Planning
The next item of business is a statement by Malcolm Chisholm on the white paper "modernising the planning system". The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.
I am pleased to announce the publication today of the Executive's white paper "modernising the planning system", which follows a series of consultations and policy statements on planning and which will be the final publication on the issue before the introduction of a planning bill later in this parliamentary session. The proposals that are set out in the white paper fulfil the Executive's commitment to reform the planning system
"to strengthen involvement of communities, speed up decisions, reflect local views better, and allow quicker investment decisions."
I believe that we will achieve that and more through the exciting, ambitious and wide-ranging set of reforms that we are unveiling today. The reforms will deliver a planning system that is fit for the 21st century and one that is better, fairer and more balanced.
Most members accept that planning matters. The way in which the planning system balances the various interests of development, the environment and social justice will determine how Scotland looks in the future. Planning is a critical tool for creating the dynamic, forward-looking and confident nation to which we all aspire. The planning system also provides a framework and process for local people to have their say in how their communities evolve, which is an essential part of the challenge that faces the Executive. Too many people who are affected by development feel that the planning system is inaccessible and that their views are often ignored. I am determined to put that right and to ensure that environmental concerns are put at the heart of the planning system.
Too often in the past, planning has been regarded in crude terms as either a bureaucratic and negative process, a brake on growth and a block to investment; or, alternatively, a tool for selfish developers to use to ride roughshod over local people's views. I want to reform the planning system, not tinker with it. I want a system that delivers the right kind of growth, which is smart and sustainable growth; a system for investment in jobs, essential infrastructure and housing, schools and hospitals; a system that regenerates communities; and a system that listens to what local people say about the impact on their lives and environment. However, that cannot happen without a modernised planning system that is reformed from top to bottom. The current system does not meet our ambitions for a prosperous and sustainable Scotland, nor does it command the confidence of the public. That must change and I propose to ensure that it does.
Although development plans have been at the heart of the current system for more than a decade, many of them are out of date. In fact, more than 75 per cent of local plans are more than five years old and more than half are at least 10 years old. That cannot continue. Local authority performance on processing applications also tends to be below published targets. Further, there is anecdotal evidence that far too much time and resource is taken up with small, minor applications, rather than with consideration of the major applications that deliver jobs, homes or public services. Let me be clear: I do not blame local authorities for the ills of the planning system. Many planning authorities do a good job under difficult circumstances and there are many examples throughout Scotland of high-quality, sustainable development that enhances the local environment. Our challenge is to ensure that the system that we introduce builds on the best practice throughout Scotland.
One major problem is that the planning system is too complex and does not have a clear sense of how it should respond to the different demands that are placed on it. Our white paper proposes new procedures for dealing differently with developments depending on whether they are of national, major, local or minor significance. That will ensure that there is a clearer sense of what the planning system is for; that decision making takes place at the appropriate level; and that we can introduce specific measures to consider people's views at each level in the new system and to assess the environmental impacts.
Our proposals to deal effectively with developments of national significance have been comprehensively misrepresented. We propose a sensible measure to ensure that the national planning framework plays a greater role in mapping out the key policies, strategies and developments that Scotland needs. Environmental groups and others have advocated such a proposal. The national planning framework will be drawn up through extensive consultation with stakeholders, subject to a strategic environmental assessment and decided on at the national level by the Executive, with the full involvement of the Parliament. However, giving the national planning framework an enhanced status will not automatically mean that developments will occur in specific locations. Development plans will continue to be the main vehicle for debating the location, design and impact of specific proposals, with—as now—an important role for public examination and extensive environmental impact assessments.
The white paper also makes sensible provision to distinguish between developments of major, local and minor significance. A small proportion of applications each year will be treated as major applications and, for the first time, special procedures will be put in place to ensure that they are processed with the efficiency that their potential impact on local economic opportunities and job creation merits. Many local applications will be devolved to the local level. Planning officers will be able to take decisions on relatively straightforward cases. Appeals against refusals by officers should be decided locally by the elected members, rather than by reporters. That radical and innovative reform will mean that, where decisions have been delegated to planning officers, elected members will rightly have the final say, bar any recourse to the courts. Those reforms, along with our intended examination of the scope for removing many householder applications from the planning system altogether, will rationalise and simplify a system that has become too complex and unwieldy. Our proposals will enable local authorities to allocate resources in a more focused way to the applications that need them most and to other matters such as enforcement.
The bedrock of our reforms will be the revitalisation of development plans. The development plan process is still the best way in which to reflect local people's views and provide opportunities for them to shape and contribute to the vision for their area while proposals are still on the drawing board. Moreover, all development plans will be subject to strategic environmental assessment to ensure that the environmental impact of development is central to the vision of an area. We will require development plans to be updated every five years and responsibilities will be identified for the timing of the plans and implementation of their policies. We will also reduce the complexity of the system by requiring only one tier of development plan for most of Scotland, with strategic development plans only for the four largest city regions.
Plans should be simpler and more accessible with clearly identified commitments to listen to local people, which will ensure that their views are taken into account fairly, fully and properly. When our new system is in place, it will be easier for all applications to be assessed on their fit with the development plan, which will ensure that the system is more predictable and transparent. That will also make the planning system more efficient, as decisions will be taken quickly on the basis of their compatibility with the development plan. We will also increase the use of e-planning, improve the way in which planning agreements are concluded and introduce standard planning application forms.
A planning system that is fit for purpose and more efficient is only half the picture. I strongly believe that our reforms will have failed if we do not make the system fairer, more inclusive and more transparent. I am therefore announcing today a raft of reforms to make the planning system more inclusive and better able to respond to environmental concerns.
As I said, the revitalisation of development plans is the best way in which local people can feed in their views about the way in which their community should develop. For individual development plans, key proposals should be communicated directly to the local people whom the plans potentially affect. That reform will ensure that local people are aware of the plans at the earliest possible stage. Subsequently, during the development plan process, people will be able to make their views on the proposals known and then participate in a transparent and predictable decision-making process. The white paper also proposes that local plan inquiries should be made more accessible for local people, so that they feel better able to participate in that critical stage of the plan adoption process. Finally, to ensure that the measures are fully implemented, the quality of public engagement with development plans will be assessed and reported to ministers. That will enable ministers to ensure that all the procedures are followed properly and that local people have every opportunity to feed their views into the drafting of development plans.
The measures will be greatly assisted by improved communication. The white paper proposes a new planning advice note to share best practice on how planning authorities in Scotland should involve local people in the system. That will be supported by a new information campaign to inform people about changes to the planning system and tell them how they will be more involved.
The white paper sets out measures to guarantee local people more rights in statute to express their views on individual applications. For the first time, there will be statutory obligations on applicants to conduct pre-application discussions where applications significantly depart from the development plan or where an environmental impact assessment is required. The white paper proposes more frequent use of hearings before planning authorities take their decisions so that local people can put across their views directly, and it proposes that planning authorities should be required to give reasons for all their decisions and to notify all individuals who have expressed an interest. I intend to extend the requirement to notify ministers of cases that are significantly contrary to the development plan. The fact that ministers are not satisfied with the level of engagement will be a reason for applications being called in for determination by ministers. That will ensure for the first time that developments will not happen if the views of local people have not been properly listened to.
The white paper sets out reforms to bring new fairness to the planning system by ensuring that ill-founded appeals do not clog up the system and by restricting the grounds for all appeals. Those reforms will address the concern that applicants have an unfettered right of appeal whereas local people have no right of appeal.
The white paper also proposes reforms to enhance the powers that are available to local authorities to enforce planning decisions. Those powers are an essential part of the planning system and ensure that people can have confidence in decisions that are reached fairly, openly and with maximum levels of public participation. I want planning authorities to adopt a more proactive approach to enforcement, to discourage unauthorised development and breaches of planning control, and to deal quickly, efficiently and rigorously with breaches that occur.
Among the measures that I am announcing today to enhance planning enforcement provisions is the proposal that developers should notify local authorities when they are about to start development work so that local authorities can monitor on-going progress more closely. I also propose that local authorities should be able to impose temporary stop notices to allow them to stop development immediately where there has been a breach of planning control. Furthermore, I propose that all local authorities should produce enforcement charters to allow members of the public to know what powers local authorities have and how they intend to use them.
I recognise that enforcement is a matter of great concern to local people. We will therefore keep the effectiveness of the measures under review. I call on all planning authorities to prioritise future resources for enforcement as part of reallocation exercises linked to the implementation of the package of reforms, and I do not rule out even bolder measures in the future if we are unable to make significant headway on enforcing planning decisions in the coming months and years.
In the light of our proposals to ensure more fairness and balance and greater involvement in the new planning system, our white paper does not propose a third-party right of appeal. Our aim is to strengthen the participation of local people from the outset of the process in order to make the system fairer and more balanced; to avoid building new delays and unpredictability into the system, which could add costs to development and act as a deterrent to investment in sustainable growth; and to strengthen rather than undermine local authority decision making. I hope that everyone in the chamber and throughout Scotland will consider the package of reforms as a whole and consider their views on issues such as rights of appeal in the light of the proposals.
In conclusion, the reforms will promote the Executive's top priority of delivering the sustainable growth that Scotland needs. They will bring investment in jobs, housing, schools and hospitals and will regenerate communities. They will devolve decisions and appeals to local authorities wherever that is possible and will ensure that there is a planning system that is based on up-to-date, relevant and accessible development plans that have been drawn up with the full participation of local people and with full assessment of their environmental impacts. The reforms will, for the first time, guarantee local people their right to make their voices heard while proposals are still on the drawing board. The reforms will encourage debate, engagement and dialogue rather than confrontation and frustration and will ensure for the first time that listening to the views of local people is central to the development process. Above all, the package of reforms will deliver a fairer and more balanced system that is fit for purpose in 21st century Scotland and a system that Scotland urgently needs. I commend it to the Parliament.
The minister will now take questions on the issues that he has raised in his statement. I will allow around 20 minutes for questions before lunch time. However, I can say now that a considerable number of members will not be called to ask questions. It would be helpful if members whom I call to ask a question do not start with a preamble. Members may press their request-to-speak buttons now, but I can say from looking at my screen that half of those who wish to ask questions will not be called to do so.
I thank the minister for the advance copies of his statement and the white paper. The difficulty in reading the white paper during the debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill was mine, not his. I welcome the requirement for local development plans—which are held in disrepute and disregard because they are so outdated—to be reviewed, whether quinquennially or otherwise.
I refer the minister to section 5.1.1 of the white paper, which is headed "A New Hierarchy for Planning". In particular, I refer to the paragraph on national developments—an issue on which he has been quizzed before. The proposed tiered planning system is of interest. However, in the examples that are given, why has he not included nuclear power stations and major wind farm developments? Are those not national developments? In addition, what is meant by
"the full involvement of Parliament"
in those decisions, given that the decisions are to be made by Scottish ministers? Will that involvement be through committee scrutiny, bill procedure or vote? Will there be an appeal process for the public at large when decisions are made to categorise those developments, and will there be an appeal process within the procedures of the Parliament?
I welcome Christine Grahame's acknowledgement of the progress that we have made on development plans.
In my statement, I emphasised that national developments will involve full consultation with all the relevant stakeholders, as well as the wider public, and the full involvement of the Parliament. More detailed information will be available once further work has been done on that. It is a complex question. The important thing that I am stating today is that there will be the full involvement of the Parliament in that process. That is a major issue and I have been keen to ensure that the Parliament is fully involved in discussing, debating and having input into it.
National developments are one of the issues that people have been concerned about, and our views on the proposal have been misrepresented. The environmental interests have asked that the national planning framework be given an enhanced status, and we are ensuring that it will have a central status in matters with major strategic implications.
Nuclear power stations will not be in the national planning framework. I have made it clear on more than one occasion in the Parliament that the arrangements for nuclear power stations are not affected by the proposals in the white paper. That they are is one of the misrepresentations that was put about following the leak of a certain document.
On behalf of the Conservative party, I welcome the Executive's rejection of the third-party right of appeal. The minister has said that local people will have more rights in statute to express their views, as well as up-to-date development plans. What commitment can he give to local communities that are objecting to the huge wind farm developments that are proposed for the Highlands and Islands? Those communities do not feel that they are being listened to. Will land be designated for wind farm development in the future, and will that land designation be included in the development plans, so that people are consulted in advance rather than having to respond to the developments?
The white paper is not the only document that is relevant to planning. A revised national renewable energy planning policy statement will be issued soon, which will deal with wind farms as well as renewable energy more generally.
In general terms, for major developments, local communities will have the new rights that I have talked about. They will have the right to pre-application consultation in the case of a major development and, as I have said, in the case of developments that are against the development plan, there will be new rights for hearings and enhanced scrutiny. Those rights will be guaranteed in relation to any developments of major significance.
I ask the minister to help members in their study of the white paper by answering two questions. First, which aspects of the white paper does he consider will strengthen local community involvement in planning decisions? Secondly, might further changes be possible if they are thought necessary following the consultation on the white paper?
As I have said, I believe that revitalising development plans will be the best way in which to maximise local people's opportunities to feed in their views about how their community will develop. The white paper sets out a range of proposals that will greatly increase local people's opportunities to participate in making those plans. I also propose a series of far-reaching new measures to guarantee local people more rights to express their views on individual applications. I touched on some of those a moment ago, in replying to Mary Scanlon's question. I do not doubt that, when the bill is introduced, people will debate the extent to which those rights can be adjusted and I am open-minded about that. The key principle that is being enunciated today is that, for the first time, the public will be involved at an early stage in relation to development planning and a wide range of planning applications.
Of course, I acknowledge that the option of introducing a third-party right of appeal will continue to be the subject of debate as people take a view on the effectiveness of the proposals that are set out in the white paper. I assure Donald Gorrie that the Executive is committed to engaging in that debate as Parliament reaches conclusions on the provisions to be included in a planning bill.
I welcome the minister's commitments on the national planning framework being subject to consultation and strategic environmental assessment, and on the statutory requirement to have up-to-date local plans in order to increase accountability and effectiveness. Will he clarify how he intends to take into consideration community planning rights at the application stage? Will he commit in principle to parliamentary debate on the whole package of reforms? Many of us have not been able to absorb the entirety of the proposals. Will he also clarify who will have the right to notify the Scottish Executive of controversial major planning applications? His remarks today indicate that he is reserving that right to local authorities and that he is not widening it out to communities that are unhappy at certain decisions. If he does not do that, we will have to review the situation over the summer.
I thank Sarah Boyack for her comments. I am pleased by her support for the requirement for up-to-date development plans. I will certainly be pleased to debate the wide range of issues that we are discussing today. I am sure that planning rights at the application stage will be discussed during that debate and I have already indicated that I am happy to enter into discussions about the details of that.
Sarah Boyack's third point related to notification to the Scottish Executive. It is a new feature that any proposal that is significantly contrary to the development plan will be automatically notified to the Executive by the local authority. That ought to answer her concern. She raised the issue of wider rights of notification, but there are some problems with that proposal and what we propose will have the same effect that she seeks.
The minister mentioned a series of consultations, said that he wants to reform and not tinker, and said that he wants to listen to what local people have to say through a fairer, more inclusive and more transparent planning system. However, he has ruled out the third-party right of appeal even though his consultation document shows that 86 per cent of respondents are in favour of it. Does he not agree that he does a great disservice to the majority of the public who support some form of third-party right of appeal? Does he not agree that confidence in the planning system will be eroded and that the third-party right of appeal should be included in the white paper?
There are different views on the third-party right of appeal among the public, in the Scottish National Party and, I do not doubt, in other parties. I have given great attention to the matter. The call for a third-party right of appeal indicates that the current system is not working well, and I agree with that view. However, is bolting on something at the end of an unreformed process the right way to deal with a malfunctioning system, or do we need to take a more radical approach that modernises the system from top to bottom and from beginning to end? My emphasis is on involving communities at an early stage and that is the emphasis of the white paper. As I said in my reply to Donald Gorrie, I know that the debate will continue.
If the success of the reforms is to rest on regularly updated development plans, what reassurances will the minister give to my constituents that action will be taken if those plans are not updated? Will he also address his points about bolder and more radical enforcement measures being more appropriate? If he thinks that such measures will be necessary, I urge him to reassure the communities of Scotland that enforcement action will be taken, instead of relying on a charter that might not be enforced.
Finally, there is no mention of the cumulative effect of particular types of activity. It is essential that, when a community buys into a development plan, it is recognised that it would be unacceptable for that community to shoulder the burden of all the opencast activity or all the landfill activity in Scotland. That should be considered.
I will deal with those points in reverse order. I agree with what Karen Whitefield said about cumulative effect, which she has talked to me about before. The matter will be taken on board in various Scottish planning policies.
We are determined to deal with breaches quickly, efficiently and rigorously. The white paper outlines a series of measures, of which I mentioned only three in my statement. I left things open because we are determined to make progress on enforcement. We think that we have a series of bold, new initiatives, but we will assess how effective they are. We are certainly prepared to be open-minded if more needs to be done.
It will be a statutory requirement that development plans must be updated every five years. That is a big change. In addition, the nature of the plans will be reformed so that the public can be more involved in the planning process. The plans will become simpler and will offer a clear vision of how areas should evolve. That the plans must be updated will be required by legislation.
I welcome the minister's statement. Taken as a whole, although the package goes a long way to creating a more efficient planning system and ensuring more effective public engagement in it, it does not put unnecessary barriers in the way of sustainable growth.
The minister mentioned the importance of parliamentary buy-in to the national planning framework. Can he give us an indication of the options that he is considering and how he proposes to engage Parliament during the coming weeks and months to ensure that we secure parliamentary buy-in in the best way possible?
I have a sense of déjà vu. I have not had a question from the back benches from Jim Wallace since 1997. I welcome him to his new position and thank him for the welcome that he has given to the emphasis that we are putting on more effective public engagement.
Jim Wallace asked an important question about the national planning framework, to which I referred in my answer to the first question, which was from Christine Grahame. The issue is complex. We are talking about a new procedure—there has never been parliamentary involvement before, but we are determined to introduce it. Of course we must involve the Parliament in consideration of what is the most effective way to do that. Christine Grahame and others would criticise me if I were to dictate every detail of how the new procedure will work. The relationship between the Parliament and the framework—the creation of which will involve the use of many existing policy documents—will be a complex matter. A group will be set up to examine the issue and will report to the Parliament before the planning bill is published, so there will be many opportunities to debate the detail of how interaction with the Parliament will operate. What is important is that I am making clear today that the national planning framework will have the full involvement of the Parliament.
Unfortunately, as a back bencher, I did not get sight of the white paper before the minister's statement to Parliament, but it appears from the statement that the minister is introducing a raft of reforms. I am sure that he will agree that the outdated planning system has meant that, for years, local authorities and communities have been working with their hands tied behind their backs. Like many other members, I am interested in the proposals on public engagement.
Will you ask a question, please?
I do not believe that it would be right to add a third-party right of appeal on to the existing system. How will the minister ensure that communities can engage in the process? I am talking not just about consultation but about proper participation in the development of a planning system that works for them.
I am pleased to be untying local authorities' hands, which I am sure they will welcome.
I welcome the fact that Cathie Craigie has again homed in on public engagement, because it is central to what we are proposing. In the time available, I have not been able to go through the raft of proposals that we have produced. There will be a planning advice note to ensure greater consistency and the application of the best techniques. I will go into a bit more detail about what will be required for the development plans. Every development plan scheme will involve the production of a consultation statement, which will be tested at the examination stage. All development plans will have an examination stage—that is not the case at the moment. As I have said, ministers will be interested in that.
On specific planning applications, pre-application consultation will take place for a range of major developments and also wherever there is an environmental impact assessment. That is an important part of the action that we are taking to ensure that the environment and sustainable development are at the heart of these reforms. Wherever there is an environmental impact assessment, there will be pre-application consultation. The greater use of hearings and enhanced scrutiny procedures will apply to other developments, particularly those major and local applications that go against the development plan in a significant way.
Other measures that will be taken include improved neighbour notifications and a requirement to give the reason for all decisions. There will also be good neighbour agreements. Again, it is important that we ensure that, whenever there is an environmental impact assessment, a good neighbour agreement is put in place, so far as that is possible. Furthermore, we are modernising local inquiries. There is a raft of detailed proposals on greater involvement, which is at the heart of what is proposed today.
From an economic perspective, the Executive's proposals for widespread reform rather than tinkering with the current system are very welcome as is the rejection of the third-party right of appeal.
The minister said that the impact of major applications on local economic opportunities and job creation would be a relevant factor in the way in which those applications were dealt with. Will he confirm that, in effect, he is signalling that developments that bring major economic opportunities and large numbers of jobs will be fast tracked? If that is the case, it will be very welcome.
One of the problems that I described at the beginning of my statement is the way in which all applications tend to be dealt with in a similar way at the moment. The purpose of the hierarchy for planning is to ensure that the more important an application is, the more attention it will get and the greater urgency it will be dealt with. Part of the procedure for major applications will be an agreement between the local authority and the developer about how long the authority should take to deal with the application. If the local authority is lax in processing the application, it will have to return the fee that the developer has paid. Measures will be built into the system to ensure that it operates more efficiently.
I seek more detail from the minister about the proposals. First, how will they relate to a community such as Greengairs? After the implementation of the reforms, will it be impossible for one community to have nine opencast and landfill sites within a small, confined area? At the moment, the sites at Greengairs are destroying the local environment there. Secondly, the minister said that one of his intentions was to speed up the process. Will he tell the chamber what the average time from the submission of a planning application to approval is at the moment and what it will be after the implementation of his proposals? Thirdly, will the Enterprise and Culture Committee recommendation that national guidelines should be introduced for wind farms be incorporated into the new national planning framework?
There will certainly be the piece of work on wind farms that I have described. Although that will be a separate Scottish planning policy, some of it will find its way into the national planning framework. Indeed, many important environmental initiatives will be part of that.
At the moment, 64 per cent of planning applications are dealt with within two months and 81 per cent are dealt with within three months. As yet, we have not set new targets as part of the reforms. Obviously, a whole new procedure is to be put in place—indeed, many new procedures are to be put in place. We will have to see how it all beds in and then set new targets for the new situation.
Many parts of what I have proposed today are relevant to Greengairs, including the involvement of the public in development planning and in major planning applications. Cumulative impact is indeed an issue, but I have indicated that that will tend to be dealt with in individual Scottish planning policies.
The minister complains that his proposals have been misrepresented, but the description of the proposals as a power grab to the centre seems pretty accurate. If it is not, will he tell the chamber whether, once the national planning framework is approved at national level, a local authority will be able to challenge specific proposals such as a new road or landfill site on grounds of need when considering its own development plans? At a time when—
Was that your question, Mr Harvie?
At a time when a certain party is considering the prospect of losing control of some local authorities in 2007, those reassurances are extremely important.
The description of the proposals as a
"power grab to the centre"
is one of the most ridiculous travesties of the truth that I have heard in all the six years of this Parliament. I am astonished that someone from the Green party is so negative about the national planning framework. Indeed, the Green party and other environmental groups have called for an increased role and status for the national planning framework, in which national environmental priorities will be highlighted.
Patrick Harvie should think carefully. There have been discussions on this recently in the Procedures Committee. Obviously, he can pick something that is not environmentally friendly, but a large number of things will be. Is he suggesting that the democratic decision of the Scottish Parliament on the Borders railway, which the whole Parliament decided should go ahead, should be overturned by a local planning inquiry? If he is, he should reflect on that again.
Perhaps Patrick Harvie should also reflect on other environmental issues, because I am asking everyone to look at the measures as a whole. Development plans will have statutory consultees, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage. There will be strategic environmental assessment for the national planning framework and for all development plans. There will be various other things that were called for in the Scottish Environment LINK manifesto for a planning bill, such as the use of good neighbour agreements. I have already highlighted the special procedures wherever there is an environmental impact assessment, which go beyond what was asked for by Scottish Environment LINK.
I do not have time to mention new provisions on tree preservation orders, the updating of legislation on the historic environment and various other environmentally friendly measures. Patrick Harvie should look at the whole package and reflect on the language about a "power grab".
Meeting suspended until 14:00.
On resuming—