outcomes are important. Last year’s Audit Scotland report recognised that, too. I am delighted that Heads of Planning Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have been developing a new performance framework, which I am pleased to announce has been launched today. It embraces key issues such as speed, customer relationships and outcomes and is focused on driving a culture of continuous improvement across the planning service. The framework has the Scottish Government’s support, along with endorsements by several business groups and the Royal Town Planning Institute.
I accept the case for better resourcing of the planning service. Audit Scotland made clear in its report that the current situation is unsustainable. Planning fees do not meet planning costs. We have been working with Heads of Planning Scotland on a new fee structure that will reflect more accurately the costs of handling planning applications, particularly complex or controversial ones, and which will ensure that applicants have to pay only one fee to cover all costs. A consultation on that is also launched today.
The Government has consistently emphasised the inextricable link between higher fees and guarantees over improved performance. In discussions with stakeholders, many in the development industry have made the point to me that, if higher fees result in a guarantee of improved performance, they would support that. My intention is to consult on a proposition that, if an authority fails to deliver improved performance, steps can be taken to have the fees that are paid in that authority revert back to the current lower level. I am clear that increased fees and increased performance must go hand in hand.
In my discussions with stakeholders, it is clear that there is a shared view of the need to streamline and simplify a range of procedures and practices. Over the next few months, we will work with HOPS, agencies, Planning Aid for Scotland and the development industry on a number of areas.
Although the focus is on non-legislative change, I launch today a consultation on legislative changes that stakeholders anticipate. They include further changes to the arrangements for permitted developments that focus on identifying areas for non-householder developments where planning control adds little value and taking them out of the system. On pre-application discussion and consultation, we propose to remove the 12-week pre-application requirement when permission is sought to make minor or technical changes to a planning condition on a major development. Other changes include amending the management of consultations, increasing the scope of schemes of delegation and extending the types of cases with which local review bodies deal.
I want to explore new approaches to appraisals and assessments, the costs of which can be excessive with no guarantee of a positive outcome. An essential part of the process is to consider the impact that a development would have, but we must ensure that the inputs to that process are fit for purpose, easily understood and do not result in abortive costs. I also want to promote a more joined-up approach to development consents.
That will deliver improvements to the timeframes and the costs that planning authorities, agencies and developers face, as well as providing major benefits for individuals and communities in accessing, understanding and responding to planning applications. It is about promoting a more effective approach that maintains the quality of decision making.
The current economic situation has resulted in fewer applications being submitted, and even projects with consent may have stalled. The reasons for that go far beyond the planning system, but I am determined that the system should not present unnecessary obstacles to delivery. That is why, today, I am taking a range of measures to consolidate and revise the circular on planning agreements and obligations, as well as launching a consultation on innovative approaches to delivering development.
I am determined to maintain our focus on place making and building sustainable communities with the launch of our website highlighting good examples of housing design. We will be actively engaged in the follow-up to some of the more recent and successful charrettes.
Future reform is not the sole responsibility of the planning authorities. We all need to play our part in delivering an effective planning system that meets our needs. Leadership and culture change are at the heart of that, and the Scottish Government will play its part in promoting the relevance of planning and the important role that it plays in shaping the future of Scotland’s cities, towns and rural areas.
I publish today a comprehensive overview of how we are taking forward planning reform. Consultations will not come out piecemeal; we will take the same efficient and focused approach to planning reform that we expect others to take to planning itself. I intend to reach final views on the package later this year. Over the next few months, I hope to take part in a lively debate about planning reform—not to go over old arguments again or to air well-known issues, but to find solutions so that planning plays its full part in supporting sustainable economic growth.
I apologise, minister, if my coughing fit disturbed you, but I congratulate you on carrying on regardless.
The minister will take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. I will allow around 20 minutes for those questions. Time is pretty tight and, if I am to get everybody in, questions and answers should be short.
I thank the minister for the courtesy of providing an advance copy of his statement today and for the package of documents that accompanied it. I have not managed to read through them all in the past hour, but we should come back to them.
The minister referred to the fact that economic circumstances have changed since the 2006 act was passed. I note in passing that he did not refer to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which placed pretty substantial policy demands on development planning, the consideration of planning applications and enforcement. Will the minister comment on the centrality of the planning system to the major policy objective of reducing our CO2 emissions by 42 per cent?
I welcome the minister’s comments on planning fees, but note that Audit Scotland reported that there had been a reduction in the planning staff employed by local authorities. Although I welcome the continued emphasis on better management of the process, I ask the minister to assure me that Scottish Government agencies that are involved in it will abide by the new deadlines as well. Audit Scotland referred to that point in its report. The decision-making processes are not entirely within the scope of local authorities.
With regard to fee levels, is the minister able to put on record the upper limit that he is considering? I note that the maximum fee for applications is around £17,000 in Scotland but £250,000 in England. That is a huge difference and I wonder how fast and how far the minister will want to go with regard to increasing fees.
The minister referred to the increasing number of assessments that are being carried out. Which of those assessments does he now consider to be superfluous? The various transport impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, carbon assessments and other assessments that have been judged appropriate over the past few years might have been required not by local authorities themselves but by Scottish Government policy and our expectations of the planning process.
Finally, at the end of his speech, the minister made a striking comment about not going “over old arguments again”. I accept that point but, given its quasi-judicial nature and the need to involve local communities, the planning process raises certain challenges and I hope that, in changing how the system works, the minister does not reduce the impact that local communities can have. As local representatives, we all agree that that is fundamental to the quality of the outcome of the whole process.
The member raises a number of issues. First, on the point about the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, I point out that it is incredibly difficult to cover everything in a 10-minute ministerial statement on changes to the planning system. However, the NPF monitoring document contains a great amount of detail on the climate change agenda, the Government’s targets, its investment in infrastructure and how the debate has moved on from NPF1. Of course, we have also made a commitment to consult on NPF3 in the work that we have begun and which will progress over the autumn. The climate change agenda remains absolutely central to our considerations of how we achieve sustainable economic growth—with the emphasis on “sustainable”—and, at this point, we must do everything possible to ensure that, instead of acting as a barrier, the system contributes to such growth.
On the subject of environmental concerns and community empowerment, as the consultations that are being launched today show, the Government’s considerations will impinge in no way on communities’ embedded engagement with the planning process. We front-load consultations and community engagement; indeed, our approach to place making, outcomes and charrettes demonstrates that communities will be at the heart of the planning system in a very proportionate way.
Similarly, the environmental agenda is in no way affected by what we are considering in the consultations. However, there should be a more proportionate and streamlined approach to assessments to ensure that, instead of making applicants jump through a range of hoops, we combine assessments and make them more relevant to an application, thereby safeguarding environmental considerations.
In such an agenda, key agencies will be important. Having met the leaders of those agencies and emphasised our message with regard to performance and engagement in this agenda, I know that they are very much up for that. They all have their specific tasks, but nevertheless they want to play their part in achieving sustainable economic growth and they will continue to have a role in that respect. As with local government through Heads of Planning Scotland, they are up for the task of delivering improved performance.
With regard to fee levels, it is important to establish the link between the cost of an application to local authority planning departments and the application fee itself. Of course, the service remains subsidised but, as the consultation document makes clear, we are moving towards a maximum cap of £100,000 for larger, more complex applications. As the member is aware, that compares very favourably with the English cap of £250,000. That additional fee income should support planning departments further in their economic development and planning functions but, of course, it will be tied to performance.
The thrust of all this is to ensure that we do not have to revisit the primary legislation, which is working fairly well—members should not take just my word for that; Audit Scotland and others have said so—but the 2006 act requires further streamlining to ensure that it is fit for purpose as we try to increase the pace of recovery in Scotland’s economy.
I thank the minister for the early sight of his statement. To say that the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 reforms have bedded down well is overstating the case. Audit Scotland merely comments that progress has been made and identifies some worrying issues. Why has so little time been allocated for the discussion of these issues today?
What is the minister doing to address the totally inadequate enforcement of planning regulations, which was not mentioned at all in his statement, and the inability of the new system to cope with major planning applications, which is resulting in an increasing number of major planning applications that should be determined at a local level being decided centrally by the Scottish Government?
The SNP Government clearly considers that there is a requirement for reform of the planning system’s funding structure to meet the additional costs of local authorities’ implementation of the 2006 act. Will the minister confirm that that will involve more than just looking at the fees structure?
Once Opposition members have had a bit more time to read the documents, they will perhaps have a fuller understanding of what has been proposed. There is a great deal of information about the regulations that have been changed, and a range of actions will follow from today’s statement.
We are trying to create a performance culture in partnership with all parts of the planning system and all those who are involved with it, including the key stakeholders. Legislative change may also be required, and there may be statutory instruments and regulation change. All that is outlined in the consultation documents and follows the theme of ensuring that we streamline and refine the process while accepting that the fundamental legislation is sound. None of the key partners that I have visited—including those in the private sector—has asked us to consider an overhaul of the planning system. They understand that, given the time, effort and energy that would be needed for that, we would lose the opportunity that we have now to refine the process and get the best out of it.
I am struck by what Margaret Mitchell says about appeals and some decisions being taken centrally. Even local government has not argued that there should not be an appeals system in which some decisions can be reviewed by the reporters in determining whether the decisions are proportionate and fair. There is an issue around local development plans being determined more locally and not being binding—that debate is certainly alive—but I have never heard before from any member that there should not be an appeals structure in the planning system.
The progress that we are making is perhaps the reason why, apart from in some of the language that is being used, Westminster is now following our lead on planning work, which was taken in the 2006 act—an act that predates my time in the Scottish Parliament. The principle of sustainable economic development already exists in Scottish planning law, and many of the best changes that are proposed by the Government south of the border emulate those that were made by the Scottish Parliament.
The direction that we are taking is proportionate, will encourage improved performance and should result in improved statistics on the number of applications that are determined in an acceptable timeframe. That number has been disappointing, hence the Government’s action in taking steps to improve the planning system.
I have 10 minutes in which to allow 10 back-bench questions and answers. I therefore ask members to cut out the preambles and ask one question, so that we can get through everybody who wants to ask a question.
The minister mentioned leadership and cultural change. With those things in mind, he will be aware how important it is to bring together private and public sector representatives to get to know each other’s problems. Having met the Trinity Group in Aberdeen, he will agree that it is setting an excellent example. Does he agree that that kind of forum is something from which other parts of Scotland could benefit, and will he consider ways in which best practice of that kind can be shared around the country?
Yes.
Thank you, minister.
How many local development plans have been amended by reporters since the 2006 act was passed? Does the minister believe that the process is open and democratic when a local plan that has gone through numerous rounds of public consultation can be significantly amended by a reporter carrying out limited neighbour notification? Does he believe that the consultation on the examination process will address such issues of accountability?
I think that the consultation that we are launching today on the examination process will fairly bring out the concerns that Mark Griffin raised. We will consider them in due course and report back and take decisions. I hear the message that Mark Griffin is giving as part of that consultation.
Can the minister elaborate on work that is under way to identify blockages in the system, particularly in relation to moving forward on local development plans? Aberdeen City Council has led the way in getting its local development plan in place; other local authorities are perhaps not getting the work done as quickly as possible. What is being done in that regard?
Some difficulties with local development plans might be to do with legitimate differences of opinion about what sites can be developed, where and how. It is important that people have confidence in the development plan examinations, which is why we are consulting on how they should operate in future, to take the best practice, such as has been outlined in the context of Aberdeen. Timescales are an issue, and some authorities have been taking too long.
The ministerial statement was relevant to two major planning cases in my constituency. North Lanarkshire Council listened to local communities and said no to an incinerator in Coatbridge and no to building on green-belt land in Chryston, but a Scottish Government reporter then said yes to both developments. Will the proposed reforms mean that in future people will be put before private profit, or will the emphasis be on helping developers rather than on local democracy?
I think that I comprehensively covered the binding nature of reporters’ findings in examinations of local development plans. I encourage any member who has a strong view to submit their view to the consultation. We will consider submissions in due course and report back later in the parliamentary session.
The minister mentioned using charrettes to involve communities better. What progress has been made in that regard? Will the changes that the minister outlined apply to small-scale developments?
Three charrettes have been undertaken by the Scottish Government, in partnership with communities. The approach is successful in putting place at the centre of the planning agenda and has been productive. I look forward to on-going work. Further charrettes will be planned and will put place at the heart of planning.
I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. It is unfortunate, although perhaps inevitable, that a statement on streamlining the planning system should be accompanied by such a welter of paperwork.
I was heavily involved in the development of the white paper that led to the 2006 act, so I thank the minister for his comments on the act. During that time, leadership, culture change and better resourcing of planning were regarded as key challenges. What steps can the minister take to ensure that the resources from increased fees go into delivering the improved performance in the planning system that he talked about?
The issue is discussed in the consultation papers. I do not intend to ring fence resources, but there is a clear expectation on performance as it relates to fees. We expect better performance, and if that is not achieved the fees will be considered, in line with what is set out in the consultation.
On the number of documents that have been produced, I am trying to unwind some of the unnecessary regulation and legislation that others have created. In some cases, the impact assessment is larger than the consultation document, which is just a virtue of the impact assessment. The Government and parliamentarians in previous sessions of the Parliament have helped to reduce planning guidance by about 80 per cent, so we are moving in the right direction.
Reference has been made to a maximum cap. What is currently the average gap between planning fees and the cost of planning to local authorities? What assurances can be given to developers and other users of the planning system that better performance will be provided for the higher fees that will potentially be imposed?
The gap between the cost of applications and the fees is significant and is growing. In the words of Audit Scotland, the model “is becoming unsustainable”. Applicants will have the guarantee that there will be improved performance. The figures range from authority to authority, but there is a clear expectation of improvement as time goes on. If a planning authority does not perform, we will revisit the fees structure that operates in the area.
Good work is being done, and Heads of Planning Scotland’s performance framework, which is launched today, begins the process of improving performance. Fees will lever in new investment to ensure that resources are adequate to enhance our planning and economic development system.
Nowhere in the minister’s statement is mention made of planning enforcement. Given that the failure of developers to adhere to planning conditions and the significant cuts to local government are issues that affect all areas of Scotland and all members, when will we see action to ensure that we have co-ordinated enforcement action that protects communities and ensures that developers play by the rules?
I believe that the current legislation on enforcement action is adequate and a matter for local authorities to enforce. There is a further issue around building standards that the Government is considering, but in essence planning enforcement is a matter for local enforcement.
Does the phrase in the minister’s statement
“not to go over old arguments again”
and the complete lack of any reference to a democratic and locally accountable planning system confirm that the SNP has formally dropped its support for any form of community appeal rights in the planning system and in fact has no proposals to democratise the planning system?
Again, I refer Patrick Harvie to the range of consultation papers that we have produced. He is more than welcome to contribute to them. We have protected and completely support the community empowerment agenda and the environmental agenda that is enshrined in the 2006 act. We completely support local people in considering planning applications, but the current system is about contributing to sustainable economic growth and development.
On the issue of third-party right of appeal, we believe in front-loading consultations so that there is proper consideration of applications before application and before determination. From that point of view, the community empowerment agenda is absolutely fine.
How will the changes ensure that we have the right balance between speeding up planning applications and ensuring that the views and requirements of communities are taken on board?
I have made a number of references to programmes such as the charrette approach, in which communities come together and help design their local community. Planning should be about place first and foremost. There is good community engagement within the planning system, and we believe in a plan-led system. That means that local, democratically elected councils develop their plans along the lines that some members have suggested. Such a plan is then endorsed and accepted.
There is a debate about whether the reporter should be able to change the plan in a binding way. If, as the consultation document suggests, we hold to the principle that local communities can help to define their local plan, that should ensure that planning applications and decisions are in line with the wishes of local people through their development plan.
That ends all the questions and answers. I thank the minister and members for their co-operation. It shows that we can do it when we try.