Hansard

Thank you, convener. I consider amendment 1 to be unnecessary. Decisions about the location of crematoriums are rightly a matter for the planning system, as are decisions about development adjacent to crematoriums. A statutory minimum distance serves no particular purpose. It is an arbitrary and rigid restriction that will undermine the functioning of the planning system and place unnecessary restrictions on the provision of both crematoriums and housing. The proposed siting and location of a new crematorium is a matter properly dealt with by the planning system. All planning applications are determined on their individual merits in accordance with the local development plan and all material considerations. What may be regarded as a material consideration is a matter for the planning authority concerned, but may include matters such as privacy and decency, preservation of sanctity, tranquillity, traffic and increased footfall—all matters relevant to crematoriums. Location and the individual characteristics of the site and proposal are likely to be key considerations in decision making. None of that will be taken into account by a statutory minimum distance, which will simply be a rigid and arbitrary distance with no particular justification or purpose. Some people have expressed concerns about emissions from crematoriums. Such emissions are monitored and controlled by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and breaches of regulations can result in a crematorium having its operating level reduced or its operating permit revoked. As such, I do not believe that a statutory minimum distance is necessary in response to emissions. The amendment has a number of flaws. While it seeks to control the location of crematoriums and housing in relation to each other, it makes no mention of any other type of development. As such, anything else could be built within the proposed 200m distance. We would look to the planning system to consider whether such development would be appropriate, so that decisions can be taken locally, based on the circumstances of the case. It is right that we trust the planning system in that regard, and we should trust it to make evidence-based decisions about the location of crematoriums. The proposed distance is overly restrictive, creating a greater distance than is set out in the Cremation Act 1902 and removing any option for a householder to consent to the construction of a crematorium, as the 1902 act allows. For comparison, the proposed distance of 200m is roughly equivalent to 20 city buses, or more than 12 times the length of this room. 10:30 I am particularly concerned about the potential impact of the amendment on housing supply and delivery. Although the Cremation Act 1902 seeks to control the location of crematoriums in relation to housing, it says nothing about the construction of housing near an existing crematorium. Amendment 1 would prevent the construction of housing within 200m of a crematorium. As drafted that would apply not only to crematoriums constructed after the bill comes into force, but all current crematoriums, even though many already have housing built close by. That may have a negative impact on housing supply. There is currently considerable pressure on housing supply and the provision of sufficient land to meet housing needs. Amendment 1 would further restrict the availability of land for housing, preventing large amounts of land being used for new or replacement housing for no purpose that cannot already be achieved through the planning system and SEPA. I am also concerned about the potential effect of the amendment on planning authorities, which has not been considered. If amendment 1 is supported, more work will need to be done to assess how it would affect planning authorities. The amendment says nothing about enforcement or penalties. As drafted the amendment relates to the construction of a crematorium or housing. As such, planning permission could still be granted legitimately. It would be the act of constructing the crematorium within 200m of a house or a house within 200m of a crematorium that would constitute a breach. Although the inspector of cremation could be expected to refuse to authorise the operation of a crematorium that was in breach of the distance, there is no clear obstacle to housing being built in breach, or penalty for building such housing. As such, it is difficult to see how the minimum distance would be enforceable. I have been clear that decisions about where crematoriums are built should be made by the planning system, with SEPA having responsibility for monitoring emissions. As such, a statutory minimum distance is unnecessary. There are a number of problematic flaws in the amendment. Nonetheless, I recognise that Mr Wilson’s amendment 1 seeks to address real concerns that have been raised by members of the public. Rather than include a minimum distance in the bill, I will commit the Scottish Government to developing specific guidance for planning authorities to assist in considering planning applications for crematoriums. That could address the kind of issues that planning authorities must take into account when identifying sites and considering planning applications for crematoriums. Guidance could be introduced through the next revision of Scottish planning policy, which sets out national planning policy. That promotes consistency, while allowing sufficient flexibility to reflect local circumstances. That would be the most effective way to ensure that planning authorities consistently consider relevant issues in the context of specific locations when assessing development applications for crematoriums. That approach has been taken to other types of development. For example, the Scottish planning policy advises planning authorities to consider buffer zones between dwellings and some waste management facilities. Similarly, community separation is one factor to be considered when planning for the location of onshore wind farms. Such issues are dealt with well by the planning system, and guidance is an appropriate way to address the issues raised in relation to crematoriums. I want decisions about where crematoriums are sited to be handled sensitively and consistently by the planning system. The approach that I have outlined will achieve that. I have taken the opportunity in the bill to address the issue. In answer to your question, convener, I have consulted with planning colleagues. That is why I have suggested that guidance can be put in future Scottish planning policy. The majority of local authorities, although in favour of a minimum distance, also thought that the decisions about it should remain with the planning authorities and that it should be a planning decision. Risk management has been mentioned, and that is something that is also considered when authorities are considering a planning application, and I think that such a planning application is the best way to address that, with specific planning guidance. I therefore ask Mr Wilson to withdraw amendment 1.