The next item of business is a debate on motion 3612, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on improving Scotland's planning, improving Scotland's places. May I ask those who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Kevin Stewart to speak to and move the motion. Up to 13 minutes, please, minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to be having a debate about the planning reform agenda so early in the new year. I was delighted to publish Places, People and Planning, our consultation paper on the future of the Scottish planning system earlier this month. The Scottish Government has made a commitment to bringing forward a planning bill in this parliamentary session. The consultation paper is an important step towards this, and I look forward to the contributions of members of this Parliament at this early stage. I would also encourage all members of the public and stakeholders to get involved and respond to this consultation. The reason for that is because planning is important to all of us. It is a big influence in the places where we live, work and play. A strong and efficient planning system can play a key role in attracting investment, supporting us all to lead healthier lives and, of course, can stimulate economic growth. Planning works with our environmental assets to make development sustainable. It gives people a say in decisions that affect them and can support the health and wellbeing of our communities by creating great places that make it easy to walk, cycle and play. Our current system has a lot to offer, but there is room for improvement. I want Scotland to have a planning system that can respond to the world that we live in today and also anticipate the world that we will be living in tomorrow. We have developed our proposals for change to our planning system in a collaborative way. The whole process began with the appointment of an independent panel by former Cabinet Secretary Alex Neil. The panel was asked to provide recommendations for change that reflected the experiences of users of the system, and I welcomed their report when I responded to it last summer. The panel took an objective look at the planning system, heard evidence from a wide range of people, and identified how planning could be improved. Their hard work and common sense was the perfect foundation for us to work from in building a programme of change. The independent panel did us all a great service by highlighting how the system could be improved. Those recommendations were well received by people with an interest in planning, and I was struck by the high level of consensus that emerged in response to the independent panel's report. Since then, we have taken forward an intensive programme of work to explore their recommendations further. We established six working groups that gave their time to help us to develop options and proposals for change. Crucially, those groups included people from many different backgrounds and communities, as well as the public and private sectors. That allowed for a healthy debate in exchange of views, such as the debate that we will no doubt have today. The working group showed that, although people might have different perspectives, they can come together and find common ground upon what shared proposals for change can be built. Our consultation paper is the output from all that work and discussion, and it will be used as we develop the bill. Targeted research, evidence gathering and technical work will continue to be progressed to support our thinking. That will come together with the outcomes from the consultation to help to identify the need and support for specific proposals for legislative change. I should be clear that the independent panel acknowledged that our planning system is not broken, but that it has so much more potential. It also confirmed that, with some improvements, it can be a system that will deliver great places for people across Scotland. However, the review was not just about planners debating the details on an already complicated system. The independent panel reminded us that we must not forget the outcomes that we are seeking from changes to the planning system. We want to see continuing investment in Scotland. We want more high-quality homes to be built. We want infrastructure to support development, and we all want to improve the health and quality of life of our communities. I am confident that planning can help to deliver on those outcomes, but only if it makes things happen and only if it works with and not against people. We need a planning system that understands and reflects our needs and aspirations, a planning system that builds a better future for all of us by supporting inclusive growth and improve Scotland's health, a planning system that actively shapes, strengthens and grows our great places, a system that is systematically concerned with health and health inequality. People seem to agree that we need strong and flexible development plans and that we can reduce complexity in the system. People support the delivery of more high-quality homes and recognise that this partly depends on proactive planning of infrastructure to ensure that those are connected and accessible. People recognise the importance of green space to our physical and mental health and improved quality of life. We also recognise that decision making must be efficient and transparent to build certainty and to improve public trust in planning. We need planners to show leadership for the future of our built environment to create great places where people can thrive and we need to look at smarter resourcing of the system. Above all, I think that there is agreement that it is time that we move away from conflict towards much more positive collaboration with communities. I want planning to be something that is done with people and not done to them. The consultation paper has four key themes. We want to make plans for the future, align in community planning and spatial planning will help to ensure that the development plan is recognised and supported across local authorities and by partner organisations. Planners can be a more active part of regional partnership working. We can remove procedures and reduce duplication by better co-ordinating spatial strategies in the national planning framework. The consultation paper suggests that we should move from a two-tier system to a single tier of local development plans supported but not dictated by national policy. Our proposals also reflect the need for planning to be flexible so that it can respond to the different circumstances around the country. For example, the specific challenges and opportunities for island and rural communities as well as the city regions. I believe that there is scope to make local development plans more engaging and easier to use. We can replace confusing main issues reports with clear draft plans. If we remove supplementary guidance, people will be able to find out everything that they need to know from one document. Introducing an early gate check will mean that significant issues are dealt with earlier on, rather than in a lengthy examination at the end of the process. Much fuller community and developer involvement and stronger delivery programmes are also crucial in my view. It is absolutely true that people must make the system work. Many of you will no doubt receive correspondence from your constituents on planning matters. That makes it very clear to all of us that people care about planning, even if at times they do not like the decisions that are made. Our package of proposals aims to significantly increase the level of community involvement in the system. Development planning and early engagement are critical. We want communities to make their own plans for their own places and to involve young people more. I will give way to Mr Paterson. Gil Paterson. I have many thanks for that. I think that we are all aware that it is not just the perception that when it comes to big developments, it is in fact real that the developer is much more power than the community. In this consultation, which I am very much welcome to envisage, the balance of power may change somewhat. Kevin Stewart. I welcome Mr Paterson's intervention. I think that what we need to see is a much more collaborative approach. I think that wise developers already have a huge amount of consultation with local communities. In this day and age where technological advances are seen, we can see much more utilisations of things such as 3D visualisation. The people have a real idea of what is proposed for an area. Of course, their input can lead to changes. I was in Mr Paterson's constituency on Tuesday, which he is well aware of. I know that there are major developments due to taking place there. I hope that there and in other places, right across Scotland, there can be more community involvement, community planning involved with spatial planning. As you may have noted, we do not propose an equal right of appeal. We do not want to see more decisions made centrally. We do not want to undermine investor confidence and create uncertainty for communities by generating more conflict at the end of the process. We are also consulting on whether more review decisions should be made at a local level to reduce appeals. Helping to build more homes and deliver infrastructure is a crucial aspect of this consultation. We know that the number of homes that are granted planning approval each year far outstripped the number that are built. We understand that some of this is about deliverability and viability. We propose that applicants or those promoting sites within the development plan should be able to provide assurances that the site is deliverable within the development plan timeframe. Planning authorities need better information to make better decisions on their plans. We need planning authorities to move towards an active delivery role, diversifying housing provision so that we can provide greater choice. We need to support medium-sized developers and self-builders to expand capacity and alternative models of delivery within the development industry. We can all agree that infrastructure is absolutely key to delivering the homes, businesses and places that Scotland needs. We do not believe that we need a new infrastructure agency to do that. We just need to work better together at both the national and regional scales. Again, the development plan is key to better infrastructure planning. Stronger leadership and smarter resourcing are needed also. We are currently consulting on a new, higher fee cap for major developments. Further thinking on fees to support a new system will be required. There is a level of consensus that a better service requires better resourcing. We need to look at how we can get the balance right, and I am clear that there must be a continuing emphasis on improving performance. Not everything that we do will require legislation. However, if we want a great planning service, everyone at the developers, communities, planning authorities, health and other services and other agencies have to be prepared to play some part in that. Performance is not just about planning authorities. Everyone can contribute, providing and requesting information when required, doing all that we can to reduce the timescales or showing leadership and focusing on outcomes. We need to make sure that our future planners have the skills and experience to deliver great places. Planers should be sharing their knowledge and skills by working together and connecting with communities and services that can help deliver vibrant and healthy places to live and work. I want to see stronger relationships forged between the public and private sectors to help deliver a better system. Planning is, of course, a democratic process, so the role of politicians in the process is also vital. The consultation paper highlights the importance of training for elected members who are serving on a planning committee. The 20 proposals outlined in places people in planning show that everyone has a role to play in making our planning system work better. In my time as planning minister, I have been really encouraged by people's enthusiasm to talk about the review and the early reaction towards the consultation. I am keen to continue to hear as many comments and suggestions from as wide a range of stakeholders as possible to help to define the elements of the planning reforms that need more consideration as we take the consultation forward. 2017 will be an important year for planning in Scotland. We want to make sure that there is a wide and open debate about the future of planning, so I am grateful to all those who will be contributing to the debate today. I call Graeme Simpson to speak to a move amendment 3.612.1, up to eight minutes, please. First, I would like to declare an interest as a serving councillor in South Lanarkshire. I have been a councillor there for nearly ten years and have been involved in a number of contentious planning wrangles as well as some less controversial ones. All of us who have been in public life cannot have been untouched by the planning system. We will have our own thoughts on it shaped by our own experiences. My basic view is that, as things stand, the planning system is top-down. Planning is done to people and not for them or with them. It rarely makes people happy and councillors are usually keen to run a mile from it. We do need to change things. I think that the Scottish Government recognises that. There is much to be commended in the Government's proposals out for consultation at the moment. We will be supporting the Government's motion. Time does not permit a detailed examination of places, people and planning. I will say a little on what I see as its strengths and where I think there is room for improvement. Later, my colleague Jamie Greene will focus on digital connectivity and how that links into the planning system. Bill Bowman, in his maiden speech, will concentrate on how planning can deliver jobs and Liam Kerr will have something to say on infrastructure, so often a sticking point. The strength of this review. Firstly, it is good that we have it. It follows on from the independent review of the planning system, led by Crawford Beverage, which reported last year. Both that report and the Government's document highlight the need for longer-term thinking. They talk about simplifying the system, removing main issues reports, for example. That makes sense to me. They also recognise the need to involve communities at the start of the process and not when it is too late. We must ensure that local people can have a say throughout the process and not just at the start. They suggest that fewer appeals should be dealt with by Government. That would be a good thing. However, the way that this is proposed by having bigger developments decided by officials only takes away democratic accountability and, I believe, should be revised. More discussion is required on that. So appeals to Government would still happen. There are issues there, we think, with locally accountable politicians being overruled. I'd also suggest that there should be some caution if community councils are the main vehicles for community consultation. As everyone here knows, community councils are often not representative of real communities. The paper talks of council-approved community bodies preparing local place plans. What if a group of locals wants to get involved and the council doesn't like them? What will the criteria be? Will there be funding for capacity building in areas where people are not organised? However, the whole direction of those proposals is about where development should take place and not about where it should not. The planning proposal still feels a bit top-down. It's about Government setting targets for local government to deliver, and it's not clear at all what would happen if a council was to say no. The independent panel suggested this centralised approach. It's a difficult balance, and I'd suggest that, at the very least, a change of tone is needed. If Government wants to set numbers and we understand why that would be, it also needs to recognise that achieving its targets may be difficult when set against local needs and aspirations. Collaboration, not confrontation, should be the aim of the game, as Kevin Stewart said. There is little mention in the Government's paper of protecting what we have, of saving green spaces. There are only two paragraphs where green spaces get a mention, and that's a missed opportunity and I think it should be rectified. That's the point of the amendment in my name, which is lodged as a positive contribution to the process. I hope that Kevin Stewart will take that on board. Green spaces within communities and green belt are as vital to the vibrancy of Scotland as building more homes and infrastructure. All of it is important. We'd like to see local communities given the chance to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as local green space, communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances, planning done with communities, not to them. We also need a greater focus on green belt, so councils and communities should be encouraged to identify the land that should be protected. With new tenure plans, that would give people certainty and tell developers where they should not seek consent. There should be alignment between the planning system and the Scottish Government's climate change plan, the draft of which has just been published. In the section on land use, it talks about an ambition to create more woodlands, absorbing greenhouse gases and creating jobs. People enjoy woods, they're great for health and wellbeing, they should be protected in the planning system and not seen as things to be chopped down by developers. There was a consensual debate on forestry and woodlands here this week, and Gillian Martin made the point that existing woodlands should be protected. I agree with that, but there's no mention of woodlands in the planning proposals. There is mention of the central Scotland green network. I represent part of the area that they cover, but they have no powers to block development, as far as I'm aware, to make compulsory purchase orders to, for example, create country parks. I believe that the planning review should beef up the central Scotland green network. Overall, there are a good set of proposals. We should aim to end up with a system that delivers development, and we do need development in the right areas. Everyone in this chamber recognises that Scotland needs more homes. Different parties have come up with different figures on how many we need, but we all agree on the general thrust. I do think we can achieve consensus as we go through this process. Places, people and planning recognises the challenges. It suggests some ways through these challenges, simplified planning zones, something we agree with, for example. It talks about increasing resources for the planning system, and that's long overdue. It suggests enhancing enforcement powers. That's also long overdue.  The paper recognises the difficulties in actually developing land, which has planning permission, but it doesn't suggest that there is an easy answer because there isn't. Just to close, it strongly favours city deals and growth deals as ways of delivering prosperity and jobs. Councils working together because they see the benefits, not through force, to bring economic growth. There, I know, there is agreement. This is a good start. If Kevin Stewart wants to work together, then we're up for that. I move the amendment in my name. I now call Alex Rowley to speak to and move amendment 3612.4, up to seven minutes, please, Mr Rowley. I would also say that I welcome the paper that has been brought forward. I welcome the consultation. I think that planning reform is certainly long overdue. I do believe that it will be important that we try and engage as widely as possible if we're serious about engaging communities right across Scotland. Today, we had a number of briefings that were sent to us by the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland, Planning Aid Scotland, Planning Democracy and the John New Trust. I certainly intend to circulate those briefings and encourage organisations to look at how they can engage more widely with community organisations. Graham Simpson talked about community councils. The reality is right now that community councils are the body that is consulted and therefore tends to take more interest in planning. Community councils are certainly a good starting point for engaging with this debate before the consultation closes on 4 April. In the very early stages of the publication of the consultation, I wrote to all MSPs highlighting that the consultation was now live. I would be grateful for everyone in the chamber to use their networks to contact as many folk as possible to allow them to take part in the consultation. I am grateful for what Mr Rowley has said, because I want to see as many folk involved as possible. Alex Rowley. On that basis, I think that there is a lot of room to work together. I was disappointed when I saw the motion that was put forward from the minister because I think that the important starting point for us is to recognise where we are. The commission that was put in place by Alex Neil, within weeks at reporting, the first thing that the Government did was to rule out the equal right of appeal. I think that it is part of the consultation to answer Gil Paterson's question on the balance between developers and the community. Many communities and many people who have experienced the planning process do not feel at this stage that there is equality between the communities and developers. To simply rule out the equal right of appeal, one of the things that I hope we can tease out over this coming period of time is exactly how and what rights communities are going to have. Certainly, for many communities, an invocating, for example, where recently a green belt development was approved not by the local authority who refused it, the democratic process, but was overruled by the reporter. We see far too much of that happening. We need more than one word in terms of empowering communities. The other point that I think about the motion and why I felt it was right to amend it is that we need to recognise the pressure that planning officials are under. The motion talks about being able to bring forward new ways of digital transformation of the planning service. I would say to the minister that having a look at the Fife planning system, you can track right through for the very moment that a planning application is made. If you register, the council will come back and inform you every step in it. There are a lot of advances being done, but the fact is that planning services right across Scotland are under massive, massive pressure. The Royal Town Planning Institute for Scotland has said that between 2010 and 2015, around 20 per cent of posts were lost from planning departments in Scotland. On average, 0.63 per cent of local authority budgets were used directly for planning functions. Currently, 63 per cent of the costs processing a planned application are recovered by the fee charged. We need to look at whether, as the consultation says, we go further in terms of recouping those charges. The fact is that one of the biggest pressures and the slower that makes it slower for planning authorities to deal with planning applications is that they have been getting caught year in, year out with their budgets and therefore the number of planners go down. It is not just the number of planners. You then lose that expertise within the planning system. We need to address that. I am not sure that I glossed over that. That is why I brought forward the amendment. In its current form, I would not support the motion that is put before us. You cannot simply gloss over that. I did write to the cabinet secretary regarding the planning review and raised the concern about the equal right appeal. In that letter, I highlighted that few would disagree with the Government's intention to strengthen the planning system to ensure better service communities across Scotland. One of the things that I highlighted was community planning. We need to tease that out and look at how we can better join up community planning, because that is certainly one way that local communities can have a far greater say in terms of setting out what their priorities are as we move forward. We need to look at how that happens. In terms of looking at resources coming into communities where there are major developments taking place, it is also important that we look at not just physical resources—important as that is—and community planning can be part of that. I want to refer to the Royal College of General Practitioners on what they had to say in terms of GP surgeries and how they are concerned. Their chairman, Dr Miles Mack, said that any attempts to tackle Scotland's insufficient housing supply must consider the impact on local general practices, many of which are struggling to survive while serving the size of the communities that they are already responsible for. That key point is that we have to engage communities so that, where there are housing developments taking place, not only are we sure that the infrastructure goes in place, the surgeries, the hospital, the schools but also that the services can be provided. Community planning can deliver a lot of that. As Graham Simpson said, as the minister has said himself, there is a lot in that. Generally, although we would not support the motion in its current form, we support the review that is taking place. We would urge ministers and every MSP to take this issue into communities, get the discussion going so that we can build a better planning system that can deliver the infrastructure, the housing, the jobs, and do so in partnership with communities rather than two communities. I move the amendment. We now move to the open debate. I have a little time in hand, but I would ask people not to take advantage of that, or the usual suspects not to take advantage of that, and speeches of up to six minutes to be followed by Bill Bowman. The effectiveness of our planning system, as has already been said, affects aspects of all our lives. It affects the quality of our environments. It affects the sustainability of our communities. It influences local services and opportunities. It helps to determine how we feel as individuals when we leave our homes, walk out the door and embrace the day ahead of us. Planning, as the consultation title suggests, is about places, place making and, most important, people, whether it be the places that we live, work or visit, planning and places have a real impact on our daily lives. As a constituency MSP for the most densely populated part of Scotland, I would like to focus my remarks today on matters affecting our urban environments. As a representative for Edinburgh, I warmly welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to change the planning system because in this city, our capital city, there is considerable dissatisfaction with the status quo. I welcome the ambition of the consultation to change the planning system in order to play a more active role in making development happen and, crucially, making it happen in the right places. I fully endorse the Scottish Government's determination to improve community engagement. There is so much that I could say on the subject of planning and in relation to my constituency, but today I am going to focus in the interests of time on three aspects of the consultation, building more homes, infrastructure investment and related considerations and, crucially, giving local people a more effective voice in the system. Firstly, in terms of building more homes, in the north of Edinburgh there is significant capacity to develop unused and underused land for our growing capital city. I welcome the possibility within the consultation to accelerate development in areas like north Edinburgh, where development at this point has stalled since the financial crisis of 2008. I look forward to new legislation helping us to realise development in the waterfront area with huge potential in this city and in other parts of Scotland to help to deliver that ambitious and important target of 50,000 affordable homes in the course of this Parliament. However, in addition to the measures in the consultation, I wonder whether greater consideration can also be given to using the planning system to more easily enable unused land to be utilised now and in the short term, while such land is awaiting full development. We could use innovative solutions by means of temporary installations or so-called inter-well solutions. This could include measures to utilise shipping container models or other potential solutions such as the nest houses model, which will be used in my constituency in the proposed social bike village in Granton to help to address homelessness when it is installed. Secondly, I welcome the proposals in the consultation to introduce powers for a new local levy to raise additional finance for infrastructure and to make improvements to section 75 obligations. This will make a meaningful difference. Others have already raised the point about GP practices. However, I would also like to raise another point. North Edinburgh childcare in my constituency, a remarkable organisation, recently emphasised to me the need in their view to give greater consideration to the capacity of childcare provision in a geographical area when it comes to planning. North Edinburgh childcare will be responding to the consultation and I look forward to the Scottish Government's considering of their ideas, particularly in relation to the Scottish Government's strong commitment to significantly increase the availability of childcare. Thirdly, I warmly welcome the consultation's ambition to give local people a more effective voice in the system and to involve them at an early stage and examine how statutory requirements can be involved and improved accordingly to encourage early engagement. In my constituency, there have been several planning decisions recently over recent years that have been overwhelmingly against the wishes of local communities affected. These have generally been small-scale development plans, believed to be out of kilter with the make-up of the respective areas, and local people have campaigned hard against such development plans. From the Save Can and Mills bridge campaign to Save Herriot Hill to concerns about development at 127 Trinity Road and other local campaigns, many groups in my constituency feel that their voice has not been heard in the current system, so I sincerely welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to bring about change and to listen to communities. The consultation proposes to give people an opportunity to design their own places, and I warmly welcome this, and I have seen how that can make a difference through examples such as in New Haven and Broughton, where co-designers, consultants like here and now based in Edinburgh have worked with local organisations to deliver meaningful projects. I also welcome the intention in the consultation to invest in community planning and particularly look forward to seeing the results of the Scottish Government-funded charrette to look at planning and social issues in Leith that will be delivered by citizen creator and Leith creative, which are local organisations in the area. I welcome the consultation's proposal to involve community councils. I have seen how that has made a difference at an early stage when engagement has happened, particularly in terms of big developments, where communities and developers have been able to engage in good faith. However, in terms of keeping decisions local, there is an issue about rights of appeal. In the consultation, the situation of a third party right of appeal is addressed and ruled out in the case of a local authority decision in favour of a developer. I agree with that. On the other hand, the consultation does not refer directly to the situation when a local authority and local councillors refuse planning permission but development is subsequently permitted by appeal. Such occurrences have happened in my constituency and the decisions of local elected members have been undermined. I believe that that imbalance is problematic and should be thoroughly considered. I will conclude by emphasising that I warmly welcome the consultation and that, through improved building standards and planning and through the creativity of Scotland's architects and communities, we can do more to enhance the places that we live in and the spaces that we share and I look forward to the positive change ahead. I now call on Bill Bowman to be followed by George Adam. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am honoured to have joined the chamber as a list member for the north east of Scotland region. However, it is a big however, I am sure that the event that led to my becoming a member is one that we would all wish to have not happened. I must pay tribute to the late Alex Johnson, who served his constituents so well since becoming a member of this Parliament. There are many here who knew him longer and better than me. However, in the time that I did know him, he was supportive, encouraging and always approachable. I hope that I can also be like that. About me now, I was born in Glasgow and my family moved east. It seemed along the way east from a Glasgow perspective to Cercodian Fife when I was 11. I grew up in Fife as a teenager and on graduating from Edinburgh University, I began to study to become a chartered accountant. Having passed my exams, I became a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, a body that both then and now I regard as the gold standard of chartered accountancy institutes. I then moved to join KPMG and spent five years with them in Edinburgh and then moved to their Aberdeen office where I spent the next 20 years. There, I learned a lot about the north-east region. I audited and advised companies and organisations in many industries. Naturally, they are oil and gas, farming, fishing, food processing, engineering, transport, shipping and hospitality, not just in Aberdeen itself but throughout the region. Then, after my 20 years there, I moved east again and it was a little bit further this time. I went to Romania where for the next 10 years I continued my professional activities with KPMG. This time with a focus on helping companies grow and develop their accounting and reporting, as well as training and, to me, the most rewarding part, developing the generation of auditors and accountants that were required to meet emerging countries growing need for such people. Then, back to Scotland and my entry into front-line politics. I had the time, desire and opportunity and, thanks to listening to Ruth at one of our Scottish conferences, I decided to stand for the Westminster election in 2015 in the Dundee East constituency. Then, having not succeeded of course, I stood in 2016 for this place, again in the Dundee East constituency. Dundee and the adjoining Angus area have a long and illustrious history. Today they have world-class educational institutions. The Dundee waterfront development is showing how to prepare today for the future needs of a city and the V&A building will be an iconic symbol, recognised far and wide but people will think of Dundee. Perhaps the waterfront development is an example of how planning can bring together the regeneration of an area that had fulfilled its original use and had no immediate other use, taken along with commercial and retail developments as well, plus the arts and culture through the V&A and related projects. To me, the ultimate measure of the success of the waterfront will be what wealth and jobs it creates in the area and yielding, I hope, a social dividend for the constituents of that area. They need it and they deserve it. Such a social dividend should be at the heart of our planning system. Planning and the developments that flow from our system, such as the construction of new schools, leisure facilities, housing developments, not only stimulate the economies in the local area, the jobs that are created in that process mean that more people can go home knowing that they are satisfied they are able to provide for themselves, their families, their dependents after a hard and honest day's work, and I think that there is no better feeling than that. I am sure that all in this chamber would agree with that point. The north-east of Scotland is as diverse a region as it is big, from the Banff and Bucking coast in the north through to Angus and Dundee in the south and all the places in between. I look forward to representing the people of this vast area and in the chamber to the best of my ability. One thing that I have learned from the debates is that it is best to keep within your time. You do not usually get a telling off for that. I will draw my speech to a conclusion and thank you for listening. Thank you, Mr Bowman. I hope that all your colleagues will take note of your closing sentence and some of mine. I now call George Adam to be followed by Monica Lennon. I congratulate Mr Bowman on his opening speech. It comes in the back of circumstances that none of us wanted or desired, but it is good to hear from him for his first time. Probably that will be the last time I will be extremely nice to Mr Bowman within this chamber. Presiding Officer, if you had asked me 10 years ago before I became a councillor, if I would desperately want to speak in a debate about planning, I would have said that you were having a laugh. The longer I worked within the council world that I was in and now paisling its entirety, I found that it is one of the major issues that I have to deal with. I agree with the minister when he says that the planning system itself is not broken but it can be and do so much better. I feel that I need to bring up some very local issues and challenges that I have. My problem is both good and extremely challenging. The great town of paisley has more listed buildings than any other place in Scotland other than our nation's capital. Many people are shocked when they hear that. They just have a vision of post-industrial decline, not the vibrant exciting town that I know and love. The advantage of that is that as we move towards the summer announcement of UK city of culture 2021, our historic buildings will play an important part on any success on that bid. However, the challenge is that many of those historic buildings are now empty and in some cases slowly but surely rotting away. My constituents are angry that there appears to be nothing to be done regarding those historic sites. Listed buildings such as the old paisley territorial army halls have now been empty for years. A developer currently owns the building and there has been planning permission for flats for some times but regeneration never seems to happen as the developer sits on it for serious economic times. There is also the old royal Alexander infirmary, the old hospital which has been redeveloped in the first half of the building but because of various on-going problems the rear of the building is rotten away. The owner of the building is a London-based developer who has probably never seen paisley or been able to point it on a map. The building is regularly broken into by young people and others and various anti-social behaviour on some occasions. Fires have been started. All that is happening is that families live next door and have to live with that on-going issue. Renfrewshire council, for their part, has no intention of enforcing any of the legislation available to them for fear of ending up with the building themselves. Rather than trying to find alternative solutions, they just leave the building as it is. There is legislation available but no one appears to want to take responsibility. The minister is correct when he says that leadership needs to be shown by everyone involved in this process. That is right but currently some of our communities feel that there is no help. There is an issue with listed buildings and the planning process. Historic Environment Scotland do their job and desperately try to save buildings and councils tend to run away from their responsibilities. There needs to be more input from local communities so that they feel that they are being listened to and things can change. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government wants the planning system to increase delivery of high-quality housing developments by delivering quicker, more accessible and efficient processes. That would be helpful but my problem is that developers and local authorities would rather build on green belt and build new schools and further infrastructure rather than look at alternative options. Planers and developers would rather move people out of our towns and cities and build on what they deem easier sites. Brownfield sites are too difficult and risky for developers in certain towns but should that brownfield site be in a leafy suburb or certain cities, they then spend years pushing the plan through the system no matter how difficult. We need to have a system that ensures that it is easier to develop and regenerate our towns and cities. There needs to be a can-do attitude that pushes planners away from the risk-averse ways. I am not saying that we need to be reckless about that but we do need to grasp the challenge and create the type of flexibility within the system that can help redevelop our communities, not a system that is patchy at best. That is why I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government wants Scotland's planning system to lead and inspire change by making clear plans for the future. To achieve that, we can simplify and strengthen development planning by aligning community planning and spatial planning, by introducing a requirement for development plans to take account of the wider community. That helps and ensures that local people get the opportunity to ensure that the planning system delivers what they want. Once again, in my case, that would be developing at our town centre because that is what the public wants for some of our historic buildings. I have already mentioned that I could add more buildings, such as the old fire station across my constituency office that has not been occupied in my lifetime. That was not yesterday. The plan ensures that communities have a new right to come together and prepare local plans, meaning that people have an opportunity to plan their own place. Importantly, those plans should form part of the statutory local development plan. That empowers our communities and ensures that we move towards what they want for their communities. That can and should change the unbalance in the current system. The Scottish Government now proposes to discourage repeat application and improve planning enforcement. Now we are talking, Presiding Officer, because improving planning enforcement would help in many of the cases that I have mentioned. As I previously mentioned and stated, how we deal with our historic buildings in this process is extremely important to me. I have the world-famous Thomas Coates memorial church in the west end of Paisley. It is a massive cathedral of a building and is regarded as the Baptist cathedral of Europe. If only the Baptist church had that type of structure, but it has been part of the Paisley skyline for more than 100 years. It is built in a Gothic revival style in red sandstone. It is a striking crowned steeple that is 200 feet from the ground and is heating for 1,000 people. There you must conclude with heating for 1,000 people, Mr Adams. Thank you very much for your out of time. I told him what to do. Thank you very much then, Presiding Officer. I now call Monica Lennon, followed by Kate Forbes. I begin by referring to my register of members' interests as I am a very proud member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. As a charter town planner, I am sure that colleagues will believe me when I say that I approach this debate with great enthusiasm. Although I think that George Adam may have given me a run for my money there. I should also say for the record that I am a serving councillor in South Lanarkshire. Where we live and our surroundings can determine how happy we are, how much we earn and how long we live. The built and natural environment around us shapes our daily experiences, as Ben Macpherson said. It provides a setting for economic activity and influences how we interact with other people. As Kevin Stewart said in his opening speech and I'm pleased to hear, it has a very real impact on our health and our wellbeing. Because of that, decisions about the use of land, buildings and the green spaces and transport corridors in between and how those decisions are reached should always be guided by what is in the public interest, a principle stated in our amendment today. The planning system was created out of a desire and a commitment to a vision for a healthier and more equal society. Patrick Geddes, born in Aberdeenshire in 1854, is regarded as the pioneer of modern town planning. Geddes championed a mode of planning that was concerned with primary human needs. Geddes believed that in order to understand and improve a community, one had to be a part of it. We can still learn from his teachings and principles today. Other pioneers of planning, such as Sir Ebenezer Howard, who founded the Town and Country Planning Association in 1899, held utopian and progressive ideas. They saw planning as being concerned with all aspects of human behaviour, from art and culture to education and the nature of work. They recognised the intrinsic value of beauty and design and the natural environment to people's health and wellbeing. That transformed the way that society thought about and built places. The development of new settlements in the interwar period, so a transformation in housing standards, sparked a worldwide interest in town planning. Fast-forward to the 1980s, and it is safe to say that there became onwards a view that town planning was unfashionable. Michael Heseltine, some may be familiar with his infamous quote, when he said that there are countless jobs tied up in the filing cabinets of the planning regime. My concern about the way in which we are approaching this debate today is that we are perhaps accepting that the housing crisis that we face across our country here in Scotland is somehow due to the homes that we need being locked up in planners' inboxes. I hope, by the tone of some of what I have heard today, that that is perhaps not the case. When thinking about the great places that we have in Scotland and the professionalism of the planners that we have, I hope that the Government would reject the characterisation that, certainly, Michael Heseltine was espousing. Housing is a major concern for us all. Back in 2014-15, there were a number of major reports published on housing in Scotland. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveys in Scotland reported building a better Scotland. The Commission for Housing and Wellbeing, which was set up by Shelter, in Scotland reported also in 2015. That same year, the Scottish Government published the joint delivery plan for housing in Scotland. Rick set out a number of recommendations. They are not all about the planning system 1 that a Scottish housing observatory is established. The post of housing minister is elevated to Cabinet Secretary. That could be a promotion for our esteemed colleague, Kevin Stewart. At the Scottish Government in partnership with planning authorities, a review to assess the nature of existing planning consents in Scotland. I am not sure that the minister wants to address those points now, but we might like to hear about that in closing. We have talked a little bit today about collaboration and equity. When Ben Macpherson was speaking, he talked about third party rights of appeal. I think that we have to change from that language, because the community and the people who live in an area are in no way third parties. They are absolutely front and centre. I think that it is unfortunate that it has been dismissed out of hand. I think that we all need to have a look at that, because whoever much we want to believe that front loading is the answer, it certainly has not achieved a level of confidence that we need. In my community, like many others, have said today, we all know of planning applications where people have got involved and then felt deflated in all the worst for it afterwards. Kevin Stewart knows about the incinerator in my council ward where the appeal went to the Scottish Government and sat for 12 months. At the end of that, the only recourse for the community would have been judicial review, a bar legally, which is very high, and would have cost in the region of £30,000, £40,000, £50,000. So the community is priced out of that. In closing, I realise that I only have 30 seconds, I think that Ben took all the extra time and goodwill that we have. Ben Macpherson, that is. I hope that the spirit of our amendment today will be taken in good faith. We do believe that health and reducing inequality is very much at the heart of the planning system. The place standard toolkit that is being promoted is a great idea, but it is something that has no statutory footing. We would like to see a shift towards putting health and inequality on the same playing field as the way we assess environmental impact. I think that we need to keep the open door to look at how communities can be involved, and I pay tribute to the planning democracy and others who are in the gallery today, who are giving up their time to be here and to support communities day in, day out. I think that we have to keep an open mind to that. Thank you, Ms Lennon. You have the privilege of complimenting Mr Stewart and promoting him and making Mr Macpherson blush. I now go on. I call Kate Forbes and call then after Andy Wightman. So, Ms Forbes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the easiest functions of our roles as MSP is to highlight the challenges and grievances in our constituencies, and that always seems quite easy in the Highlands, but it's much harder and I feel a much greater responsibility to identify intelligent solutions, and there's seldom a black-and-white cut-and-paste answer. When I first stood as a candidate for election, a seasoned politician had one piece of advice for me, steer clear of planning, and I hope they're not watching this speech. Planning is but a means to an end, a means to an end, and that end should be high-quality homes and infrastructure and sustainable communities and futures. More often than not, that end is frustration and costs, costs that are often unnecessary, costs to time, money and labour. The Government's motion sums it up as unnecessary procedures and practices that do not add value. I'll give you a home-grown example. At the end of last year, the Cairn Gorms National Park Authority finally approved an application for a housing development at the old saw mill site in Rothea Murkis. It had taken five years, and the common theme at the final meeting when planning consent was granted was why. Why did it take five years for four young local couples and their families to jump through the hoops, fork out the cash and spend their spare time to get planning permission? The greatest irony of all is that it was a brownfield site, a commercial saw mill occupied the site 40 years ago and then a dump before nature took over. Through the vast majority, although not all, of conversations and correspondence, there has been a general consensus that in a word that was ridiculous. In the end, in this situation, there are four young couples who are committed to the local community, who will raise their children and support the local school, who will work and make an income to plough back into the local community. That's the end I want to see across the Highlands, and planning is but the means or the obstacle to that end. I've said before in this chamber and I'll say it again today. In the Highlands, the price of housing is higher than the Scottish average and income levels are below the Scottish average. Let me give you some figures. In 2009, the median gross weekly pay for all employees was 91 per cent of the overall Scottish figure. In my constituency, the median house price was 8 per cent higher than the Scottish average. Increases in house prices in three years to 2008 were significantly higher than the Scottish average. I've also said in the past that I believe that this is partly due to concentrated land ownership patterns, but today I'd like to go further and argue that planning law and policy and its application has restricted the development of rural areas since the 1970s at least. This week I spoke to a land surveyor who went even further. He said that the now long-held restrictions to planning consent outside designated settlement areas within local authority policies had almost single-handedly been the driver for the dramatic increase in property values in the last 40 years in the Highlands. What's the solution? Don't get me wrong. I am a country girl who loves the beautiful scenery of the Highlands and I have got the best of it in my constituency. Historically, housing was based on land topography and communities could be widespread and distributed. Crofting communities often still are. What do we need? First of all, wisdom. Wisdom is required for what and how you build and building standards need to be adapted to rural areas like the Highlands. Secondly, expert advice is also required and whilst I have in the past strongly disagreed with SNH on its verdict on the housing development and staffing in Skye, to recognise its advisory role on Scotland's natural heritage. In fact, I have been quite impressed with the changes that SNH has made to the engagement with the planning process. To the extent that SNH's responses to planning applications has fallen from over 1,500 per annum to over 500 per annum since 2014 and its outright objections has halved to five in the same period. So praise where praise is due, though I do still hope that the housing development and staffing gets the go-ahead by those cast with the responsibility. Lastly, a cheaper process is required. Up-front costings, up-front guidance, smarter use of digital resources and I welcome that comment in the Government's motion and an attitude that sees challenges as something to be overcome, not to be beaten by. But all of these are just steps, steps along a process that is primarily concerned with listening to all members of the community and I emphasise all members, those that are vocal and organised and those that aren't, allowing for objections and fair appeals, but not to keep on overruling communities. But today we are discussing the means and I want to leave you with the end. I want to thank the rural communities who live and work and learn and play in highland places that are beautiful, affordable and alive. Thank you. Thank you very much. Andy Wightman. Mr Wightman, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to begin by congratulating Bill Bowman on his first speech today, welcoming him to Parliament. I welcome his debate on planning. It is not regarded as dry and technical, but which, as a number of speakers have already made clear, plays a vital role in allocating and balancing competing demands for land in providing public infrastructure, protecting the environment and mitigating climate change. Indeed, we think that planning bill should incorporate such aims, in particular climate change, as a key purpose of planning. At the third reading of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, Lewis Silkin, reported that planning is concerned to secure that our limited land resources are used to the best advantage of the nation as a whole and it provides for resolving the often conflicting claims upon any particular parcel of land. Much has changed since 1947, but Silkin's observation remains as valid today as it did 70 years ago. Among the complaints and frustrations of the current planning system is the fact that the original vision of a plan-led system has ended up becoming stressed to the point of failure, in many cases, by the vested interests of developers. Alex Rowley has already noted the Royal Town Planning Institute's briefing, which makes it clear that between 2010 and 2015 20 per cent of planning posts were lost and that the budget for planning is now covered substantially by fees. In the welcome move towards better upfront planning, resources need to be allocated to provide the skills and the time necessary to plan rather the high-quality environments that will improve the quality of people's lives. An investment that the former chief medical officer, Sir Harry Burns, would frequently stress are critical and which amply repay themselves in improved health outcomes. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the challenge of housing Scotland's population in affordable, warm, sustainable long-lasting homes. The current system of delivery of housing is dysfunctional and unsustainable in the private sector. To create affordable and high-quality housing for all, we need to radically transform how we plan places. In our view, that starts right at the beginning of the construction process. Put simply, the hegemony of the speculative volume house building industry has failed. It carries too much risk, fails to respond to the challenge of creating high-quality places and erupted the planning process right across Scotland. In our view, it has no future. Greens want a return to public-led development planning process where communities are in charge, where master planning is detailed and comprehensive, and where those who wish to invest in new development appear at the end of the process. We want to end, for example, the call for sites element of planning, which hands all the initiative to landowners and commercial interests, putting communities on the back foot and obliging them to act defensively. We welcome the emphasis on upfront planning, on zoning and on local place plans, so long as those give communities a stronger voice and guarantee that they will be full participants. Our amendment, which was not selected today, focuses on two vital reforms that we believe could transform the planning system. The first is to return to the routes of planning in section 48 of the 1947 act and allow public authorities to acquire land at its existing use value. That measure was in line with the recommendations of the Oathwalk Committee on Compensation and Betterment that was met during the war and led to the 47 act. Three observations were often made of the Oathwalk Committee's report, three were those who agreed with it, there were those who disagreed with it and there were those finally who had actually read it. The provision was repealed in 1959 but retained for the development of new towns and we propose its reintroduction. To understand the concept, this was precisely the means by which Edinburgh new town was constructed. The land was acquired by the common good fund, master planning was undertaken and developers and individual plots were sold for self-build under contract to the town council. Put simply, planning consents increased the value of land 100 fold or more. That value belongs to society as a whole, today however that value is captured by landowners. Ending this windfall would mean houses could be built for two thirds of current prices and the balance either invested in higher quality homes and or more homes. The second reform is to the system of appeals. Greens support a right of appeal, a third party right of appeal in order to equalise the power relationship in the planning process. I have written on the review noted widespread calls for an equal right of appeal but the proposal was rejected by the review and by government. I commend planning democracy's continuing campaign for a stronger public voice in the planning system. I have been discussing this matter with a wide range of interests over the past few months and I am aware of an alternative way forward to equalise appeal and that is simply to abolish the existing right of appeal on behalf of applicants altogether. Indeed the very existence of any right of appeal is an anachronism hanging over from the 1947 Town and Country Planning Scotland Act. This was recently noted in evidence to the local government and communities committee meeting on the 7th of September 2016 at which John McNearney, the chief planner of the Scottish government said that the 1947 situation is essentially that the landowner was no longer free to dispose of his property as he saw fit he had to seek permission that is the context of being able to appeal against the decision that he was aggrieved about. That right was a concession to landowners as a result of their development rights being nationalised but it will be 70 years this August since that act came law. There is no longer any principle justification for such an appeal and many European countries do not operate any such appeal process and I commend the suggestion to Parliament to conclude, Presiding Officer, Greens look forward to constructive engagement on this topic in the months ahead. We recognise planning as playing an absolutely critical role in building, developing and sustaining communities across Scotland and we commend all the motion and the amendments that have been tabled today and will be supporting them. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer and I would like to start by extending my welcome to Bill Bowman and congratulations on his excellent first speech to this place. Bill makes his first speech in this Parliament in our nation's capital and I think it's a great place to look as a microcosm of all that is good and all that is bad about planning in this country. My own constituency of Edinburgh western is a thriving and diverse community and like the rest of the city is growing year on year. Edinburgh every year gets 5,000 new people but our demand for housing is vastly outstripping supply. Yes, Edinburgh has a housing shortage a housing crisis but in my constituency of west Edinburgh we have a development problem and that is because developments are happening through incrementalism. They are being thrown up as dormitories to feed into the city particularly in the outskirts, in the communities of Kirklessdon and South Queensferry wonderful villages and towns which are not already sustained by adequate infrastructure in and of themselves. They lack affordable direct public transport links into the city despite paying Edinburgh council tax rates. They are not served by adequate superfast broadband and many other strains on amenity as well. But nowhere is anger and tension generated by development than in and around the Camo estate. Camo estate is on the fringes of the Mabry bypass and is one of the most beautiful sites of natural heritage on the eastern seaboard. For many many years people have sought to develop on it and people have rightly and successfully campaigned against it but we have now reached an impasse where very sadly Camo is now is owned for development as part of the local development plan. That has been led to by something of a betrayal of trust which has left the local community reeling when a capital coalition motion last year suggested that unwanted housing in this area could be jettison from the local development plan if people accepted or a plan has accepted the Gile garden city into the development plan against the advice of officials but because of a delay in the Scottish Government a dubiety about both meant that both were included and both will now be built upon Camo which will lead to massive loss of green belt and gridlock at Barnton on the fringes of the A90 one of the most polluted streets in Scotland and the garden city development which falls on in the footprint of the Ladywell medical practice which is already at capacity and with an extra 4,000 patients housing minister rightly issued the city council with a stinging rebuke of the way it handled the local development plan in this way but all of these all of the developments I've alluded to have been done so without a coherent infrastructure strategy or roads or health centres which compound the problems I've already described Presiding Officer Liberal Democrats are not ideologically opposed to new housing I've already articulated the very distinct need that we have as a city for that we are just opposed to unintelligent housing development the development by increment that I've already described that these developments are now more than ever driven by business models of developers rather than the needs of the communities that they seek to serve and indeed the environment for development has changed developers are far more likely to build detached and terrorist houses and sell units as they go to sustain their business model but this has three particular drawbacks it burns through green belt it creates properties of higher value which means that when you get affordable properties in that area they are still out with the range of first time buyers it encourages early occupancy of an unfinished development before the amenities for that development are constructed exerting pressure still further on existing infrastructure and amenities Andy Wightman on incremental development does he imagine that if the Liberal Democrats were running Edinburgh City Council in the late 18th century that they would have supported the development of Edinburgh's new town Alex Cole-Hamilton's teat you back a bit I think by development by increment is what I spoke to of the values of unintelligent housing development things that are just thrown up based on pieces of land that become available at a certain point of time and there are developers hungry to prosecute that the brick house part development in Crammond is another one where the Crammond campus has lain fallow but with the promise of a new sports pavilion and playing fields but because the developer felt that it was no longer a cash viable business proposition to do so has pulled out against their section 75 obligations the point about first time buyers is particularly important in this city because of the deteriorating housing stock that we have in flattered developments those most common properties that first time buyers will occupy and I'm sure many other members will have met as I have the association for property managers who paint a very terrifying picture of the extent of housing dilapidations and where do we come to in all of this well I think that the Scottish Government has got something right here it's looking at planning gain the use of planning gain and section 75 orders on things like dilapidations we should be compelling developers as a condition to taking on a new project we must replace a certain number of dilapidated roofs on existing tenement buildings all building infrastructure roads, health centres, all of this now I was very gratified that the health secretary wrote back to me after one of our exchanges when many times I've raised this and he said that she did agree with me that we need appropriate primary care infrastructure in new housing developments that's a quote from the letter she gave me and I very much welcome the direction of travel particularly in the infrastructure first with the independent planning review committee Liberal Democrats will work closely with the Scottish Government in all of this and other issues particularly in terms of shifting the power of final decision making away from Scottish ministers and back to local government except where perverse appeals or perverse decisions are taken this motion is very much a start towards that end and the amendments add something to it as well and we will be supporting them all this evening thank you Mr McDonald I also add my congratulations to Bill Bowman on his maiden speech Edinburgh is one of the UK's economic hotspots and as a result we have seen the population grow from 447,000 in 2002 to 499,000 in 2015 and 11 per cent increase over that period in recent years the population growth has accelerated and the city now attracts just over 100 new residents every week the result is a lack of affordable homes private rents increasing faster than inflation and pressure on the green belt as developers submit speculative plans for arable land around Edinburgh much of that speculation is taking place because the local development plan is overdue so while I agree that LDP should have a life of 10 years as opposed to 5 we need to ensure that delays do not occur in future years when the LDP is being updated and refreshed regarding the availability of land for housing we cannot continue to push Edinburgh's boundaries or we will destroy the very reasons that make Edinburgh an attractive place to live and work we must find ways to encourage developers to build more homes easily commutable into Edinburgh not by car as the road network in the west of the city grinds to a halt at peak times but by taking advantage of the on-going improvements in the railway infrastructure there also has to be a way to encourage the use of brownfield sites first whether that's urban gap sites area zone for a purpose but not yet developed or being held for land banking and speculation the Scottish derelict and vacant land survey highlighted that Edinburgh has 82 sites totaling 183 acres and sorry hectares with constraint sites in the city able to provide over 7,000 new homes if available therefore I welcome the suggestion that there could be a new local levy but isn't it time to consider introducing a general land tax on development land on vacant and derelict land in order to reduce land banking and increase the supply of land for homes Edinburgh has worked successfully with neighbouring councils to meet the increasing housing demand however if the need for a strategic development plans are removed from the planning process as the Royal Town Planning Institute for Scotland asked in their briefing how will the government ensure that local authorities work together to decide where national housing needs will be met Presiding Officer the consultations on Scotland's planning system needs to address the concerns of local communities community councils have a formal role in the planning process and are consulted on development plans pre-application consultations and when a planning application has been submitted yet they have no or little funding to assist them to carry out this duty the Scottish Government is considering an I quote increasing planning fees to ensure the planning service is better resourced but can some of that additional revenue be given to community councils so that they are better resourced that additional funding would support communities to create their own local place plans and for those plans to be used as a framework for development within local development plans that will help to ensure that all communities have resources available to produce a full plan and it should become a statutory part of the local development plan I also welcome the proposal to discourage repeat applications and the communities I represent from Balerno to Wynton we have house builders who have appealed all the way to the Scottish Government reporter and had their plans thrown out yet what seems only a few months later communities are back considering similar plans for the same site to put a stop to repeat applications the communities I represent need three things escalating and planning fees for anything other than minor developments for subsequent proposals regardless of the developer or house builder all points of previous rejection must be addressed regardless of the company or person making the application and if a site has been to appeal and rejected by the reporter there should be a moratorium period to provide respite for that community for up to 10 years another area of interest is the opportunity to make improvements to section 75 obligations that are connected to planning permission applications and this can include financial contributions towards schools, roads, transport and affordable housing we quite rightly ask developers to contribute to our school extensions because of the impact of their development but as Alec Rowley said why do we not ask for contributions to ProD's primary healthcare as a new development has a similar impact on that local service regarding the third party right of appeal it cannot be right that a developer can appeal a refused decision but a community cannot appeal a granted decision I realise the Government wants to remove bureaucracy therefore as Andy Wightman already indicated planning aid for Scotland said in their brief many successful European countries do not operate an appeal process at all that is no right of appeal for any party they then suggested that this would encourage us to get things right at the start leading to discussion and debate about the kind of places we need and want the consultation states people are at the heart of our proposals for reform everyone should have an opportunity to get involved in planning so as the minister said in his opening remarks please encourage everyone to take part in this consultation before it closes on 4 April thank you Mr Doris will be the last speaker in the open debate you have been warned thank you Deputy Presiding Officer can I start with warmly welcoming Bill Bowman to the chamber despite the sad circumstances I'm sure he'll bring a lot of experience back to this place I'd also like to reiterate his point about the development of waterfronts just as in his speech he was talking about Dundee I've seen that in my own area and the benefits the redevelopment of Greenark waterfront has had on the local community it now serves as a function for retail opportunities and the arts and new jobs and businesses so it does work when done properly I'd like to therefore cover today three areas I think are the three essential ingredients reliable information community participation and connectivity so let's start with reliable information planning requires foresight and foresight requires data as far back as 1987 the world commission on environment and development recognised the importance of using technology and consultation in sustainable development I'm sure in those days there weren't many BBC computers lying around the local library to use the quality of 3D models that we now use today but consultation is nothing new it's always been an integral part of the planning process but the way in which consultation takes place has changed greatly and can change yet still the use of digital and 3D technology in planning according to the Scottish Government's own research report shows that there is huge potential in the use of digital imagery and 3D visualisation to aid the planning process but to benefit from these opportunities we need access to data and we need access to tools there will be a discussion about who owns that data and who has the right to access it and how do we present it for example we don't want to stifle entrepreneurial companies who have great ideas for example how to connect rural areas to high speed internet and they can't do it because the data set is incomplete, inaccessible or it's owned simply by somebody else nor do we want to simply transpose the inefficiencies of a paper based plan to an inefficient digital one you don't necessarily need to go to the library anymore to see a model virtual reality on your mobile phone or easy to read or easy to search papers online can make consultation more accessible good planning decisions must be based on evidence while taking into account a number of social, historical, cultural and environmental factors no one aspect is more important than the other the needs of a developer to run a profitable business is important but the needs of environmental group a local community council local businesses existing residents, wildlife groups road safety groups and so on they're equally important but how do you layer on these external factors when simply looking at the model of a building or a housing scheme a community participation a criticism of the current system is the extent to which planning appeals can and do overturn community supported decisions many perceive there to be an inherent bias and unfairness within the planning system favouring development and developers as Gil Paterson mentioned also the questions of how children and young people are represented to ensure that their needs are at the heart of our planning decisions we're planning for their future after all and disabled people are those needs taken into account my colleague Graham Simpson pointed out the current top-down system I think greater participation leads to better planning good planning is holistic and that leads me to my third and final point on if I'm given some extra seconds thank you comments about a community engagement what is the member's position though on the third party or equal right of appeal Mr Graham I'm no planning expert I should say one of the first things piece of advice I was given when I got into politics to say I was told to stay away from planning I'm not the only member to do that I think the views of the community should be taken into account but ultimately I think local authorities are best placed to make decisions I don't think decisions should be overturned through a central body if that answers the question if not I'm happy to research it further and write to the member I'll just carry on on my point on connectivity digital connectivity is obviously my portfolio and I'm something I'm very much interested in we rely on the internet to fill in our tax returns stream entertainment but also to choose our energy suppliers and shop around and the people missing out on access to this infrastructure are missing out on hundreds of pounds of savings each year I'm very passionate about digital participation and that doesn't start when you move into your house it should start in the planning process we heard at FMQs today about new housing developments in our cities which do not have access to high speed fibre and these are new housing schemes not antiquated inherited infrastructures good planning should take into account the impact of technology such as fibre and 5G and how these could be integrated and there are some great examples of that Renfisher council currently rolling out public access to wi-fi in its town centres they estimate that this will increase numbers of visitors to its town centre a quarter of whom will spend more time in the town centre because of its free wi-fi and that has a knock-on effect on retail so in summary Deputy Presiding Officer good planning is based on reliable information community participation but one that must put connectivity at its heart and that leads not only to better places but to happier places thank you thank you very much last speaker in the open debate thank you others have done by commending Bill Bowman in his first speech in the chamber since becoming an MSP actually quite often there's a lot more agreement that does get reached in this place it just doesn't get reported very often but we'll find that in the months and years ahead on to the subject in question in relation to planning and I want to look at a recommendation with an independent planning review to make local development plans produced by councils to be extended to run for a 10-year period now understand why there would be a strategic benefit to have a certainty of a 10-year plan planning well over a longer period providing a reliable, trusted and stable regime for all first the councils in Glasgow have 10-year development plans what they do is revise them at a 5-year interval however my experience that plan in Glasgow anyway can be deeply flawed and it can ignore communities I'd like to give a specific example in my constituency in doing so I'd like to declare an interest as a local homeowner who opposed an alteration to Glasgow's most recent local development plan in the area in which I stay there's a huge swath of land extending from Somerson and Maryhill that reaches west towards Bairstain and Easton-Bartonshire north towards Balmore road it was designated as green belt has been for many a year in 2014 the council the city council decided it wished to rezone that entire area from green belt until out to be zoned for housing that is despite as recently as 2011 the city council stated that during the development of that plan contained within its main issues report that reusing brownfield land as opposed to greenfield land was a cornerstone policy of the new plan they were about to develop it also said that releasing any more greenfield sites would undermine that strategy so you might think that that draft plan to be consulted upon would have mirrored some of that after all it was the main issues report into the development of that said plan but not at all a complete U-turn all despite their own analysis of housing needs flying in the face of a drastically altered conclusion that they eventually reached I mean I stay around the corner literally a stone's throw away from the land in question as an MSP for the area I wasn't notified as a local resident I was not notified and I have no faith in the process that has led to the release of virtually all of Glasgow's green belt land to the north and west of the constituency I represent 10-year plans that do not have community buy-in or appropriate levels of consultation will simply lock in errors over a longer period of time and that would be unacceptable before we have local authorities greater powers over communities let's make sure they're getting the basics right just now I also note in the proposals before us from the Government that there's consideration given to actually scrapping the main issues report and guidance not been available to me and to my constituents but we'd never have known that the City Council was directly contradicting themselves in their final conclusion so there's merits to keeping that as well I would contend I would like to move on to the Shirex process which is often said to be the gold standard in relation to community consultation and I would like to look at how that has worked in another one of areas in my constituency so let me illustrate my point about Shirex that I want to make by talking about regeneration in the Hamilton Hill area in my constituency Hamilton Hill is just south of Pawsal Park and has had a series of demolitions and housing clearances over the years there remains a very committed community a community that has waited patiently for the promised regeneration and development and now I'm really pleased to say that the regeneration that's just about to happen the plans are there there was a Shirex process at the very start of that process but we have to make sure it's not a Shirex event and it is actually a process followed right through the development of that plan to planning permission and whatever that new community will look like there's a Hamilton Hill community action group in that area, a committee of residents who wish to be part of the new Hamilton Hill they attended the initial Shirex they have been consulted to a degree from there on in I have sought meetings with the local housing association and the city council where I talked about co-production where I could sit down with that community action group and the public partners to design what the new Hamilton Hill could look like I'll just gently say there's been some resistance to that so yes I support Shirex but let's make sure it's not a tick box exercise at the start of a process that locks out community engagement afterwards so I support that but let's make sure we follow through on some of that now there's much made and I really agree about the idea of place planning by the local communities and I think Gordon MacDonald and George Adam spoke locking some of that into local development plans going forward I've got examples of what's happened organically in my constituency in Royston where there's a local regeneration strategy because the council wasn't doing one in Springburn and it's showing real promise that potential leveraging investment that otherwise may not have came along if we can knit together some of that real community grass roots community planning that the people I represent want to see and want to be supported in and wed that to a council culture that can be more open and engaging and talk about co-production we would have something special legislation coming before this Parliament yes to long-term strategic planning but no to locking in failures within the current process yes to locality planning and yes to making sure local communities are directly in control of the majority of that thank you very much before I move to closing speeches can I say I'm very disappointed in Ms Kate Forbes this is the second time the speech has not been in for closing speeches and was in the chamber when I said moving to closing speeches shortly no doubt the whips will convey that to her and I expect a proper excuse for the Presiding Officers and I move on to closing speeches I call Pauline McNeill to close for Labour six minutes please Presiding Officer I begin by welcoming the debate and the minister's comments that it's a wide and open debate so I hope you're ready for this I'd like to begin by commending Graham Simpson her excellent opening speech and a very good amendment which unfortunately we can't support I'll get to why that's the case because I agree wholeheartedly with Graham Simpson's analysis that as it stands planning is a very top-down system Kate Forbes who is not here also says that it is contentious I have to say Ms Forbes made a hasty entrance but I still expect a reason to excuse Kate Forbes who is here rightly says that it is contentious for politicians I'm a former member of Glasgow Kelvin at the west end of Glasgow so I cut many of my campaigns cut my teeth on many campaigns about planning applications but I wanted to say why I'm not supporting the Government amendment and since the Conservative amendment is an amendment to that but I do support the content of the amendment itself first of all I'm trying to get my head round what is really contained within this white paper and I can only outline what I'm seeing so far there seem some technical changes for implications I think we need to examine some streamlining for house building a bit of centralisation for housing targets and an attempt to try and encapsulate what many of us want which is community involvement and planning but as planning democracy says there is an assumption in the review that streamlining planning will lead to more and better development but I don't think blaming that planning system per se for slow delivery of development is the right way to go it's a bit of a distraction from asking more serious questions about resources as Monica Lennon has talked about the lack of planning officers and Homes for Scotland defers to a planning to 48.5 weeks as the national average which really is quite a disgrace but I want to begin by talking about the importance of development plans which I don't really care that much if we move to 10 years but if the planning system is based on the development plan being the transparent document if you like of what a local authority sees as its vision for a local area then broadly speaking we should be required to stick to that in my experience in certain parts of Glasgow that is not the case now either you get local authorities to stick to the development plans and the appeal process equally to support that process or I think you have to concede that the community should have some other form of redress and I'll get to that in 2009 the minister will be aware that local authorities were required to notify all breaches of their development plans so that the Scottish Government could consider whether that breach was a justified one or not and the Government changed that to a material breach and in fact I think that the guidance is as wide as the river Clyde and I think that community is very confused by that I didn't really see so from the 15 requirements to notify the Scottish Government I think that you have reduced that to three so I cite that as examples for not wholly trusting the Scottish Government when they talk about community involvement it has not been their track record George Adams in a good speech talks about sometimes developers and you can understand that, prefer sites which are easier and more lucrative and this has been the case in the west end of Glasgow a recent case of park circus which is an international site of conservation where the local community brought a very resourceful campaign the Arwell resource community it cited multiple breaches of the development plan multiple breaches of policy guidance on conservation and trees were cut down from the site before consent was granted removed the green space and I believe building is about to begin soon and there is no redress for this community and that is my point that either local authorities must stick with the guidance and that includes the Scottish Government too if they are asked to make a decision or you have to give them some right of appeal so an excellent speech by Gordon MacDonald and Andy Wightman who and others have addressed this question now it is a tricky area it is one which I have taken to this Parliament in the past in the form of a community right of appeal I have always believed perhaps not in an eco right of appeal but there has to be some redress and the imbalance the imbalance of power between communities and the planning system is going to get wider in my opinion under these proposals so I think there has to be a serious consideration of that and Ben Macpherson makes a very important point on that theme which is that it is even more frustrating when a local authority has used the development plan to make a decision and there is refused consent and then it is granted on appeal so I think there is lots of areas in the system and I think this is an opportunity to look at how you would balance that up again Graham Simpson makes the point that if I read the reading the white paper ministers will take less decisions I'd like the minister to address that point and summing up I don't really understand why in a democratic accountable system you would want to take less decisions but I'd like to hear on that and finally why you made to the 2009 act as a way of involving communities I think it's failed I think it's failed because developers now use it to their advantage there needs to be a serious examination of if you believe in front loading giving communities a say then you really need to look at how that really is going to be achieved thank you very much I call on Liam Kerr to close for the Conservatives seven minutes Mr Kerr thank you Deputy Presiding Officer it is apt that in the year 260 years ago of one of this country's finest civil engineers Thomas Elford that we are having this debate today few people have contributed more to our national and international infrastructure as a Dumfriesshire lad who went on to design and build countless canals, roads, harbours and buildings in this country and beyond but had he been working in 21st century Scotland and not the 18th century how many of the architectural gems we enjoy and use today would have been completed given the tight regulations and rules regarding planning and building maybe fewer but that is not of itself a bad thing we do not live in Georgian times and planning rules and regulations regarding what can be built, where when and of course by what workforce are of vital importance and as the minister made clear at the outset whilst the current system has a lot to offer there is always room for improvement and that is why we will be supporting the government motion this afternoon although ideally in our amendment we would like it to go a little further the document says consultation is an essential part of the policy making process and it seeks to consider your opinion and as has been raised that opinion is important the motion calls for increasing the influence of local people on decisions about the future of their communities and earlier this afternoon my colleague Graham Simpson noted that in Scotland today the planning system is top down with little input from those most affected the people currently it often seems and the minister acknowledges in his opening remarks that planning is done to individuals not for them or with them and both the report and the review rightly note this and recognise the need to involve communities at the start of the process and we do that by making it more accessible by removing main access issues reports and supplementary guidance as the consultation is clear with more community involvement in preparation of local place plans and more review decisions made by local authorities rather than centrally now turning to the debate Jamie Greene was quick to note the motion's call for digital transformation and how digital connectivity can link into the planning system it is the final proposal in the consultation but it's no less valuable for that in a considered and what I thought measured contribution he said that planning should be done with foresight about the connectivity needs of the future and due consideration of the evidence and the motion like proposal 16 in the consultation talks of developing skills which is surely a key priority for any government and should be at the heart of any development plan and I was delighted to hear the excellent maiden speech from Bill Bowman address this point in an interesting and engaging contribution which I say augurs well for the future he talked of how Dundee's waterfront development shows how effective planning can bring together regeneration with commerciality, hospitality arts and culture and then in a persuasive summary he talked of how the ultimate measure of success of the waterfront will be what wealth and jobs it creates and echoing Jamie Greene's comments he said such a social dividend should be at the heart of our planning system on which note I must draw attention to one of the many proposals in the consultation around empowering people where it says it seeks to introduce measures that enable children and young people to have a stronger voice in decisions about the future of their places which I found very interesting before I turn to our amendment I also wish to add a little to the discussion on infrastructure it is interesting in my view that the review of our planning system had this to say to infrastructure planning infrastructure is a central part of Scotland's economic strategy linking infrastructure with plan development is the most significant challenge for the Scottish planning system at this time I agree Bill Bowman has talked of the north-east today the burgeoning town of Inverourie Scotland's fastest growing town saw its population grow by a third in less than 10 years and yet has a bypass designed in the 1980s that the Aberdein western peripheral route is being delivered but it has been on the table for 40 years the Lawrence Kirk junction improvements have been promised since 1999 the USAN section of the east coast mainline remains the only single track part of the east coast mainline so proposal 13 which seeks to embed an infrastructure first approach with better co-ordination must be worth exploration I said at the outset that we would support the motion however we seek support for a small but important amendment which urges the Scottish Government to put greater emphasis on protecting green spaces in the final proposals noting their importance to the environment quality of life, health and wellbeing for so many in our cities the green spaces in communities and the green belts surrounding our towns and cities are vital to the vibrancy and wellbeing of our communities and as Graham Simpson says we would like to see the Government consider allowing communities the chance to apply for special protection for particular green areas important to them and as George Adam flagged we would urge the Government to look to give communities the ability to protect their green belts and Graham also proposed new 10 year plans that would give people certainty and indicate clearly to developers where they may not seek consent and a planning process which acknowledges woodlands and before concluding I would just like to note Ben Macpherson's point on appeals which I thought was particularly well made and worthy of further consideration Deputy Presiding Officer we have had a good natured constructive debate this afternoon which echoes the sixth outcome proposed by the review that there should be more collaboration rather than conflict it is vital to Scotland's economic future that we get this right and that is why we on these benches are supportive of the Government motion and the consultation being undertaken it is a good consultation and like Gordon MacDonald and the Minister I encourage all members of the public and all stakeholders to respond I urge all in the chamber to consider our amendment it is vital for the environment of Scotland and indeed for the health and wellbeing of its people that emphasis is put on the protection of green spaces in the final proposals now circling back to the start Thomas Telford was a Dumfrieshire shepherd's son who went on to be a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences the founding president of the Institute of Civil Engineers and is now entwined at Westminster Abbey a true great let's work together let this consultation be a signal to all that this country is building again let our ambition match that of Telford and let's make this the moment that our planning system really becomes world leading and inspires a new generation of Telfords for the 21st century thank you very much Mr Kerr and I call on Kevin Stewart to close the Government minister till 4.59 please thank you very much and I'm very grateful to all members for participating so actively in this debate on planning today as I said at the outset planning is relevant to everyone and we all have a role to play in making the planning system work better and we may have some disagreement over a number of issues but there are many many things that I think that we can all agree on and I do apologise because I'm not going to be able to respond to all members in this closing speech but let me first of all congratulate Bill Bowman on his made-in-speech here today I have to say that I miss Alec Johnson immensely he was a man that used to give me a good ribbing almost on a day and daily basis always participated in this place robustly but always was good-humoured and friendly to all colleagues and I would say that he would be glad to recognise the north-east of Scotland as he did today and in particular I'd like to comment on the point that you made about the Dundee waterfront regeneration and the social dividend that that can bring and I do think that we need to see those social dividends out of development so welcome to you sir and congratulations on your made-in-speech I can turn to Graham Simpson who in his opening remarks agreed with much of what the consultation paper says can I say about the amendment in terms of green spaces existing planning policy is very supportive of protecting green space and development plans themselves should identify the green spaces that are should be in local development plans and I'm more than happy to accept the Conservative amendment today because I agree with the thrust of that and where I kind of disagree with him is that he said that the system as it stands is top down Government of course does provide the policy guidance on key national issues through the national planning framework and Scottish planning policy all of which of course are subject to consultation but we look to planning authorities to ensure that local plans that deliver development for communities are right for those communities and protect the spaces of those communities there been a couple of folk today who have been told to avoid planning at all costs by previous colleagues Kate Forbes mentioned that Jamie Greene mentioned that I was told something similar when I first entered Aberdeen city council but then I became enthralled by strategic planning mainly down to discovering the 1952 Aberdeen local plan which was a wonderful document I'm hearing some as in the background I don't know if that is supportive as folk who have read it or whether that's oh no not again but that document itself was a brilliant piece of work and the forward was written by Tom Johnson who'd been the Labour wartime secretary of state for Scotland and I paraphrase here but he congratulated the folk and put the document together and he said that the document itself was wonderful and he hoped that all of the plans would come to fruition and he said that the only thing that would stop those plans coming to fruition was the red weevils of bureaucracy unfortunately Tom Johnson's scenario about the red weevils came to pass because many of these things didn't happen many for reasons and I think we have the opportunity here and now to look at the current systems that we use many of which we agree with many of which folk in here today have not agreed with but let's all work together to get as many folk involved in looking at this consultation adding their views and coming up with the best possible final scenario that we can through the planning bill there has been various talks today about infrastructure Ben Macpherson Alec Cole-Hamilton and various others and some things have come to light in recent times which were not really discussed before like the infrastructure for primary healthcare yes that is something that we need to look at in infrastructure terms and Ben Macpherson talked about childcare in his patch and when we look at infrastructure that should also be social infrastructure like ensuring that childcare facilities are there Ben Macpherson also mentioned looking at brownfield sites as part of permitted development for temporary use again that is something that is very well worth exploring George Adam as per usual managed to get in lots of talk about Paisley in the history of that place no surprise there I think that his point about historic buildings but not just historic buildings buildings that are left to waste we have to ensure that we do better in this regard in terms of enforcement we have the opportunity through the consultation and the planning legislation to do that but also the government is committed to looking at reviewing compulsory purchase orders and to explore compulsory sale orders to make sure that we get it right for these types of buildings in these places thank you very much for that I know you've only got three minutes to close I'm just anxious that you would address two points one is that if the government are clearly not going to support any kind of right of appeal for communities how do you seriously think that that imbalance can be redressed and also my point on ministers taking less decisions why are you doing that minister in the final points in terms of getting it right for communities all along is that we need to ensure that community planning and spatial planning are interlinked and community plans should be taking the kind of when it comes to spatial planning and beyond that as has been pointed out by others I want to see more people involved in the system at the very beginning in particular I want to see young folk involved in the system almost always the ones that come up with solutions that some of us haven't thought about and after all what we're planning is their futures and in terms of her questions round about ministers ministerial involvement ministers do still require certain applications to be notified but also you need use powers to recall sparingly there is a natural issue and it's important that we are proportionate in all of that I have to say that in some regards in this job I'm often in a no one position Presiding Officer I realise that I've got 30 seconds left and in that time I would appeal to every single member in this place to get their communities involved in this consultation I'm keen to hear from communities across Scotland and all stakeholders we have a great opportunity with this planning bill but let's ensure that we hear all of the voices of the people of Scotland thank you very much minister that concludes the debate on improving Scotland's planning improving Scotland's places it's now time to move on to the next item of business which is consideration of a legislative consent motion I asked John Swinney to speak to a move motion 3461 on the children and social work bill please thank you the question on this motion will be put at decision time the next item of business is consideration of business motion 3706 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau sitting at revised business programme for next week and ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now no member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I'll now put the question to the chamber the question is that motion number 3706 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick be agreed are we all agreed the motion is therefore agreed there are four questions we put as a result of today's business first question is that amendment 361121 point 1 in the name of Great Britain the first question is that amendment 361121 point 1 in the name of Graham Simpson which seeks to amend motion 3612 in the name of Kevin Stewart on improving Scotland's planning improving Scotland's places be agreed are we all agreed we are all agreed the second question is that amendment 3612.4 in the name of Alec Rowley which seeks to amend motion 3612 in the name of Kevin Stewart and improving Scotland's planning improving Scotland's places be agreed are we all agreed we are not agreed therefore move to vote members should cast their vote now they voted yes 28 no 57 there are 27 abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed the next question is that motion 3612 in the name of Kevin Stewart as amended on improving Scotland's planning improving Scotland's places be agreed are we all agreed we are not agreed there will be a division therefore members should cast their votes now they voted yes 93 no 19 there are no abstentions the motion as amended is therefore agreed come to the fourth question the final question is that motion 3461 in the name of John Swinney on the children and social work will be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed therefore the motion is agreed that concludes today's business department