Chamber and committees

Are members content with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE2075, which was lodged by Stewart Noble, on behalf of Helensburgh community council. Stewart joins us in the gallery—welcome. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prioritise local participation in planning decisions that affect the local area by providing a clear and unambiguous definition of the word “local”, in so far as it applies to planning legislation; giving community councils decision-making powers for planning applications in their local areas; and ensuring that the way in which decisions and planning applications are taken is compatible with the provisions and ethos of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

In the background information on the petition, Helensburgh community council highlights the example of planning applications that affected Helensburgh being approved despite opposition from the community council and a majority of local ward councillors on the planning committee. The SPICe briefing, to which I referred a moment ago, sets out the process for determining planning applications, which includes the requirement for planning authorities to provide community councils with a weekly list of applications for developments in their areas. A planning authority must also consult community councils on proposed developments that are likely to affect the amenity of their area.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes the consultation that has taken place on “Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance”, as well as the recent amendments that were made by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 to increase the opportunities for individuals and community bodies to engage in the planning process, including by preparing local place plans for their own areas.

In addition, the Scottish Government has suggested that extending powers to determine planning applications to community councils would require comprehensive revisions to existing legislation, and that the Government is not minded to consider such a fundamental change to the planning system at this time.

We have received a submission from the petitioner in response to the Scottish Government’s response, in which the community council expresses concern that the “engagement” and “participation” that are referred to are simply part of a box-ticking exercise. The petitioner has also clarified that his proposal for providing community councils with decision-making powers on planning decisions would involve a number of community councillors becoming members of local authority planning committees, with full voting powers, to assist in determining planning applications in their area.

We are joined by Jackie Baillie, as we are again considering a petition that is of interest to her community and constituents. I am happy to invite her to address the committee.

We have suggestions there. Are committee members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue, and I hope that they have drawn some comfort from the response from the Government.

Are members content with that suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

That was in London. At this point, we have had no suggestion to that effect.

We now move into private session.

Thank you, minister. That is encouraging. If I look over your shoulder, I can see the petitioner, who is in the public gallery this morning and will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that, too.

I was trying to understand the pathway. At our last meeting, having read the previous submissions that we had received, I noted an understanding that, given that Scots law is rooted in different traditions and precedents to law elsewhere in the UK, the assumption underpinning the petition—that there would be tourist destination travel to Scotland for such litigation—was perhaps more of a theory than a determined outcome. The Scottish Government’s thought process at that point was that it would prefer to be in a slightly reactive position if that happened rather than in a proactive position simply because it might happen, given everything else that the Government has to consider. Was that part of the thinking? Has the fact that action has now been taken in other jurisdictions compounded the potential risk—which might otherwise have been theoretically less likely but is now potentially more likely—that such litigation could occur, meaning that the Government perhaps feels that it needs to take more decisive and direct action on the matter, proactively rather than reactively?

I would be very grateful for that.

Thank you. You make a very powerful case in respect of the petitioner and the aims of his petitions. The issue that the committee must wrestle with is the—as you have said, profoundly disappointing—closed door that was presented to us by the Scottish Government.

Mr Ewing, are you indicating that you have thoughts on the matter?

I was going to suggest that, if we take forward Mr Ewing’s proposal to close the petitions, we couple that with writing to the Scottish Government to, as well as confirm our decision, summarise the practical consequences that Rhoda Grant detailed quite accurately and encourage the Government to consider the option of bringing together parties to advance a bespoke solution, rather than simply, as it has done, refusing to entertain further consideration of the idea.

I do not think that there is any dramatic action that we can take, but we could embrace Rhoda Grant’s suggestion by writing to the Government at the same time. Does that meet the committee’s approval?