system. Okay. Edinburgh City Council, do you have a view on that, Mr Leslie? Yes, thank you. From an individual authority's perspective, we recognise there is a difference between measuring performance of the system as a whole and measuring the performance of the individual authority. We have tried to use the planning performance framework as it currently exists in a creative way to look at the quality of outcomes at a local level. I think that from the council's perspective, ensuring that we continue to focus performance on the quality of outcomes is really important in terms of local accountability. If measures are brought in at national level to co-ordinate or to scrutinise, we would look to that to be a co-operative or collaborative approach working with individual authorities so that we can learn from the experience of others and improve performance locally. Okay, thank you. Do you want to follow up on something like that, Mr Simpson? Just on the principle, really, is it right that a national government should be able to assess a local council's performance and then direct it to do certain things from a local accountability point of view? Well, at least, it's difficult to say that that shouldn't happen, because obviously we're subject to the rigor of the Accounts Commission Audit Scotland already. And in terms of the process, the entire planning process is defined in law, so the local authorities are clearly not above that. I think that what we're keen to pursue is a collaborative and co-operative approach wherever possible, and I think that the idea of having to face another big stick, because we already faced a big stick in the face of the penalty clause, is one that clearly we don't want. Okay. Yeah, I'll briefly supplement you myself if that's okay, Mr Stewart. Can I just check? I think that I was slightly worried when I heard Councillor Heddle's initial answer. It could have sounded a little bit defensive and I think that Mr Gray gave a bit more light and shade to that. Care homes at a local authority level of the care aspect are getting insane about performance of them. And if there's systemic issues, they'll deal with local authority in relation to that education in Scotland and in relation to schools also. I suppose that what I would say is what those bodies would seek to do when they go into a local authority level is to seek to be supportive and constructive and capacity-built and help to develop the local authority. I'm just wondering if, in principle, you might agree with this, it's more about tone and proportionality. Because I just want to be clear about what it is that you think about this. So, in principle, is this the right thing to do? But it's about making sure that we take a proportionate approach and it's positive and constructive and collegiate. So any thoughts in relation to that? Councillor Headland, I name-check you. I should really give you the opportunity to come back. Yes. Yeah, sorry. It's the night of our lives. You don't touch it. Yeah, you're on. Okay. It's important. I mean, it's certainly about tone and in terms of endorsing it. I'm not in a position to endorse it, but I specifically asked by council leaders to write saying that we didn't support this. So I'm not going to sit in this committee and say that this is something that we do support. I mean, but certainly in the industry being productive, we'd be very keen to work to discuss how the assessment might work in terms of the annual assessment, what that should be, whether it should be an evolution or the excellent process devised by hops, what the role of the coordinator post should be. So, I mean, we're approaching this in an entirely constructive fashion, I would hope. Okay, constructive fashion, but against it in principle? Well, we don't know the fine detail or the thing, so it's difficult to sign up to it. So the causal is open to persuasion then? I think we're always open to persuasion, yes. Excellent. Mr Gray, is that a reasonable deflection that I made that in principle this is a reasonable thing as long as the tone and proportionality is captured adequately? Yes. We've always had some form of scrutiny and it's this proportionality in the tone and we've proved over six years of planning performance frameworks a really dramatic improvement across planning in Scotland, which we haven't actually flagged up very well, but really it's on a red amber, green system. We started with reds six years ago, probably in three figures and they're now now to single figures. So the scrutiny and everyone working together in that context has worked, it has proved to be successful. We don't want something disproportionate, we don't need it and the differences between us are quite subtle. We agree on the proportionate response. I very much agree with David Leslie. Measurement tends to be about speed. How quickly do you turn something around and if we create places that are somehow or rather inadequate than actually we've failed and we'd rather be measured on outcomes balanced with speed? We understand the streamlining and the need for speed, but it's not the entire story. The outcome is actually far more important. I've actually helped to put on the record before Mr Stewart comes in any additional comments in relation to that? Okay, I'll understood. The expression of disquiet and concern about this whole going forward is understandable because not one size fits all across each local authority. You have different workloads, you have different performances, but you also have resource implications within these processes and that has to come into this equation as about how you would manage that to ensure that you are continually seeing improvement and it would be good to see if there's any views on that. To start, we obviously don't want to dominate as heads of planning Scotland we've been pushing for a number of years for full cost recovery at the very least in the development management part so that the fee should cover the cost of an application. Now in saying that councils everywhere are doing what they can to drive down the cost of a fee or the cost of actually processing an application and we are seeing some success in that. So it is a two-sided thing. We're trying to drive costs down but we want those costs recovered. And in that way, we're not reliant on council budgets which are hard pressed for many other things. The developer benefits from the development I think it's quite reasonable that the developer pays the cost of that. On the local development plan side that might not be quite the same. I don't want to stray into place plans and other resource things and simplified planning zones where there are other resource implications which might actually be more about the community and it might be that central public budgeting could cover that. We'd actually like to see cost recovery over the whole matter but I think that there are stages towards it that we could look at. Detailed resources later on. Absolutely. If there's any additional comments just now feel free before we bring other members in. Mr Leslie. I think that from the Edinburgh perspective we've consistently supported the relationship between resources and performance and I think I'd go back to my point about the way in which we report on performance that if we as an individual authority decide to devote resources to one particular part of the planning process in the city then we should be reporting how we have used these resources effectively in our annual report on performance and justify why we've done that. I very much support the idea that one size does not fit all in this area. What is appropriate for Edinburgh may not be appropriate for other planning authorities but we should have that flexibility to be able to adjust resources locally to reflect local planning situations. For instance, in one year we might be dealing with an exceptional amount of new growth where we want to devote more resources to pre-application advice. That can be reported in terms of how effective we've been. Okay. Christal Heidel? Yes, thanks. They generally support them, the comments here and just to provide a context. I think that all local authorities are keen to see more resources going into the planning system because it's important for us that we have a good functioning planning system. Every local authority in Scotland over the last year has been sitting down to write its strategic plan for the forthcoming term and every local authority will be speaking about local economic development and housing and a successful planning system, a successful planning authority is essential for this to happen. So I think that we're incentivised in our own right to have a well-performing planning system and keen to see it resource. Okay, Mr Simpson, it was your line of questioning, so as you went to explore before all the other MSPs in. Yeah, I just want to sort of go off in a slightly different direction, but still in relation to councils and councillors in particular, one of the other proposals is that councillors should have to undergo mandatory training in planning and should have to pass an exam before they're able to actually sit on committees and take decisions on planning matters. So do you think that's right? And do you also think it's right that the minister should not have to undergo that planning? I actually asked him this question on another committee and he didn't seem to think he should have to do that. So perhaps you could address those two questions. I should confirm the exception possible that I've done to give me the none of us have actually sat an exam in this area. I would like to answer that question. Councillor Heddle. Yeah, thank you again. I would say it's fair to say across costless a spectrum of opinion with regard to the having sat an exam for being on the planning committee. Some authorities will say that this happens already in licensing so what's the difference? There's the expectation that this should happen. It's clearly training is essential for the just sitting on a planning committee and just making sure that it happens would be a good thing. Others, as you say, think that there's an issue parity esteem here in that councillors should be expected to do this, but ministers, considering the appeals or call-ins might not be. And in the high-level group, I also posed this question to the minister and he said that he'd be receptive to ministers having to receive training as well. Which changed his tune. Which I thought was generous of him. I think that where we have a fear here is that the suggestion that the planning function be taken off a local authority if they don't have enough members to form the planning committee. Again, I think that that would be a disproportionate move because we don't have mandatory training at present. I would say that the planning function just works well and it's clearly well regulated and there's rights of appeal. So I think that that would be maybe a step too far and that if we could find something that fell short with that, that would be that we will. Any other views of training and assessment of councillors? David Leslie. Yes, it may be useful to share I don't experience with the committee and I think the emphasis I would put on the issues is not one of training members but training and supporting members on a continuous basis. The programme that we use in Edinburgh and have used for more than three administrations now is a programme of planning committee members agreeing in advance for the year ahead what sort of training and support programme they will pursue. In expanding that to other members of council we have a range of workshops that are open to ward councillors in terms of particular planning issues and we now have a committee structure which engages other committees in the planning process so we're looking at more joint workshops between committees. My point is really one of it's not a one-off training exercise it's a continuous process that we've seen benefit from. Any additional comments Mr Gray? Yes, in planning it's inevitably dealing with conflict someone wants to do something someone wants to stop them elected members are the decision makers in the system and I think training helps to protect them and helps to give them confidence so we'd be supportive of it. Thank you. Can you, Mr Simpson? It's really something to take away councillor Heddle. I'd be interested to know how many councils actually offer this training already as Edinburgh do. I would just be interested to know if you can maybe come back to us on that. No, I think that's something we could do. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Monica Lennon. Thank you. Just to go back to the issues that we were exploring around performance and I think both Robert Gray and Ailsa Anderson talked about other stakeholders beyond just planning officers and planning authorities who have an influence on how quickly things happen in terms of the actual process. I wonder if witnesses are able to reflect on the role of processing agreements in terms of their uptake and what value that's added to the process. Is that in any sense, if you get any evidence of that, is driving up performance? Yes, it does drive up performance because when you put something on a processing agreement it comes off the statistics. I can give you numerous examples where a developer may not actually want to develop straight away. He wants to be in the system but he doesn't want us to deal with it quickly because on the day he gets his planning permission he'll probably have to spend money by land, have investment. He may not have that lined up so we can actually work with him. We give them dates, they give us dates, we work together with two project plans. Everyone knows what's happening. There's no sense of failure in it because it's a slower process. People actually get what they want out of the system and it's right that they disappear from the statistics. And it's very helpful if we know that they haven't given us enough information. When you validate a planning application you do it on the basis of a certain specified amount of information. That might not actually be enough information to allow you to issue a decision. You might need, for example, a bat survey which takes several months because it's over certain periods in the year. And at that period if you put it onto a processing agreement everyone knows what's happening when everything's expected. A committee date is set way in advance and we all stick to it. For my own, I can only speak for my own counsel. I don't think that we've ever changed the processing agreement unless the applicant has asked for it to be changed. So we take it as an absolute commitment as a project plan. A member from the 2006... Sorry, I apologise, Monica. Ails Anderson wanted to... Okay, I'll probably forget what I was going to say but it was directly relevant to Mr Gray, but carry on. It was just to mention in terms of processing agreements as a tool in the process. I think that they're a very valuable tool available to officers in order of particularly holding accountability if, say, a deadline hasn't been reached for any reason by any of the stakeholders involved in getting... progressing a decision. So I think in terms of accountability and transparency they are a valuable tool. Can I just ask, in terms of the data I suppose that that becomes apparent or is collected, is there a pattern in terms of the circumstances where the clock is stopped? Is it lack of information? Is it bad surveys and not being the right season? Is it just a cycle of committees? Is there anything that planning authorities are learning from the processing agreement process? I might be wrong but I thought that uptake was quite low for processing agreements. I don't know if others have a view on information on that. Mr Leslie? In Edinburgh, we were one of the pioneers in using processing agreements I think before they were on the statute book in terms of a methodology of project managing the planning application and I keep going back to this point when speaking to applicants. We firmly believe that it's in the interests of all stakeholders including the community to have a clearly set out processing agreement so that we everybody knows which part of the process that they are engaging in and have clear expectations of timescale. Your point about declining use I would agree with. I don't have specific figures but overall the number of processing agreements being signed by developers for applications in Edinburgh is lower than it has been in recent years. We are trying to understand the reasons for that. I believe some of it does rest on the preparation of supporting information and uncertainty by applicants sometimes in terms of information that they have to provide or information on which they are dependent such as that coming from other external agencies. I think if we go back to the principle of why processing agreement is there which is about a form of collective agreement of everyone involved in the process and there is no doubt it's a good thing and it's also a good tool for measuring performance because if all parties meet the outcome that they set out to achieve within a timescale then that is a measure of performance. If I can return to Robert Gray for a heads of planning perspective my memory from the previous planning bill which led to the O6 act was that the way to improve outcomes the way to drive performance was to work collaboratively to get that change in culture processing agreements we're just one small part of that but from a heads of planning perspective are you seeing a change in culture whether it's from Transport Scotland, Scottish Water or the different players around the table is there any evidence that's been gathered in the last 12 years that has shown that there's greater collaboration? I think the culture change which is very big in the 2006 act has been very slow and very patchy and I think that's just a truism just to finish off on processing agreements they have been successful I can think of some I don't know whether they're in the majority but there are certainly some where the ones I'm thinking of are onshore works for major offshore installations in the North Sea you know we became part of the engineers project plan and they were still approved within the four months for a major matters but we still used a processing agreement because that was our agreement with the applicant and everyone stuck to it it's like our project plan with them and we were all working to the same outcome so they can work that way I think what you're alluding to in some of the questioning is are they actually just used to mask figures that would otherwise be bad and there is a definite risk of that and as heads of planning we've discussed that at great length and trying to get some consistency over all of the authorities and how we use them some authorities pick them up we encourage them because we see it's good project planning others see it as that's more time that could be spent more productively elsewhere and they use things like just stop the clock because there's a piece of information missing and we need it so we're not going to measure that time and all of these can work if they're consistent as long as we can give the Scottish Government consistent figures at the end of it about how planning performs they all work there is a lot of room for culture change we're using more pre-application discussions where we have everyone around the table including bodies like Scottish Water to try and draw them into the same timescale so that we have certainty that against patchy one of the things we've talked about in the past has been if we charge for that it might be easier some authorities have tried that I've had developers asking if my authority would charge because they think a neighbouring authority gives a better service because they charge and they actually give a bound book at the end of it and there are the timescales and everything you have to do it seems like a very good service and a good way forward and that is starting to drive some culture change I'm sorry for mentioning Scottish Water that it could be any number of stakeholders and then there's the development side culture we got the planning system gets on very well with large engineering projects and the culture there because it's very much a project management culture we're working extensively with house builders using homes for Scotland and the SCDI to try and merge our culture with the house builders culture not saying one's right or wrong but that alone seems to be the one where there are delays and frustrations that we still need to do some work on or that's without blaming anyone for that but I think there's a piece of work to be done which may not be legislative work it might be people actually picking up and working together for the outcome I'm going to come in with a tiny little question Pre-application discussions the committee had a one-day conference I'm not sure some of you might have been there in Stirling and we did a round table discussions with us as facilitators and it came up in one of my sessions that some planning authorities don't do pre-application discussions from a heads of planning perspective is that something that you're aware of? Yes We're all trying different things I like pre-application discussions I actually like not charging for them because I don't want anyone to be put off because if you can raise all of these things upfront on day one and know what the problems are you actually have much longer to solve those problems before you get to a determination so yes it should be done there was we're finding some authorities go very much more into the full cost recovery if we're going to do something as a cost and we have to know where that's going to be paid from and pre-application discussions at the moment where I am come from the public purse everyone's benefiting but actually the developer's benefiting more and there's a discussion still to be had about the charging there and what the real value of it is and what it would be worth to a developer to actually put money into the system to make a much more efficient system Thank you Okay, Mr Miles absolutely and we're going to have to move on to a new line of questioning after this Mr Miles It was just to say that we've been a proponent of process agreements as well we offer them in all the applications that we call in when we started doing that it worked exceptionally well for the first year or so because applicants took on that point seriously the provided information at the times that we needed it now in the time since what we've found is that in general deadlines are being missed by applicants and not by consultees in the process now we extend the timescales out and we keep going with that process agreement because generally we think there's a good development there it's just more information is needed to get it determined but it is dragging out timescales and I think there's something that we're looking at and how we encourage people to keep to those deadlines and not have it sitting there I think the other point about pre-application advice is that we share pre-application advice with five local authorities people take it or they don't take it but what is exceptionally frustrating is when applications come into the system and the pre-application advice has been more or less ignored and that leads again to delays later on because we say well hold on we told you months ago that you needed this, this and this with your application yet it's not there so then the process agreement has to be extended so I think there are two sides to this there's what planning authorities can do and there's what the development industry can do and as Robert says the project managed projects that start looking at the planning process as something to get through effectively work the way through the system very swiftly and efficiently the ones that don't have that tend to float around so we'd agree to performance of applicants too okay thank you for that just to give members a heads up newly on a question from Andy Wightman to be followed by Jenny Goruth after that so Andy Wightman thank you very much convener I want to talk about national planning framework and sustainable development strategic development plans the changes are mooted about merging up with Scottish planning policy about making it then part of the development plan and that in turn raises questions about how the national planning framework should be developed, adopted, scrutinised by Parliament and ministers I think it's fair to say it there's cross-party consensus that the national planning framework is a good thing I think most written evidence no one's really seriously questioning whether we should have it it's in law, we have to have it anyway the question is should the changes that are being proposed in this bill are they appropriate and you know Reading South Lanarkshire Council West Aberdeenshire Council City of Edinburgh Council there's quite a lot of evidence from councils that they don't want to see greater centralisation of the planning system and the national planning framework become part of the statutory development plan so I'm just wondering your views on that question about the changes that are proposed to the national planning framework Councillor Hedle Thank you very much Yeah, in the costless submission on the withdrawal strategic development plans I suppose we were maybe slightly ambivalent in that we could see the merit in them being listened on I was going to ask about strategic development plans separately in a minute I mean I noticed costler doesn't say much about the national planning framework at all except in relation to strategic development I'm happy to keep the comments to the national planning framework Okay, thank you Yeah, with regard to the national planning framework I mean the I think the point that's been made before by Robert that it's important that the planning process is kept under local democratic control so they move to incorporate in the regional aspirations within the national planning framework and that's sitting alongside the local aspirations in the local development plan There is a risk that could lead to more direction and withdrawal of local democratic control I think that if there's one key point that we wanted to make as costler would be that we feel that the planning process and the modifications to the planning process as suggested in this bill should be an end point where the decisions are being taken locally wherever possible so we've recessed an erosion in the powers of local authorities to determine plans from above through ministerial direction but equally would be circumspect about the way that local police plans play into this and I'm sure there'd be questions on that so I won't say any more about local police plans so we have concerns, yes, about how the national planning framework is going to play as proposed and something we'd be very keen to work with the Government to discover how local elected members can have a say or the best possible say and how the regional aspects of this is going to be developed and then adopted I'm just trying to encourage everyone to speak, Mr Vee. I will take you in, Mr Leslie. I think the relationship between the national planning framework and whatever arrangement we have at a regional level is a really important one. The city and the regions input to the national planning framework may well be determined through that arrangement so I guess we're going to come back to look at that in more detail but the point I'd want to make at this stage is that Edinburgh as the capital city by its nature has a number of national interests in its development but the way in which we manage those developments should be left to the planning authority for the area to deal with in detail so I think it's important that the local experience is recognised when the national planning framework is being prepared so it's a matter of how we input to that. Okay, Mr Gray, yes? No, I don't need to speak, as David said. Okay, anyone else want to comment on this? Do you want to follow up on that, Mr Whiteman? I'll come on to strategic development plans in a minute but the policy memorandum says under the national planning framework that national developments are accorded the same status as the development plan and planning decisions. What I'm trying to get a sense of is does what the bill proposes in terms of changes actually make any difference or do you think that it will make any difference whatsoever to the status of the national planning framework and the regard to which local authorities pay to that when they are drafting their local development plans and they are making planning determinations? There's not a stampede, Mr Gray, so it's quite helpful if you were to answer that. I'm trying to hold back. National planning framework we do take it into account in everything we do. Under the new legislation it looks more like a national development plan which replaces a strategic development plan which we have to be consistent with. We're going to have to be consistent with that. My potential issue with the national planning framework is the way in which it will engage with the stakeholders. Subsidiarity is a political issue in which I'll leave to Councillor Heddle but there needs to be some way in which we're all brought into the national planning framework so that it's everyone's plan and how that happens isn't spelled out in the bill and that's an issue I have. One of our asks as hopes right at the beginning of all of this was the repositioning of planning. It's the one activity that's unique. It brings together not just the developers and the infrastructure providers but the communities. And we really wanted to see ourselves positioned centrally. And it's that central positioning. We like the idea of a national planning framework that's very important and very powerful. Possibly someone who sat here before me has told you when the Irish national planning framework was launched. It was launched by, I'm not good, yes, I will try and say TSOC. It was launched by the TSOC and 17 cabinet ministers. It was that important. It was the plan for the country. And we like the idea of it being that important as long as we've all managed to have an input to it and had a hearing and a say. So that's our aspiration for the national planning framework. I think that Mr Miles would be trying to take Mr Miles and then to Ailsa and just after that, absolutely. I suppose just to answer the question. I'm not sure that it necessarily makes that much difference to the way that decisions are made. It's the process that you get to that national planning framework that everyone is a bit concerned about. Okay, Ailsa. The only comment I would make is that we have to be careful at the point at which we consider the national planning framework, particularly if it can be amended at any stage. And that may lead to a local development plan being incompatible within the national planning framework and when decisions are then made at that point, given that whichever document is later will be the prevailing document to ensure that consultation, particularly on the national planning framework, does have a very robust engagement process to ensure that all opportunities for people to participate have been taken. Thank you. Do you want to follow up with someone at Mr Wightman? Okay, that's helpful. I mean, Robert Gray says we need to have proper engagement and I don't think that anyone doubts that and I think that previous iterations have attempted to do that. But at the end of the day, this is ministers' plans. Parliament doesn't vote on the plan, doesn't adopt it. Is there a danger in future that if we elevate it to a part of the development planner, a minority administration could push through developments through that, that then you have to comply with that Parliament doesn't want, that the public doesn't want? I suppose there is the potential that that could be the case. I'm trying to think through the process as to how the exemplars what you're suggesting and how it might come through the process and struggling slightly. I think that I would just go back to my follow-up position here, which is that we're keen that the local dimension and the local democracy is maintained as much as possible. And I would need to think through more the implications of what you suggest and to see what impact that would have to come to a more recent and nuanced discussion. I mean, certainly this is something that we haven't explicitly taken a position on in-work or submissions thus far. And if amendments along these lines come forward, we need to put it back to World Board to get an all-cost of position if that was possible. I can move on to strategic development plans. I think it's fair to say that the Government in its own policy memorandum tells us that consultation that was done around the planning review, et cetera, threw up mixed views about strategic development plans. We had strong evidence from people like Clyde plan that it works well, it wants to continue, and in principle, there's nothing in the bill that stops them continuing. The fact is, however, that local authorities are merely being encouraged to do this on a voluntary basis, rather than a statutory basis. Any strong views on the future of strategic development plans? It's me again. But the thing that's being said everywhere, including COSLA, is that the one-size doesn't fit all. There are four to be replaced, or repurposed. Aberdeen City and Shire seem to be carrying on, at least for the moment. Tae plan will merge themselves into a bigger group. I think that more guidance is needed for Glasgow and Edinburgh because those are particularly large and complex. I don't see how a national planning framework can be made and be accurate without the sort of information that's collected by the strategic development plans at the moment. A new national planning framework, for example, will have a housing supply target, which will be based on a lot of data that's collected across the whole of Scotland. That data is, at the moment, collected in a number of different ways. So we are trying, largely with Clyde plan leading, to simplify that and have one way of collecting data so that we can assist in what the bill aspires to do, which is a national planning framework largely replacing strategic development plans. The one size that doesn't fit all is really where it lies, as a conclusion. I think that different areas will do different things. And way back when these were set up, I recall a lot of debate about should Inverness be a strategic development plan. And the answer was no because it's all in one authority. So there is no point in having another layer. And I think that the regional partnerships based on the local geography and putting things together in order that we can input to national documents is happening already. So we're relatively comfortable, but I do think that Glasgow and Edinburgh more guidance needs to follow. And more guidance on what the duty to cooperate actually means and how that will be brought forward because I'm not sure what will happen in the central belt if authorities cannot reach agreement amongst themselves on things which we think of as regional. OK. Any other views on strategic planning, David Leslie? Something from the Edinburgh perspective, we recognise the benefits that the city has gained from regional planning arrangements. Through the strategic development plan, we have been able to work with neighbouring authorities to address the wider needs which the city cannot meet within its own administrative boundaries. We have been able to work with other authorities to deliver cross boundary solutions to implications for infrastructure, et cetera. So the question to remind us whether future arrangements will allow us to work in a similar way with the partners that we need to work with at the regional level. We also recognise that some form of regional spatial planning is required to underpin the regional partnership delivery of things like the city region deal. There is no doubt that a spatial plan is an important foundation for that. So I think that the question really is about what sort of tone the legislation sets for that. Is it a tone which will encourage the partners to work together in the way that they are doing at the moment? Or is it a tone that will allow partners to weaken their engagement? And will weakening engagement could be a weakening of resources that have devoted to spatial planning at a regional level? And I think that linking that back to previous questions about the national planning framework, we will have a duty to feed into that. Do we have a strength at regional level of defining our vision and objectives, which can be clearly articulated and feed into the national planning framework? Okay. Yep. That's Keisler-Headle. Yeah, thank you. Mr Leslie has made some of the points that I was going to make. And the following one for what Mr Michael Wightman said. Yeah, there's nothing in the bill that prevents the regional working to take place on an informal basis, at least. But the context that we're working on is that there's other legislation coming through that's encouraging regional working. In terms of the Enterprise and Scholars review, we're expected to collaborate across local authorities to develop regional plans in respect of that. In terms of education, cross-council working. And councillors are always going to work together with us an opportunity to improve services, improve service delivery. The problem comes if, as a result of this working together, we come up with a plan, but in some way conflicts with the regional dimension or the national planning framework as placed alongside the local development plan. So I think that this is something that needs to be unpacked. Okay, I think that we've got a good cut at that. Jenny Gilruth I want to revisit some of Andy Wightman's line of questioning there. First, Robert Gray, in your submission, you pointed the three strategic objectives identified by Heads of Planning Scotland. With the first one, being planning needs to be repositioned as a strategic enabler as well as a statutory regulatory function. And in the previous panel, we heard contributions with regard to city deals and the disconnect between the aspiration of city deals to drive inclusive growth and perhaps the aspirations of the planning bill in its current context. Is there an opportunity here, therefore, to join up what we do in government with regard to the economy in terms of planning and to drive, I suppose, investment in terms of tackling inequalities? Yes, it is the straight forward. I think that it is really part of this repositioning. City region deals came not within the normal defined system that we have been working to and they had to be dealt with quickly. They are important and it is how we are providing infrastructure which we needed but they were not particularly unified with a set of plans. Every activity that we do involves the use of land so planning should be central to all of that and the way in which we set things up. It should work with the infrastructure and the plans are where we actually line up that the infrastructure works with the development. So yes, there is an opportunity to do it and it is a bit of a stuck record but we are the people that bring the community in which deals with the equalities issue. Is it being done fairly or not? So yes, we have the capacity, I would say, through the plan making system and I think that that is the bit that has maybe not been as valued as it should be because everyone is interested in the development management system and the issue of the day. But through plan making we can actually deal with the use of land, the way in which infrastructure is provided including the city deal models and the community aspirations should not be lost in that and this is the place where we actually resolve those conflicts. We should be making great places, if we are not making great places, we are not succeeding. And that is what we want to be judged on at the end of this. Sorry, it is a very long way of saying yes. I do agree with what you have said. Jenny, the rest of the panel. Would anyone else like to see yes in relation to this before Jenny Glawriff follows up? Okay, I think that they might just be in green. Okay, with regard to local place plans then, the legislation in its current form asks the local development plan to have regard for its content and we've heard numerous criticisms of that, have regard for in terms of not perhaps being robust enough and communities perhaps being ignored. So I'd like to get the panel's views on that. But secondly, Ms Hopper and Mr Leslie in your submission you note that there is a concern that a local place plan could raise expectations. And I wonder if the rest of the panel agree with that assertion. Mr Leslie, I suppose you might be starting this off and give the rest of the panel a chance to gather other thoughts in relation to that. From the council's perspective in terms of encouraging greater community engagement in the planning process, a local place plan is of interest. Will it achieve that? The question about raising expectations really is about when in the process this could be used. Our view at the moment is that there should be some flexibility in that because we can see benefit in a local place plan helping to articulate community objectives at the stage of preparing a local development plan. We can also see it helping to articulate community outcomes once key development proposals are defined in a local development plan. So it could be prepared after the adoption of a local development plan. I think in terms of managing expectations it is about clarity of how the relationship exists. I come back to my previous point about one size doesn't fit all. I think that there could be an opportunity for place plans to be used by community groups in a number of different scenarios, but they need to be clear what they expect as an outcome from that and when in the process that might be most effective. Clearly some form of guidance from Government to manage consistency and expectations is going to be important. Other comments on local place plans? We agree with that. There is a real risk that unless there is an equal resource from the public sector to support those, that it enhances inequality actually and that the richer areas do better because they have more people with more free time, more skills and they devote that to something that they want to see. But in poorer areas that doesn't happen or areas where there are more people just working and busier. So there is a real risk there. How that ties into the development plan system is a big issue because we don't want a community investing a lot of time and energy in something that then may not be ignored but certainly isn't taken into account in the way that they want it. I think that's where we need to have more clarity about exactly how it will fit in. There is certainly a place for local place plans if they are used in the right way. We need to ensure that they are deliverable themselves and are not just aspirational in terms of taking forward proposals and development plans. We need to be able to have something tangible within them to take forward. There are also questions of what we do at a local level when a local place plan contradicts the national planning framework, whether that be in terms of a desire to see possibly no more housing in an area where we have identified that there is an acute need, for example. Another issue that we need to address is how local place plans fit within the context of other documents that are available, particularly to community councils, to progress their aspirations. How does it sit alongside community action plans, local place plans, coming through community empowerment? In terms of taking it forward, there is still a lot of clarity that is required, and there will be a lot of guidance that is required, particularly in terms of how they are delivered by community councils, consistency across how they are prepared, and the resourcing that is required by both spatial planners but also community planning in taking those forward. Any other comments on that? Thanks, I think that the co-authors response, we weren't wholly supportive of local place planning, but it's not something that we're against. I mean, we're entirely supportive of the principle involving communities in their plans, and particularly community councils' community planning. I think that when it comes to the local place plans, as described, the other panellists have made the point that there is a potential equality issue and that the less well resourced communities may struggle to produce a local place plan and lose out to the communities that can do that. How do you get away from that? You could resource support, and I think that that comes through the equality question as well, because another equality is the expectations question, because the expectations will be raised when there's not a realistic understanding of what is possible or indeed what is likely, and that suggests a close relationship with the planning authority in supporting them through the development of the local place plan. So there's a resourcing question inherent in that as well. I think that the final thing that I'd like to say on local place plans is on the peer regard to question, and I think that that frame, peer regard to, is appropriate, and would be more supportive of the local place planning if it is in that form, because it leaves the decision making with the elected representatives. It also allows the elected representatives to wrestle with the problems that might come from a local place plan, potentially being in conflict with the other things in the framework, and it consists right doing a number already, the national planning framework, the local development plan, simplified planning zones, there might be conflict with the agent of principle, agent of change principle, the fairer Scotland duty, and the locality planning. Those are all things that a fully informed local place plan might have to take consideration of, and that's development of the entire industry in itself. So, a degree of flexibility in allowing the elected members to wrestle with this problem, I think, is appropriate and would be content with the peer regard to. Alexander Stewart, you were exploring something along those lines earlier. Do you want to explore it further now? If we can. Following on from Jenny's comments, you talk about resources once again for implementing how this is going to happen within communities, and we're aware that some communities do have community councils, some communities do not have that community council involvement. They have other organisations that are there to try and assist. How do you get across to ensure that you get them engaged at the early stage to ensure that the expectations are met, that you don't lead them in a certain direction and then it's going to not happen or it's going to fail? How do you square that circle? No one is making eye contact with me. Come on, witnesses. Thank you, Mr Miles. I was going to add almost on from the last discussion as well that I think we're probably being more negative about this than we really feel, because we all invest an awful lot of time and money in trying to engage communities very well throughout the process, and different authorities will have different ways of doing that. We've done that through trying to have people out speaking to communities and community action plans for communities, which tend not or historically haven't focused on land use planning elements, but over time we've tried to get them to do that. That means that they create a plan for their community, and I suppose that one of the things that we do there is that we try to make sure that they speak to as many people across that community before coming to that plan for their community, and I'm not sure that community, that local place plans would necessarily have to do that, and there is a worry there that a place plan could come from one part of the community rather than the whole community. And I think that inevitably as a public sector we try to get as many people involved as possible, so that takes time and money. Now, as a national park authority, we've maybe devoted more there, and we have a smaller population than big urban authorities or just authorities over a wide area, but it works, and then that feeds into the development plan. I think that when you get down to resourcing in bigger areas, I just don't see how you can do that evenly across the area. And we do it over years, so it's phased over years, so we have a five-year rotation within these plans for communities. It's identifying the stakeholders. Within the community. And then ensuring that you can have a good report with them as to what they want and how they feel they're not just paying lip service to being part of the process. But I think that in areas of much larger urban areas, when you're trying to manage that, I mean, Edinburgh will have a massive issue of trying to deal with that in a specific area, in comparison with smaller council areas or locations that may have a real community spirit that is not going to be advised in other areas. And I think that it's capturing that process. But, as I said, without the resource, it's virtually impossible for it to be achieved. But is there any other way of achieving it, trying not to deal with the financial part of it? I guess that that is the point that we've tried to do in a national park and we've tried to tackle individual communities. And we probably did start with the ones that had more ability in the first place and worked with them first, and then went round to the others. I think maybe the tricky part of this is that there's a learning process for whoever's doing it and for that community and that when you do it a second time, more people get involved because they see the value in it. So the first time you do it, it's unlikely to do it properly. The second time you get better and it's iterative and you improve over time. So, yeah, it's good to be a challenge. Okay, can I just check something in relation to this? So I think it's quite interesting that communities can kind of self-define so it could be community of interest or it could be a geographical community. That could create some problems because once you're drawing lines on a map, and someone mentioned it might be a community doesn't want any additional housing, but if you just draw that line on the map a little bit to the left or the right or east or west, I suppose you should say, you might suddenly find out there's a wider community there that actually sees the need and the demand for housing, for example. So I'm just wondering if we need a bit clearer guidance about what we mean by communities and how local authorities should interact with them in the first place. I would like to think of local place plans as a positive thing to take forward place making and development, rather than a restrictive thing that stops essential development and place making that is needed for a wider community. So guidance, what's your thoughts in relation to that, Mr Miles? Just as I've been speaking for a bit, I guess it's about enhancing the development plan that seems to make a lot of sense and it's quite a clear context for that community to take it forward and it's about adding detail to something that's already in the development plan. If it's trying to compete with the development plan, then I think that's where you end up with potential for unhappy communities. That might is that. So sorry, Ylsa Anderson, yes please. Just to pick up on one of your points when you spoke about defining communities, I think it's also important when considering a local place plan that we define what local place might be. Within a community council, for example, you could have many settlements and many communities would each community or each part of a community require their own local place plan in which case we are looking at a very big task to try and deliver in terms of coming to local development planning. And even within community councils there may be communities who are particularly involved and have a good sense of place and sense of community. But even within a community council you may have other settlements and other communities who are not as engaged in the process. So it's how flexible the local place plan can be to accommodate everybody's aspirations and desires in terms of what the outcomes would be from those documents. I'm just wondering, because I'll take it in a little second here. I'm just wondering if that's why we'd a lot more guidance structurally around what that would look like because if you look at community council area as you say, there could be six, seven different communities within those boundaries who may all disagree with each other in relation to what a local place plan should look like. They might also not identify with the community council area that they've been placed within. And if we want a planning authority to at least have regard for, some of us would say, go further than have regard for Councillor Heddle the local place plan. There has to be some kind of structural alignment with the local development plan in the first place till we plan an authority to do that. Councillor Heddle. You suggest a structure and guidance. I think that that would be absolutely useful. There needs to be a company with flexibility as well because it's a large and diverse country that we live in. And I can certainly know that the issues that pertain in my own local authority area ornally where 21 inhabited islands and a population of 20,000 is going to be absolutely different from that in Edinburgh, where you'll have that number of people in a small sub-community that will contribute to a larger community. And there's issues there that you might find communities set against each other for the reasons that you described, the number of reasons for wanting a better description. But I think that one of the key things that would be useful would be if we could consider maybe some pilot local place plans and I mean so developing best practice around that. No, that's not the main point I was going to make, but this is when I've ended up. Okay, we'll roll with that, Councillor Heddle, unless you want to add anything else. Ails Anderson, did you want to come back in? Oh, right. Okay, any other supplementaries in relation to local place plans from committee members? I suppose we should mop up a couple of questions on local development plans that we just have to ask if we wouldn't be doing our job properly. So in relation to the evidence report in relation to development plans, there's a suggestion that there should be a minimum consultation requirement in relation to what then sees that evidence report produced. So any views on that, if there's no views that's fine, we'll move on. I want to see if there are any views in relation to what a minimum consultation requirement would look like in relation to that. Ails Anderson? I'm aware through the proposals that they're seeking to remove the requirement for a main issues report. I would certainly see, in terms of trying to reach the point at which you've got your evidence report, it would be essential to consider the options and have those presented for public scrutiny. So in effect, to prepare that document, it may be worthwhile to still have that main issues process to have public scrutiny and also link into the strategic environmental assessment. I don't know if that's something that the committee would be willing to consider rather than removing that whole process from the system. Also, it allows for the gate check to consider the fact that all the options have been presented and the favourable options being presented as part of the gate check which then feeds in to preparing the draft proposed plan. I don't want to speak for committee members. I suspect that they're open minded by just looking at the weight of evidence at the moment and the suggestions that will be here. I might roll that together with other questions that we just have to ask in relation to the gate check because it was helpful Ails Anderson that you mentioned that. So when you get, when planning authorities get to the gate check stage, should there be a requirement for further stakeholder engagement and consultation to make sure that process itself has been handled correctly and if there should be stakeholder engagement at the gate check stage, who should those stakeholders be? Again, you don't have to have thoughts on this, but we're just trying to tick off the various elements of the bill as we go through it. Mr Gray. We quite like the gate check procedure because if you get through the gate check, it means you're not going to fall down on some of those things at later stage. You know, you could lose two years. So the gate check would seem as something positive. As Hawkes would never have discussed should other stakeholders be part of the gate check, but there is a no reason why not. I think that we're quite open-minded about it. Okay. Yes, Mr Leslie. I was going to input from our analysis of the process that we went through in our current local development plan. There was very strong evidence given from stakeholders who had been involved in the process about early engagement and continual engagement. And I think that that kind of answers both questions that we, whatever the process, we have to ensure that we gain ownership and understanding early in the process and we retain that ownership and understanding as the development plan evolves. So I think that there is opportunity to use gate checks, and I would say plural, rather than singular, throughout the process to build that understanding. Okay. Now, just a housekeeping note to fellow committee members. The witnesses are going to have to hear a heck of a lot from me if no one's making bid for task questions. So I'm going to move on. Oh, Mr Whiteman. Excellent. I'm going to go to resources. It's a new topic. Absolutely, yes. I love new topics. Just something we haven't really explored very much is that the bill proposes abolishing statutory supplementary guidance. Any views on that, given that for some authorities this is deemed and some communities is deemed to be a very valuable way of framing local planning policy? Ailsa Anderson, yes? Just from experience, I work in Aberdeenshire where most of our supplementary guidance is map-based. If that was to form part of the plan itself it would bulk out the plan quite significantly. So in terms of providing the additional information, I think there is a place for supplementary guidance. I think going with the current status where there needs to be a policy hook is a good way to go because at least then you have the context which has been scrutinised. And then you have the ability to have particularly the map-based evidence sitting separately. We shouldn't abolish statutory supplementary guidance. Not necessarily, I think there is a place for it. Kate Hopper, yes? I think I agree. There is a role for statutory supplementary guidance. Edinburgh is very keen on using their statutory guidance to deliver infrastructure. We are currently bringing forward supplementary guidance for that because it allows us to address the changing nature of growth within Edinburgh on a much more quicker and more transparent basis to that. So we would still support some role for guidance that allows us to bring forward a changing infrastructure plan, for example, within a 10-year process of a local development plan. But that would, whether that's statutory or non-statutory, we don't have a view on that at the moment. Any other views? Do you want to follow? Oh, sorry, Mr Miles, yes? I suppose it's a bit like the one size doesn't fit all. There are authorities who've used SG very, very effectively and it's vital for them, and there's others who've found less, got less out of it, and it probably depends on what your authority is like and your approach to planning generally. But if you abolish the provision, no one can use it at all. Just to find a little supplementary, I mean, it strikes me that this is a bit random, but I did notice that the submission from head to planning Scotland, virtually all the questions that committee asks you say yes in bold. You are the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for this bill. I think it's fair to say that across most of our written evidence, most of our engagement outside with communities and most of our oral evidence in the committee, most people think that the bill, as far as it goes, is kind of okay, but they want more. They want it to be a little bit bolder, they want it to be a little bit clearer and clearer the act that we're going to get at the end of this process is not the bill that we have at the moment. I'm just wondering why heads of planning appear to be the sole cheerleaders for the minister. Don't let Mr Whiteman temporary enthusiasm, Mr Gray. How would you like to respond to that? I'm genuinely curious. I'm speechless. I don't believe that. No, no. Yeah, obviously, this is put together by, you know, largely the executive on behalf of all of us. It's a number of authorities, lots of different authors. We made it look like one. On the route to get here, we put a number of asks. We wanted some game changers from the bill just to temper the enthusiasm. I don't think we got our game changers. What we got were things that technically, actually we can work with these. We can work with all of these. There are controversial ones like place plans, simplified planning zones, but there are tools in the box that you don't have to pick up and use if they're not for you. Maybe place plans are different on that, but, you know, if some council wants to pick up, for example, a simplified planning zone, and they think that it will help the regeneration, it will help inward investment, it's the right thing for them, that's fine. And if another authority thinks that's wrong for us because it's too much exclusion of elected members and communities and we're not going to use it, well, that also is okay. So some of our enthusiasm is around that one size doesn't fit all, and that's recognised in the bill. So it does actually help local councils to pick up the bits that are useful for them and use them. So overall we do. We are quite supportive, yes. The game changer really wanted was a central repositioning. Does it do that? Is there something at the front of the bill that says what planning is and what it's for, and how important it is? No, we didn't get that. The resourcing of planning, possibly primary legislation, isn't the right place about resourcing, it was our other cost. Continued simplifying and streamlining of what we do. It was the other, you know, the third leg of the thing that we were doing. It doesn't particularly affect us either way. So on the three things we were measuring it against, it was a... It didn't do the first one particularly well. The second one, we wait and see, it doesn't necessarily need the legislation. And the third one, it doesn't stop us continuing to simplify and streamline. And there might be something through the co-ordinator where there's some assistance. So we are measured about it, but on the questions we were asked, the answer is yes. As you were answering that question, anything else on that, Mr Wightman? Yes, I mean, that's helpful, and I suppose part of the reason might be I'm speculating here that obviously heads of planning have been very involved in the last two years with independent review, with working groups inside government. And so for you, kind of this is the last stage, whereas for a lot of other people, this is the first stage. They haven't been as heavily engaged. And on your point about purposes of planning, there's broad support for that. So I think you can take some comfort that there will almost certainly will be some movement in that direction. But was Councillor Hiddle wanting to say something? I wasn't particularly... Yes, sorry, chair. I wouldn't dream to speak on behalf of the head supply in Scotland, but with your indulgence, could I briefly return to the supplementary guidance question? Yes. In terms of supplementary guidance, I think that is another useful tool in toolbox because it's a means of taking out of the larger plan issues that may be subject to change at the time that the plan is being put together. And as we move to plans, LDPs were a longer timescale, the rest of the risk of locking into that plan something that may become rapidly redundant and kind of at odds with the planning aspirations authority. So supplementary guidance is a useful tool for reasons such as that. Okay, now I think one of the things that was listed earlier on was simplified development zones, so I suppose we should explore that given that it's in the bill. So we've heard a lot of evidence already in relation to that, a lot of folk don't like the name. I have to say the thing, the work of the balance being get the development zone right and doing the kind of place making bit properly. So what's the witness's view of what the purpose of simplified development zones would be and what's good about it and what would you want, some clearer maybe safeguards or clearer definitions around so simplified development zones? Ailsa Anderson? Take that one. In terms of the principle of simplified development zones, I think they are again a useful tool that could be made available to planning authorities where they deem it's appropriate to use. I think it may be appropriate to have them sitting under development plans in order to avoid undermining a plan-led system. It would then mean that the public scrutiny again is there and if it's part of perhaps the evidence report, the gate check could confirm that a simplified development zone is appropriate for an area rather than being imposed possibly by a third party, for example. It should only be implied where there is a need for avoidance of planning being seen as a blockage to the system and not just used as a matter of course. I think that there needs to be a purpose for why we would implement them in an area. Any other comments on that? Mr Leslie? Support the comments that have just been made in the sense that the council sees potential for simplified development zones as a delivery mechanism for the local development plan. We would support them firmly in the context of a plan-led system, perhaps even exploring the potential for a simplified development zone while the plan is in preparation. I think that that way you can begin to build community engagement with the concept and identify the issues that would need to be resolved before a simplified development zone was put in place. We would certainly firmly support the idea of massive planning, the use of design frameworks, etc., to be all set out in advance to bring that transparency to the use of a simplified development zone if, indeed, it will advance delivery of the plan. I think that that is helpful. In the last session, I suggested that each planning authority should have to, as part of the formation of the development plan is to give consideration to whether there are suitable areas that would benefit from a simplified development zone. I was not suggesting that they must choose an area, but that they must go through the process of identifying whether it would be an appropriate area. Would that be a reasonable duty or burden to put on planning authorities if that becomes a national objective, any thoughts on that? Mr Leslie? The answer, yes. Okay. Coeslau no resistance to that as a duty on local authorities to go through a process of considering and then having a rationale for why they have chosen some areas or decided against it just in relation to that? I think that the preference would be for it to be discretionary because the landscape both geographically in terms of economic development is in a very fariat area in terms of what you are looking for and what opportunities you have. In terms of bringing these things forward, there is obviously a cost to preparing the planning for the simplified development zones. It might be something that is a cost that is incurred that will not ultimately be realised as a good spend. I will bring Mr Simpson in a second. I suppose that the point that I was trying to get to was that if the bill is passed, because the national priority that simplified development zones is a beneficial thing to see rolled out under certain caveats and strictures around that, if the national government approaches a planning authority and says that there is not a lot of development going on here, you have not went for a simplified development zone, can we ask you why? At least if every planning authority had considered that as one of the tools they have in the box, there would be a rationale behind why they have not chosen that, and that would then give a dynamic between what would be central direction and some local democracy. Is it something that you think council should consider as a matter, of course? Well, I think that that is a question. It could be always asked under any circumstances and it would be up to the local authority to justify their decisions. I think that as a duty upon local authorities to identify simplified development zones, I do not see that would be helpful, I think that discretion would be preferable. Okay. Mr Simpson, did you want to explore some areas around this? Just to take that on a stage further, the bill as it currently stands would give ministers the power to set up simplified development zones. So they could do it in Edinburgh, Mr Leslie, or anywhere, at all, even. Do you think that's right or should ministers not be able to do this? Mr Leslie. Since Edinburgh has been mentioned, I think that I go back to my previous answer about embedding it within the plan-led process. So in terms of local accountability, if the planning authority in Edinburgh has considered the issue as part of the preparation of the development plan and decided that the simplified development zone approach is not an appropriate tool for taking forward development in one of the city's growth areas, then I think that the council would be in a strong position to discuss with ministers why they do not consider it appropriate. If it was imposed, I think that we are entering into another area of discussion. Okay, nope. Absolutly put that on the record. I have to concur with my colleague here. I think that there are issues of local democracies, there are issues of subsidiarity at work here, and if it's going to be imposed upon local authorities, it could only be described as a power grab. But it's in the bill, Councillor Hedl. We'll wait and see what the minister says in a few weeks' time on that. Any other thoughts? Okay. I suppose we should explore... Well, I suppose it's in the bill, so we will explore it.  Infrastructure levy. So there's provision within the bill in relation to that. It's an abling power within the bill. That's one way of raising finances for infrastructure and promoting development. Any thoughts in relation to that? Is there a mistrick? Are there other things we could do to raise those finances as well? Any comments? I don't have to have comments again if it's not an area of the bill. Mr Gray. From our experience in the north-east, which has been quite difficult, we had a strategic transport fund, which effectively was an experimental form of infrastructure fund, and it failed at the Supreme Court because we had too great a distance between the intervention, which was usually a junction or a railway station, and the development that was contributing towards it. We couldn't line them up well enough. I think that the bill would probably now enable us to do that. But it leads to other difficulties about reasonableness and proportionality, and dealing with developers and trying to get their buy into it. We found that developers liked the transport fund. The developers would probably like an infrastructure fund because it gives them some certainty about how much they will be asked for. The landowners very much did not like it, and it was interesting that it was challenged by the landowners because ultimately it's the value of the land that reduces. So it was an interesting experiment. I wish people well with the infrastructure fund. I'm disappointed with the level of funding that the Government says is likely to be raised by it. It put a figure of £75 million against it nationally. Each council needs that form of money for the infrastructure that it's short of for the type of development. I know ourselves. We were looking at more like £80 million for the interventions. I know Fife, I think, along the same sort of lines. Other large authorities will need that form of money for road improvements, rail improvements stations to try and have a no net detriment. I know that it's almost impossible for new development because our infrastructure in some parts of the country is pretty creaky. One of the other things on it is that you can go beyond things which we normally think are essential for the development to take place. And there is a debate around the country about whether broadband is something that you need now. And you shouldn't be developing if there is no broadband because it's become such a normal part of people's lives in the same way that you need a road to the house. And there is a debate around whether that should be chargeable under an infrastructure levy. I think that it's another one, sort of a stuck record, but it's another tool in the box. It's useful that it's in there. We expect another two rounds of research before we start to think about using it again. I hope that it works, but it has a long way to go yet. Any other thoughts about infrastructure levy, Kate Hopper? Edinburgh has concerns over the use of a levy because we have not got the evidence that it's actually the best solution for Edinburgh or for the country. We have support for it if it could be used locally to replace section 75. At the moment there's a concern that a levy could be used purely for strategic infrastructure, cross boundary infrastructure, where at the moment that's really due to historic growth in Edinburgh, not due to future growth allocated through local development plans. Edinburgh's local development plan has been costed and it was referred to this morning. It's in the region of £450 to £480 million to deliver that plan. What wasn't mentioned was that there's an infrastructure gap of around £200 million due to the issues currently with section 75. Now, the concern is that nationally if we weren't only able to deliver £75 million through a levy, that was coming not close to what Edinburgh's required to deliver its own local development plan moving forward. Our concern is that it's going far enough. Could it be locally used to replace section 75 and therefore could we use something like a delivery programme or an action programme to set out an infrastructure strategy for the city that's set out the infrastructure required in using a levy or a tariff to generate that infrastructure? That would be Edinburgh's proposed approach for a levy instead. So that's helpful because you're suggesting other mechanisms to do some of that which, I suppose, is at the heart of the question. It seems to be that the infrastructure levy might be okay but it's a small part of a much larger solution. So we need to think of other ways of raising cash. Are there any other solutions or parts that have to be a magic one to make it all better? Is it any other interventions that would be helpful that you'd wish to put on the record? I think it's back. The one size doesn't fit all. Borders rail had a specific active parliament. It was very like the North East Strategic Transport Fund but it was successful because when it was challenged, the individual challenger didn't have to pay his money but the scheme didn't collapse. There was an acceptance that all developers along this railway line will have some benefit that they will all pay into it. And the infrastructure levy probably allows other authorities to pick it up if it's the right thing for them. Thank you. That's helpful. We'll move on to a new line of questioning. Now, Maureen Cylennan. Thank you. I'm going to come on to equal rights of appeal but before I do, I want to read from one of the statements that we've received. Delays in the system are caused by severe cuts to planning budgets and staff shortages. It is resources they need, not reorganisation. Planners tell us that they are overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of their workloads. They are extremely stressed. Good planning doesn't require yet another reform programme. Improvement will come through adequate funding and staffing levels and empowering staff and giving them the time to do their work, reflect, learn and implement change. That came from unison Scotland, the largest trade union in Scottish public services and they tell us that they represent a full range of staff in planning teams. Now, we've got some people here who are on the front line. Is any of that relatable? Kate? Ailsa? Whoever? Yes, planners are very hard-worked, but this is about good management and we've not been very good in the past about collecting the statistics that we need. Some authorities, with the use of consultants, have come up with some figures about how many planning applications an individual planner should have in a year and how many they should have at any one time. You can actually work out how many planners you need. At that point, the resource can go up and down in conjunction with your chief executive. There should be formulas for how many planners you need. We're very bad at increasing planners when you have an upturn. It's that balancing, the peaks and troughs is difficult, but it's about managing it. We do have skills shortage and we do have a difficulty in attracting people into the profession. We have a shortage of courses, I believe, and they're a bit uncertain about the future of some of them. It is a problem that hops is addressing in a number of ways. However, we will go through what is the true cost of a planning application and what is the staffing that you need to deal with it. We will be working on that with us hops. It's very interesting the ability for planners to do their jobs for good morale. The comments from Unison Scotland are pretty brutal. I didn't see anything like that in the hops response. So maybe the planning bosses are not so close to it. Not to put people on the spot in terms of your own personal experience, but Kate and Ailsa, I would imagine, are very much on the front line day-to-day, more so than the management tier. Is this something— I mean, I was a chair of Scottish Young Planning many years ago. What is it like for young planners right now? Just talking about the Scottish Young Planners Network, I think that given that we are working within constraints, that does have an effect. We do as well as what we can with the resources that we have available to us. Talking to people in the network who work across a whole range of sectors, everyone is feeling it whether they are in the private sector or the public sector or within an agency. We work with what we've got. In terms of moving forward, I think that moving to a period where we have certainty in the procedures that we as officers have to abide by in terms of what is expected of us when we are in the front line, how we engage with people, how we engage with people in terms of the key stakeholders and just providing that certainty in the system and ensuring that it is robust and fit for purpose will help everybody get on with their day-to-day jobs, I think. Thank you. If I can turn to Councillor Heddle, perhaps to get a coeslau take on this. The Royal Town Planning Institute, and I should probably remind people again that I'm still a member, did some analysis of the planning performance framework. So, between 2009 and 2015, there was a 23 per cent reduction in people who do planning jobs in planning authorities. Is that sustainable? Councillor Heddle? I think the answer is probably it's not sustainable, but you could say the same across the entire spectrum of the local government finance. All aspects of local government finance have been subject to efficiencies and cuts. This is just a further embodiment of that. I think that someone else talked earlier about the climate. I think that it was getting purpose. The climate that we work in, so perhaps that was alluding to his study, but in terms of the bill then, what staff and financial resources while planning authorities require in order to deliver a higher quality of service, does the bill address any of that, and if not, what's missing, what would need to change? Degree uncertainty there, because the bill assumes that it will lead to savings for planning authorities that can be reinvested in the service, and ideally that will be what will happen. But I think it's also potentially placing greater burdens on the planning authority. And one of the things that we spoke about was the potential impact of local place plans, and if there's an expectation that local authorities have to support that. Equally assessment and performance reporting is something that's through the bill, like the sticker rock, like letters through the sticker rock, sorry. And this undoubtedly will place additional burdens on local authorities. So there's trade-offs inherent in the bill in terms of resourcing requirements, and resources for local authorities. So it's difficult to see whether the bill is going to help in terms of resources or not. I want to move on to equal rights of appeal, but I suppose it's kind of a connected. We've talked a lot in the committee so far about what the previous planning bill was about, the aspirations behind that, a big emphasis on front-loading, early engagement, people working collaboratively. We've heard that that's really not been that successful. Is that down to resources or is that part of the story? Yeah, I think resources are part of it for me, for at least the last six years we've been speaking to different ministers about increasing resources and planning by increasing fees. The ministerial view always coming back to us is improve performance first and there will be fee increases, but that's without ever defining the level of improvement and the level of fee increase. And we're still discussing it and the agenda is still the same if we keep improving though there will still be an improvement in resources. But we really do have to actually involve ourselves in the true cost of planning and work out where those resources will come from and resource it properly because I do recognise the stress that you spoke about earlier. If part of the aspiration for good place making is to put people at the heart of decision making, do you find any room in your heart at all for circumstances where there should be an equal right of appeal? I'm going for the heart strings here. Right. Code like it, Dave. If you have a heart basically take a volunteer. What should you have used an equal right of appeal, Mr Leslie? I think bound to respond by saying all planners have a heart. Quite genuinely the planning process has built into it for since it started basically a right of community engagement in one form or another. And I think most planning authorities like Edinburgh are looking at ways of meaningful community engagement. So the reason that we have accounts of commitment to look at this question of a community right of appeal and we have had discussions with government about Edinburgh's experience and why we've reached that position is very much in recognition of our experience of front loading of the system has not been enough to generate community trust and confidence in the planning process. So we are asking ourselves the question what more could be required to do that. Some of what more could be required could come in the form of issues that we've been discussing this morning in terms of place plans and other forms, other tools of community engagement. But there does still seem to be at the end of the process in certain circumstances a lack of opportunity for community to feel that they can question the way in which a decision has been made. So we have set out certain circumstances where defined community bodies and we would use the same terminology as is used in the bill and used in the community empowerment act could be given some form of equality of right of appeal. I think that compared to other planning authorities that seems to be quite an unusual position that Edinburgh has taken arguably quite a progressive one. From a Heads of Planning point of view or even a causal point of view are there any other authorities that are looking at even in a limited way equalising appeal rights? No, I think that with Heads of Planning we've spent many years now dealing with streamlining and making delivery faster and a third party right of appeal will not make delivery faster it will make it slower. And that gets it. Is it fair or not? If you go the history of planning with 1947 basically the development value of your land was nationalised and you couldn't just build what you wanted you had to ask for permission but if it was unfair you got a right of appeal. At that point we didn't have third parties really having much to do with it. Have we now moved on so far that it's inequitable? There is the question about should developers still have a right of appeal beyond local democracy? I prefer that as a question to raising third party rights of appeal because I think if we keep front loading with things like place plans and engaging people in the upfront planning process through plan making then we've actually got something where we've involved people and it's equitable and then you would need a very good reason to depart from your plan. But the departures come through local democracy as well from elected people generally and I think we of all the activities we have in local government I think planning is already there with the communities and I really don't think yet another right of appeal would actually be a beneficial thing. I think we would regret it if we saw it in action. Another colleague might want to ask about maybe tapering that the appeal rights that developers have just an observation and a question because the language that I think we use in the planning system is important. I think there's been a shift in language from talking about third parties to equal partners. Is there a sense within heads of planning that communities are a third party and somehow maybe not on an equal platform? Because I think that in itself from everything that we've heard actually antagonises communities, local people and that can include local businesses and they feel that they are not quite on the same wavelength and have the same status. So even that language if planners are using the language of third parties do you accept that that could be a barrier to good community engagement in itself? Yes, people outside the system don't understand the term third party and I think that's just fact. And we do have sorry, it's a live thing but you know cross boundary is where there are issues you know when one authority approves something and the town immediately across the boundary is full of objectors is that actually fair and they have no right of appeal anywhere? So if there was you know to be some movement on should others be allowed into the system to debate whether development should happen or not I think would look to criteria like that actually there's a built in unfairness if they live in the wrong authority. It's not their elected members that have made a decision that have affected them. There are quite a few boundary ones and there might be some mileage in looking at that but if you live in the authority you've elected your representative they've done something you don't like well at some point a decision has to be made and the recourse is you don't elect them again sorry councillor Heddle. Well I don't think that was personalised to councillor Heddle just all councillors. councillor Heddle, you've been very patient I know you've wanted in and then we've got a supplementary from Graham Simpson councillor Heddle. Thanks very much yeah the cost list Mr Parton a third party right of appeal in the past due to the impact it might have on development and local economies impacts it might have on the time to determine applications and indeed the connect external forces that might act against the local interest and I could sort of pick on my own local authority area or me it's an area that many people would like to see turned into an 80 or so but the elected members reasonably take the viewpoint that it's a place where people should be allowed to live and work as well so you know they have to be circumspect but things like that and I think that the the bill as it's developed and this have measures in there to involve communities I mean the the local place plans as articulated the work that happens already in terms of the the pre-application procedures and I think the increased planning performance demonstrates that the this is something that's good in terms of performance as well and indeed I think the the infrastructure at your levy is another thing that is a potential way to involve communities because it's a direct linkage to between development and positive developments for the community if this is something that can be determined locally and the benefits reaped locally but I think Cossla is going to have to consider this whole aspect before the stage 2 of the bill not least because the the discussion is widening to equal right of appeal rather than third party right of appeal of course equal right appeal can can be many things it could be nobody has any appeal and I don't know if that's the what you're intending at this point but obviously it's a spectrum of things that we need to consider I noticed in the previous session I think it was Dr. Ench made into some points about an equal right of appeal under strict circumstances a limited equal right of appeal I mean that's something we're having to consider as well Okay, Mr Miles and then before I take you Mr Miles just some housekeeping we've got about 10 minutes maximum left of this evidence session we really have to close I'm keen to let members back in so my apologies but brevity would be very helpful The reason that we didn't support it is that we have often the same group of people objecting to every development that gets considered by our planning committee and sometimes they have well set out reasons that are considered sometimes it's simple because they don't want development in a national park and if every one of those decisions was appealed then you could see the thing grinding to halt so I think that's where the fear for lots of planning authorities comes in that in some cases it could be misused Thank you Mr Simpson That's convenient I'm really interested in that stuff from Edinburgh council I've never heard a council talk like that before saying we don't think we're quite getting things right here you know we think we should be looking at some sort of right of appeal I've never heard a council say that that's quite that's actually very refreshing because normally councils are quite defensive they think they're getting everything right they all think they have hearts of course as you do Mr Leslie I was frantically looking through your written evidence I couldn't see anything in there about this do you obviously consider it as a council I wonder if you could give us more details about the kind of scheme you're thinking of and whether you think Edinburgh could be used as a maybe a trial area for this you know if MSPs if the Government wasn't really sure about how this would work maybe it could be tried somewhere That's a very interesting idea to pilot it in one area the limited amount of work that we've done to look at this I would emphasise it's very much a focus on communities we're not using the term third party I think we already have a basis within the Edinburgh planning concordat of looking at a tripartite approach to dealing with major developments the developer, the planning authority and the relevant community affected I think that's a basis from which this type of commitment has grown I think it's also in recognition that many developments in the city do not fall into the category of a major development but there is a significant local development and a significant local development doesn't have any statutory provision at the moment for pre-application engagement with the community so we're recognising that there is a definition there which is something that needs to be looked at we're very much looking at this in the round it's not looking in isolation it would only work if in certain circumstances I certainly concur with comments made by other colleagues it would not be in the council's interest to hold back development it has to be done in a way which allows the community to feel a greater sense of confidence in planning decision making but not to delay the process unnecessarily Any committee in the council this idea? This is a council commitment so it's one of the administration's commitments that was agreed by full council Okay Specifically, so just a remark that we've got a question Mr Simpson specifically what is the commitment because that would be quite helpful that we're just absolutely clear about that I can read it out to you the council commitment number 10 is to work with the Scottish Government to review planning policy and overhaul the planning appeal system to make it short and more independent and give communities the right of appeal Okay That's helpful Only those we've articulated in discussion with Government He's just relating that So you've had discussions with Government about this We have approached Government to express the views yes, yes Okay So that's my one to follow-up when we've got the minister in front of us at a later date, obviously Is it okay, Mr Simpson, to move on now? Yeah I'm really interested to learn more if there's anything you can send us in writing if there's any documentation that I think will be really useful because you know, we've got a bill in front of us that doesn't include this if we've got a major council the council covering the capital city that's been in discussions with Government about this I think we need we really need to know about it because we're going to have to come up with suggestions for this bill it'd be very, very useful anything you can share with us Could we now be happy to follow that up? I think that'll be very helpful including we're obviously on a timescale in relation to this bill but also in relation to the City of Edinburgh's timescales in relation to what that community of appeal would look like and when they think that could be implemented as well I think would be helpful to see if it's within the scope of the timescales of what we are doing here Thank you very much Mr Samson and Mr Whiteman Yes, thanks Thanks very much Convidur following up from the discussion we've just had and Robert Gray's mentioned earlier that the question he would prefer is the question as to whether the applicant's right of appeal should should persist or not I wonder whether Mr Gray has an answer to that question it's worth noting of course is I think David Leslie said it's always been part or it may have been Kate Hopper I can't remember always been part of the system but when it was introduced it was only intended to be temporary the appeal rights of applicants doesn't exist in most other European countries because you have a plan and you stick to the plan and we have a rather more discretionary system so I'm just wondering in light of the fact that Robert Gray and others have said that a third party right of appeal would clog up the system and lead to delays whether getting rid of the applicants right of appeal would get rid of delays and strengthen local democracy we have a local review body within the councils for things which do not have to go to the government for appeal I think that I think I'm speaking for me rather than Hopps at the moment I'm not quite sure what the you know you have to hope the Hopps view is as written but I don't have any particular difficulty with the applicants right of appeal being to another council body and being part of local democracy I don't necessarily think it has to be to the minister now I know the minister on some things has a much wider view than a local authority and there's a subsidiarity issue in there but there are many more things which I think are of local significance that could be dealt with locally maybe straying on to Councillor Hetle's territory of a you know a political statement rather than a technical statement but technically it could work yes you could put those appeals some of those appeals that go to government could go to the local review body run by the council itself but yes I mean technically obviously anything could work in this regard my question really is do you think there should be a merits-based continue to be a merits-based appeal on decisions that have been based very very firmly on a very very comprehensive and well supported local development plan that have widely supported in the community that even when it goes to a reporter are upheld and a minister overturns I mean do you think that's an acceptable way of strengthening the planning system I yeah sorry I was kind of missing a bit of it but really it's determining something as a planner you're looking at the policy background which is the development plan and other material considerations and it's a matter for the decision maker as to the weight they give to those material considerations and generally when it goes to a reporter or a minister what happens is he gives a different weight to those and I'm not sure why the reporter's decision on the weight to those is any more valid than people who live locally and have been elected so I'm quite happy for a system of appeal but for it to be local and for it to be dealt with through the elected members system which we already have for some things and feel free to to give us some supplementary evidence in relation to that and writing if you want just before we close this evidence session I'll just ask the same question I asked in relation to the whole right of appeal that I did the previous panel is this bill will go through it may be amended in that year it may not be stage 3 will come and go and a planning legislation will be on the book so if there is no equal right of appeal and the contrast to that is the front loading of the planning system and the process and everything else I asked the previous panel how should we gauge the success of that front loading in terms of the planning process so in five years time or 10 years time when a successor committee is going well how does that planning act go down they didn't go for equal right of appeal did it do what it said it was going to do how would we how what would we look at to demonstrate that it did what it said in the tin what kind of things would we look at any thoughts thank you Mr Leslie quite simply quality of outcomes and if one of the key outcomes that we're seeking to achieve is good places we need to find ways of measuring how stakeholders consider placemaking having been delivered so if we're sitting here in five years time or 10 years time we need to have developed measures that we can report locally on quality outcomes I think that that's very helpful our deputy convener has quite rightly spoken about the ambitions of 2006 in relation to to front loading of the system and while it's impacted at best whether those were were particularly realised I think that's the diplomatic thing to say so with another planning bill before is again talking about further front loading of the system and so whoever it won't buzz almost it won't buzz I don't think MSPs I have to say whoever in 10 years time is looking at this this again it's what what framework what monitoring framework should there be to see what actually it did do what it said in tin or no it didn't so that's very helpful Mr Leslie any other thoughts in relation to that before we close this evidence session Ailsa Anderson I would just like to agree that it's a point of which delivery when you can see that there's tangible change and that is the good thing about the planning system that when a decision is made and the development is delivered you can see the tangible difference that it makes either to a business or a community or individuals themselves depending on the level that you go to I think added to that in terms of thinking about the coming young planners in the future is that they have access to good education and continued professional development in that there's continued enthusiasm both from the professional side and the community side of planning okay thank you very much thank you for your time to put that on the record here before we close the evidence session councillor Heddle just started on to an earlier point I think the success could be measured by no councillors being kicked out at the elections due to planning decisions I think that that will be virtually impossible councillor Heddle and in that not so positive note can I thank all the witnesses for what's been a long and worthwhile evidence session please follow the course of the bill if there's anything additional you want to give us a supplementary evidence please do that cos I know you're constrained by the questions that we ask and the time that's available so please do stay in contact with us so thank you very much for attending today to help us with the planning legislation and we now move to agenda item 2 which previously we did that we take in private so we now move into private session thank you