Meeting of the Parliament 26 January 2017
By “development by increment”, I mean unintelligent housing development such as I have referred to, in which things are just thrown up on pieces of land that become available at a point in time when developers are hungry to prosecute development.
With regard to the Brighouse Park development in Cramond, for example, the Cramond campus had lain fallow but held the promise of a new sports pavilion and playing fields. However, the developer felt that that was no longer a cash-viable business proposition, so it has pulled out, against its section 75 obligations.
The point about first-time buyers is particularly important in Edinburgh because of the deteriorating housing stock that we have in flatted developments, which are the most common properties for first-time buyers to occupy. I am sure that many members will have met, as I have, the Property Managers Association Scotland, which paints a terrifying picture of the extent of housing dilapidation.
Where have we come to in all this? I think that the Scottish Government has got something right in that it is looking at use of planning gain and section 75 orders. On matters such as dilapidation, we should compel developers, as a condition of their taking on a new project, to replace a certain number of dilapidated roofs on existing tenement buildings, for example, or to build infrastructure of roads, health centres and so on. I was gratified that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport wrote to me after one of our exchanges in the chamber about the infrastructure issue, which I have raised many times. She said in her letter:
“I agree with you that we need appropriate Primary Care infrastructure in new housing developments”.
I very much welcome the Government’s direction of travel—especially the infrastructure-first approach of the independent planning review committee. The Liberal Democrats will work closely with the Scottish Government on that and related issues—in particular, on shifting the power of final decision making in planning away from Scottish ministers and back to local government, except where perverse decisions are taken. The motion is very much a start towards that end, and the amendments add something to it, so we will support the motion and the amendments at decision time.
16:17