Hansard

On that basis, there is a lot of room to work together.

I was disappointed when I saw the minister’s motion, because the important starting point for us is to recognise where we are. Within weeks of the commission that Alex Neil put in place reporting, the first thing that the Government did was to rule out the equal right of appeal. Gil Paterson asked about the balance between developers and communities. Many communities and people who have experienced the planning process do not feel that there is equality between the two groups at this stage.

I hope that, over the coming period, we can tease out what rights communities will have. In Inverkeithing, for example, a green-belt development was recently approved not by the local authority, which refused it—that is the democratic process—but by the reporter, who overruled the council. We see far too much of that happening in many communities. We need more than warm words to empower communities.

The other reason why it is right to amend the motion is that we need to recognise the pressure that planning officials are under. The motion talks about the

“digital transformation of the planning service”.

The minister should look at the Fife planning system. From the moment that a planning application has been made, it can be tracked. If a person registers, the council will inform them of every step in the process. A lot of advances are being made. However, planning services across Scotland are under massive pressure.

The Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland has said:

“Between 2010 and 2015, around 20% of posts were lost from planning departments in Scotland. On average only 0.63% of local authority budgets were used directly for planning functions. Currently 63% of the costs of processing a planning application are recovered by the fee charged.”

As the consultation says, we need to look at whether we should go further to recoup those costs. However, one of the biggest pressures—this makes it slower for planning authorities to deal with applications—is that budgets have been cut year in, year out and, consequently, the number of planners has gone down. However, it is not just about the numbers, because the expertise in the planning system is also lost. We need to address that, not gloss over it. That is why I lodged the amendment and why I do not support the motion.

I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities regarding the planning review and raised the concern about the equal right of appeal. In that letter, I highlighted the point that few people would disagree with the Government’s intention of strengthening the planning system to ensure that it better serves communities throughout Scotland. I also highlighted community planning to her. We need to tease that out and think about how we can better join it up because it is one way that local communities can have a far greater say by setting out their priorities. We need to think about how that happens.

On resources going into communities where major developments are taking place, it is important that we do not consider only physical resources, as important as they are. I refer to the concerns that the Royal College of General Practitioners expressed about general practitioners’ surgeries. The RCGP’s chairman, Dr Miles Mack, said:

“Any attempts to tackle Scotland’s insufficient housing supply must consider the impact upon local general practices, many of which are struggling to survive while serving the size of communities they are already responsible for.”

The key point is that we must engage communities so that, when housing developments take place, we ensure not only that the infrastructure—the surgeries, hospitals and schools—is in place but that the services can be provided. Community planning can deliver a lot of that.

As Graham Simpson and the minister said, there is a lot in the consultation paper. Although we do not support the motion, we support the review that is taking place and urge ministers and every MSP to take the issue into communities and get the discussion going so that we can build a better planning system that can deliver the infrastructure, housing and jobs that we need in partnership with communities rather than to communities.

I move amendment S5M-03612.4, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“believes that the central purpose of the planning system is to regulate the use of land in the public interest; values transparency, efficiency and openness in all aspects of the system and welcomes steps to improve the experience of all interested parties, including applicants, developers and communities; notes the publication of Places, people and planning – a consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system, which includes steps being taken to ensure that the planning system plays a proactive and positive role in attracting investment and creating great places and homes in which to live in Scotland; believes that the operation of the statutory planning system has been undermined by cuts to local government; recognises concerns about the barriers facing individuals and communities to fully engage in the planning process, despite a shift towards frontloading, and notes their limited rights to challenge decisions, and believes that reforming the system is an opportunity to put communities and people at the heart of decision-making and that the proposed planning bill presents an opportunity to help tackle inequality and improve public health.”