Chamber and committees

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The event was hailed as a massive success by the UK Government. The Prime Minister indicated that

“Britain is back in business”

with the EU.

As we heard, however, the reset involved huge difficulties and tensions with fisheries—you have gone into that, for which I thank you. We have also heard that there are opportunities with regard to defence and security, food and drink and energy co-operation. However, those are still just opportunities rather than agreements, because the member states still have to endorse or ratify some of them to ensure that they come into force.

What meaningful engagement would we expect from the Scottish Government and the UK Government on food and drink, energy co-operation and defence and security as we move forward? You explained some of the difficulties that you encountered with regard to fisheries. If there is a reset in those three areas that gives Scotland an opportunity, what is that opportunity and what kind of meaningful negotiation and engagement would you, as the Scottish Government, expect?

Thank you. I will let others come in now.

It would be good to ascertain your attitude about the impact of the adoption of NPF4. There has been a plethora of associated working groups, guidance and advice. How has that affected the ability of communities to meaningfully engage with the planning system? Would you say that it has helped or hindered the development of local place plans?

You touched on the local development plans, so I will ask my second question. The committee has heard concerns that several LDP evidence reports have been rejected at the gate check and returned to planning authorities for further work. We are ascertaining why that is happening and what needs to change to ensure that planning authorities are submitting evidence reports that meet the requirements.

You have touched on the fact that some larger authorities have a large team of people working on the issue and smaller ones have only a small number of people doing so, but something must be fundamentally wrong, because even the larger ones are having their reports returned because there is a mismatch at the point of the gate check. It would be good to get a flavour of what you think of that.

Esme Clelland, do you want to add anything?

You have all touched on the issue of resourcing in relation to the size of some planning authorities and their recruitment and retention issues. Resourcing of planning departments has been a major concern, which we have heard from nearly everyone who has given us written views and evidence. What can be done to tackle the issue? Do any of you have views about the potential ring fencing of planning fee income? The idea has been mooted that that could support, assist or strengthen some of that work.

It would be good to get a flavour of where you stand on that proposal, because resourcing is a problem. There is a need to maintain and retain staff, and there is a need to ensure that authorities have the calibre of staff who are able to do what is expected of them in the required timescale. As I said, everyone who has given us views has expressed concern about that, so it is obviously a major problem for the sector and for the industry.

When local development plans were proposed, people felt enthusiastic about them. They thought that that was the right way forward, and they were quite involved in and elated by the whole process. As we have progressed, concerns been raised about the slow progress in producing many of those plans. When taking evidence, we have had reports that many plans are rejected when they get to the gate check that was put in place as an attempt to manage the plans.

How can we ensure that the adoption of those new plans is accelerated? There was enthusiasm about putting them together, but it seems that there are some issues when the plans get as far as the gate check and they do not necessarily progress. People then wonder what the point was and ask where they should go from there. How can we try to ensure that there is better acceleration of the process?

As you identify, if planning takes longer to achieve, the applicant has to progress that, which can be costly. It now takes much longer for an application to progress than it did in the past. If there is only a handful or a minimum number of people in a planning department, it is virtually impossible to deal with all the applications—depending on the amount—in a regular timescale.

Esme Clelland, do you have anything to add?

That suggests that there might have been a misinterpretation of what was planned or what was expected from the execution of those plans. What support and training do you give? You said that there are things that might well happen in the future, but it is important to give the planning authorities confidence to start with. When something is rejected, people have not achieved their goal or ambition within the timescale, which can knock them back. Fife might well have been, as you said, the guinea pig in that process, but its overall experience might not have been an exciting one, given that it did not work for it; others have since felt the same. There is a need for some support to give planning authorities the aspiration to achieve. They want to get their plans together—they need those plans—but if they cannot do that within the timescale, that can sour the whole process.

Thank you.