Hansard

One of our easiest functions as MSPs is to highlight the challenges and grievances in our constituencies, and that always seems quite easy for the Highlands. It is much harder—and a much greater responsibility—to identify intelligent solutions; and there is 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. I hope that they are not watching this speech.

Planning is but a means to an end, and that end should be high-quality homes and infrastructure and sustainable communities and futures. However, more often than not, the end is frustration and costs—costs, which are often unnecessary, in time, money and labour. The Government’s motion sums that up as

“unnecessary procedures and practices that do not add value”.

I will give members a home-grown example. At the end of last year, Cairngorms National Park Authority finally approved an application for a housing development at the old sawmill site in Rothiemurcus. It had taken five years. The common theme at the final meeting, when planning consent was granted, was why?—why did it take five years of four local young couples and their families jumping through the hoops, forking out the cash and spending their spare time to get planning permission? The greatest irony of all is that it was on a brownfield site. Forty years ago, a commercial sawmill occupied the site and then it was a dump, before nature took over. In the vast majority of conversations and correspondence, there was a general consensus that the situation was, in a word, ridiculous. In the end, though, we have four young couples who are committed to the local community, who will raise their children there and support the local school, and who will work and make an income to plough back into the local community. That is the end that I want to see throughout the Highlands. Planning is but the means—or the obstacle—to that end.

I have said before in the chamber—and I will say again—that, in the Highlands, the price of housing is higher than the Scottish average, while income levels are below the Scottish average. Let me provide some figures. In 2009, the median gross weekly pay for all employees in the Highlands was 91 per cent of the overall Scottish figure. In my constituency, the median house price was 8 per cent higher and increases in house prices in the three years to 2008 were significantly higher than the Scottish average. As I have also said in the past, I believe that that is partly due to concentrated landownership patterns. Today, though, I will go further and argue that, since the 1970s at least, planning law and policy and their application have restricted the development of rural areas. This week, I spoke to a land surveyor who went even further: he said that, in the past 40 years, the now long-held restrictions in local authority policies to planning consent outside designated settlement areas has, almost single-handedly, driven the dramatic increase in property values in the Highlands.

So what is the solution? Don’t get me wrong—I am a country girl who loves the beautiful scenery of the Highlands, and I have the best of it in my constituency. Historically, housing was based on land topography, and the distribution of communities could be widespread—crofting communities often still are.

So what do we need? First, wisdom is required in relation to what and how we build. Building standards need to be adapted to rural areas such as the Highlands. Expert advice is also required. While I have, in the past, strongly disagreed with Scottish Natural Heritage on its verdict on the housing development in Staffin, I recognise its advisory role on Scotland’s natural heritage. In fact, I have been quite impressed with the changes that SNH has made to its engagement with the planning process, to the extent that, since 2014, the number of its responses to planning applications has fallen from more than 1,500 to more than 500; in the same period, its outright objections have halved to five. That is praise where praise is due—though I still hope that the housing development in Staffin gets the go-ahead by those tasked with the responsibility for that.

Lastly, we require a cheaper process, with up-front costings and guidance; smarter use of digital resources—I welcome the comment on that in the Government motion; and an attitude that sees challenges as something to be overcome not beaten by.

All of those are steps in a process that is primarily concerned with listening to all members of the community—and I emphasise all members: those who are vocal and organised and those who are not. It should be a process that allows for objections and fair appeals and does not keep on overruling communities.

Today we are discussing the means, but I want to leave members with the end: rural communities that live and work and learn and play in Highland places that are beautiful, affordable and alive.