Hansard

I, too, congratulate Bill Bowman on his maiden speech,

Edinburgh is one of the UK’s economic hotspots. As a result of that, the city’s population has grown from 447,000 in 2002 to 499,000 in 2015—an 11 per cent increase over that period. In recent years, population growth has accelerated and the city now attracts just over 100 new residents every week. The results are lack of affordable homes, private rents increasing faster than inflation and pressure on the green belt as developers submit speculative plans for arable land around Edinburgh. Much of that speculation is taking place because the local development plan is overdue. Although I agree that LDPs should have a life of 10 years as opposed to five, we need to ensure that delays do not occur in future years when the LDP is being updated and refreshed.

Regarding the availability of land for housing, we cannot continue to push Edinburgh’s boundaries, because in doing so we will destroy the very reasons that make Edinburgh an attractive place in which to live and work. We must find ways to encourage developers to build more homes that are easy to commute from into Edinburgh—and not by car, because the road network in the west of the city grinds to a halt at peak times, but by taking advantage of on-going improvements in the railway infrastructure.

There also has to be a way to encourage use of brownfield sites first, whether they are urban gap sites, areas that are zoned for a purpose but not yet developed, or areas that are being held for land banking and speculation. The “Scottish Derelict and Vacant Land Survey” highlighted that Edinburgh has 82 sites totalling 183 hectares, with constrained sites in the city being able to provide more than 7,000 new homes, if they were to become available.

I welcome the suggestion that there should be a new local levy, but is not it time to consider introducing a general land tax on development land and vacant and derelict land in order to reduce land banking and increase the supply of land for homes?

The City of Edinburgh Council has worked successfully with neighbouring councils to meet the increasing housing demand. However, as the Royal Town Planning Institute for Scotland asks in its briefing, if the requirement for strategic development plans is removed from the planning process, how will the Government ensure that local authorities work together to decide where national housing needs will be met?

The consultation on Scotland’s planning system needs to address the concerns of local communities. Community councils have a formal role in the planning process and are consulted on development plans, on pre-application consultations and when a planning application has been submitted, but they have little or no funding to assist them to carry out that duty. The Scottish Government is considering increasing

“planning fees to ensure the planning service is better resourced”.

Can some of that additional revenue be given to community councils so that they are better resourced? That additional funding would support communities

“to create their own ‘local place plans’ and for these plans to be used as a framework for development within local development plans.”

That would help to ensure that all communities have the resources to produce a full plan, which should become a statutory part of the local development plan.

I also welcome the proposal to discourage repeat applications. In the communities that I represent, from Balerno to Winton, house builders have appealed all the way to the Scottish Government reporter and had their plans thrown out, yet what seems to be only a few months later, communities have been back considering similar plans for the same site. In order to put a stop to repeat applications, the communities that I represent need three things. The first is an escalation in planning fees, for anything other than minor developments, for subsequent proposals, regardless of the developer or house builder. Secondly, all points that have been made in previous rejections must be addressed regardless of the company or person who makes the new application. Thirdly, if an application for a site has been to appeal and has been rejected by the reporter, there should be a moratorium to provide respite for the community for up to 10 years.

Another area of interest is the opportunity to make improvements to section 75 obligations that are connected to planning permission applications. They can include financial contributions to schools, roads, transport and affordable housing. We rightly ask developers to contribute to school extensions because of the impact of their developments. As Alex Rowley asked, why do we not ask for contributions to primary health care, given that new developments have a similar impact on those local services?

Regarding a third-party right of appeal, it cannot be right that a developer can appeal a refused decision but a community cannot appeal a granted decision. I realise that the Government wants to remove bureaucracy. As Andy Wightman said, Planning Aid for Scotland says in its briefing that many successful European countries do not operate an appeal process at all—that is, there is no right of appeal for any party. It suggests that that would encourage us to get things right at the start, which would lead to discussion and debate about the kind of places that we need and want.

The consultation states:

“People are at the heart of our proposals for reform. Everyone should have an opportunity to get involved in planning.”

As the minister said in his opening speech, we should encourage everyone to take part in the consultation before it closes on 4 April.