Hansard

I declare an interest as a serving councillor in South Lanarkshire. Having been a councillor in that area for nearly 10 years now, I have been involved in a number of contentious—and some less controversial—planning wrangles. None of us who have been in public life can have been untouched by the planning system and we will all have our own thoughts on it, as shaped by our own experiences.

My basic view is that, as things stand, the planning system is top down. Planning is done to people, not for them or with them; it rarely makes people happy and councillors are usually keen to run a mile from it. We therefore need to change things. I think that the Scottish Government recognises that, and there is much to be commended in the Government’s proposals that are out for consultation at the moment. As a result, we will support the Government motion.

As time does not permit a detailed examination of “Places, People and Planning”, I will say a little about 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, which is so often a sticking point.

What are the strengths of the consultation document? First, it is good that we have it. It follows on from the independent review of the planning system that was led by Crawford Beveridge and 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 by, for example, removing main issues reports. That makes sense to me. They also recognise the need to involve communities at the start of the process, not when it is too late. However, we must ensure that local people can have a say throughout the process, not just at the start.

Both documents suggest that Government should deal with fewer appeals. That would be a good thing, but the proposal that bigger developments be decided only by officials takes away democratic accountability and should, I believe, be revised. More discussion is required on the matter.

Appeals to Government would still happen. We think that there are issues with locally accountable politicians being overruled. I also suggest that there should be some caution around the idea of community councils being the main vehicles of 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 want to get involved and the council does not 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 the proposals is about where development should take place and not about where it should not. The planning proposals still feel top-down. The approach is about Government setting targets for local government to deliver, and it is not clear at all what would happen if a council were to say no. The independent panel suggested that centralised approach. It is a difficult balance to strike and I suggest that, at the very least, a change of tone is needed.

If the Government wants to set numbers—we understand why it would—it also needs to recognise that achieving its targets might be difficult when set against local needs and aspirations. As Kevin Stewart said, collaboration, not confrontation, should be the aim of the game.

There is little mention in the Government’s paper of protecting what we have and of saving green spaces. There are only two paragraphs where green spaces get a mention. That is a missed opportunity and it should be rectified. That is the point of the amendment in my name, which is lodged as a positive contribution to the process and not a negative one. I hope that Kevin Stewart will take that on board.

Green spaces within communities and green-belt land are as vital to the vibrancy of Scotland as building more homes and infrastructure—all of it is important. We would like local communities to be given the chance to identify for special protection green areas that are of particular importance to them. By designating land as local green space, communities would be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. That approach is one whereby planning is done with communities, not to them.

We also need a greater focus on the green belt. Councils and communities should be encouraged to identify the land that should be protected. Having new 10-year plans 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. The section on land use talks about an ambition to create more woodlands, which will absorb greenhouse gases and create jobs. People enjoy woods. They are great for health and wellbeing. They should be protected in the planning system and not seen as things to be chopped down by developers. In this week’s consensual debate on forestry and woodlands, Gillian Martin made the point that existing woodlands should be protected, and I agree with that.

There is no mention of woodlands in the planning proposals, but there is mention of the central Scotland green network—I represent part of the area that the network covers. However, as far as I am aware, the network has no power to block development or to make compulsory purchase orders, for example to create new country parks. I believe that the planning review should beef up the CSGN.

Overall, we have before us a good set of proposals. We should aim to end up with a system that delivers development—which is something that we need—in the right areas. Everyone in the chamber recognises that Scotland needs more homes. Different parties have come up with different figures on how many are needed, but we all agree on the general thrust. I think that we can achieve consensus as we go through this process.

“Places, people and planning” recognises the challenges. It suggests some ways through those challenges, such as simplified planning zones, which are something that we agree with. It talks about increasing resources for the planning system, and that is long overdue. It suggests enhancing enforcement powers, which is also long overdue, as too many people get away with ignoring the planning system. The paper recognises the difficulties in actually developing land that has planning permission, but it does not suggest that there is an easy answer, because there is not. Finally, it strongly favours city deals and growth deals as ways of delivering prosperity and jobs. Those approaches involve councils working together to bring economic growth not because they have been forced to but because they see the benefits. On that, I know that there is agreement.

The proposals are a good start. If Kevin Stewart wants to work together, we are up for that.

I move amendment S5M-03612.1, to leave out from “which includes” to end and insert:

“and urges the Scottish Government to put greater emphasis on protecting green spaces in its final proposals, noting their importance to the environment, quality of life, health and wellbeing.”