Chamber and committees

I will ask George Dickson to come in on that.

As the committee will be aware, the UK Government undertook extensive consultation ahead of the introduction of this legislation, but there has been a lot of close engagement between Scottish Government officials and UK Government officials, particularly in the Home Office. George Dickson or Kirsty Anderson might want to add something about the engagement with UK Government officials on that matter.

If there is a specific question, I am happy to follow up in correspondence to clarify that. The general broad engagement that took place in the preparation of this legislation was undertaken by the UK Government, as it is a UK Government bill, but you highlighted an area where a devolved competence comes into play—hence the LCM. As we have said previously, we generally try to have as much coherence with the regimes right across the UK, given that that is the best way to effect the desired outcome that we all share.

It is difficult to envisage such a scenario arising. There is no broad agreement on the policy intent of the legislation, but there is a need to ensure that the processes for effecting that are consistent with the devolution settlement—hence the amendments that we requested on consult and consent mechanisms, to which the UK Government acceded.

George Burgess might want to comment on the thinking behind that.

I think that that is how it would operate in practice, but I am conscious that that role in statute for Scottish ministers allows for direct accountability back to the Parliament, which is a particular concern of the Parliament and something that we have sought to ensure. However, in practice, it will be as George Burgess outlined and, if such a scenario arose, there would be a great degree of co-operation and co-ordination anyway. The possibility of a dispute arising in such a context seems remote, but, of course, there would be that means of Scottish ministers being held to account by Parliament for their decisions on consent.

There has been a 12-week consultation that speaks to existing PDR being enhanced. Local authorities can, subject to confirmation by ministers, use an article 4 process through the general permitted development order, which can restrict or exempt particular areas from permitted development rights. That addresses some of the other points that have been raised. It is important to put that on the record, because, beyond the other consenting regimes to which I referred, in extremis, if a local authority deems it required because of unintended consequences, there is a means under the existing provisions, subject to ministerial confirmation, to exempt a particular area from permitted development rights.

Tom, it would help if you could go over what the proposed PDR do specifically in relation to EV charging infrastructure.

If the SSI comes into effect, it will do so at the end of this month—I think that we are approaching the end of the 40-day period. We will continue our phased approach to PD rights. We hope to commence phase 3 later in the spring. As part of our pivot to implementation and delivery following the adoption of national planning framework 4, we will have far closer engagement with planning authorities and a range of other stakeholders. The monitoring process for the implementation of NPF4 will capture broader monitoring of the implementation of a number of aspects of planning reform, of which PD rights is just one. I said earlier that we are looking to commence other provisions in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 later this year, including those relating to masterplan consent areas.

There will be continuous close engagement with planning authorities, and that will build on the collaborative approach that got us to the situation in which we were able to command such overwhelming support for NPF4. As that collaborative approach pivots towards implementation, monitoring will be a key part of that. Our delivery programme for NPF4 will be revised after six months and then yearly. We engage with various bodies, we convene or co-convene groups on planning performance and there is the planning, infrastructure and place advisory group, so there are a number of forums in which planning issues can be raised more widely.

More generally, that culture of close engagement and partnership working with our planning authorities will mean that, should any issues arise, they can be brought to our attention at short notice. When problems are identified, we will, of course, seek to remedy them. We will consider whether that can be done through, for example, article 4 directions or by amendments to the 1992 order, but we need to take a proportionate and evidence-based approach, and we will be able to establish an evidence base through that continued engagement.

As I said, under the provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, there is a means for local authorities, as the roads authority, to ensure that the public realm is not being blocked or being made less accessible. They have enforcement powers to ensure that they can take action, where appropriate. If anyone experienced circumstances in which furniture was placed in an insensitive way that impacted on accessibility, they would be able to raise that directly with their local authority, which, through the existing statutory provisions, would be able to take action to ensure that any obstruction was removed.

I touched on the points about concerns around obstructions. It is important to bear in mind that many hospitality establishments will be subject to local licensing requirements. As a former councillor, you will be familiar with the established processes for achieving that. There is an opportunity through direct engagement with a local authority to engage in issues. Clearly, there are other provisions to which every hospitality establishment is subject, around levels of noise, impact on amenity and environmental health. A range of mechanisms are in place. We have overlapping consenting mechanisms. It is also important to recognise that outdoor furniture does not always constitute development for planning purposes. There can be instances where outdoor furniture is not captured by the planning system as it exists. There are other means of addressing any particular concerns that a local community has, whether they be around obstruction or things that perhaps impinge on existing licensing arrangements.

Tom, do you want to add anything?

These matters, obviously, are decisions for the local authority, as the licensing authority, to take, and they will be based upon the specific circumstances there. I have confidence and trust in the local authorities to apply the existing legislative provisions and to do so in a way that is proportionate and takes account of concerns raised by local people.

The important point to remember is that we are seeking to remove overlapping consenting regimes that exist, so this does not impact on roads, as we touched on, or on any existing licensing requirements. Any development at the moment that comes into the scope of licensing issues is not impacted by the change around planning, so these existing provisions would continue as they are.