Chamber and committees

You have identified a very strong issue there. There is an attempt to do more, build more, and create that atmosphere and energy as you build up that industry. However, it is hard to do that if you do not have the manpower and resource to follow that effort through.

Some local authorities have many more planning applications than others. Some get dozens of planning applications daily while others do not have the same flow. Authorities have to manage the number of applications and the time that they take and then ensure that they have procedures in place to deal with them. As you have identified, all of that can have a knock-on effect on how effective and efficient the system is. However, it appears that not having the foundations and building blocks in place is making it more difficult to achieve some of your goals and ambitions.

You realise that, but it needs to be further realised that more needs to be done and achieved. At the end of the day, if you do not have the processes in place to ensure that your goals in some areas can be achieved, you are setting things up to fail. As you have identified, some areas do not have as much demand as others, but for those that have a high level, it is crucial that we enable them to achieve their planning goals and aspirations and ensure that we get things built in those locations.

Good morning. On 15 June, the chief planner wrote to authorities about the application of NPF4 policy 22, which concerns flood risk and water management. Why was it necessary for that letter to be sent? Following the issuing of the letter, what changes do you expect planning authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to make to how they assess flood risk?

Fiona Simpson, do you want to add anything to that?

My second question is about the resourcing of planning departments, which has continued to be a concern for a number of years, even after the changes to the fee system that have been introduced. Do you have any plans to increase funding for planning authorities, because those changes will have an impact, depending on how the funding is managed? Do you support the ring fencing of planning fee income, which is another area that has been touched on in the past? If it were implemented, how would it work and what would it mean? It would be good to get a flavour of your views on that.

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.