Hansard

Good morning. Amendment 145 aims to increase from two years to 10 years the time period that local authorities would have to deal with multiple similar applications for the same development. It also aims to ensure that the local authority has the discretion to decline to determine a second application within a 10-year period if it is deemed to be similar. As the minister has already highlighted, section 39 of the 1997 act means that even if planning authorities have refused a planning application, they are usually obliged to deal with a second application for the same development, whether it is submitted a few months or a few years later. Planning authorities are unable to decline to determine the second application unless ministers have refused permission for development within the past two years. The current “more than one” stipulation allows developers an opportunity to submit a second application within 12 months of their original application being refused. The local authority is obliged to deal with that second application. It is only when a third application is submitted that local authorities can decline to determine it. That inability to decline to determine the second application is often referred to by community groups as a “free go” for the developer. Amendment 145 will give the planning authority the power to decline to determine the second application if it considers that appropriate. I note the minister’s comments on that, but I still wish to pursue the proposal in order to provide, from the perspective of communities, a more balanced approach. The need for such an approach is even more pertinent when we consider that, at present, depending on the timing of the two previous applications, the planning authority may decline to determine a third application. If a third application is submitted more than two years after the original application was refused, the planning authority has to deal with it, and the process starts again. For communities, that leads to a war of attrition in some cases. If the timescale in section 39 of the 1997 act remains two years, there will be the potential for the three-year application cycle to start every couple of years. Amendment 145, in my name, would extend the timescale to 10 years. I note that the minister has recognised the burden that the current timescale places on communities and that amendment 257 proposes an increase from two to five years, but I do not think that five years is long enough. I note the minister’s comments about human rights. In my view, there is a human rights aspect for communities as well as for developers, and that needs to be considered. In addition, I think that I am correct in saying that amendment 257 does not address the developer’s opportunity to have a free go within 12 months by submitting a similar application. By increasing the restriction on similar applications and changing the timescale from two years to 10, and by giving the local authority more scope to decline to determine applications, we would prevent local authorities and communities from being constantly worn down by repeat applications. In my area, a developer who was first refused planning permission in 2009 subsequently submitted two further applications for the same site and has recently appealed in relation to a third application. The community has experienced nearly 10 years of relentless pursuit of the site. I have experience of the issue as a community activist, too, because for seven years I was involved in fighting applications for inappropriate opencast activity. The current process prevents communities from moving on when there is the threat that previously rejected unsuitable proposals will return. The uncertainty that the current situation creates can affect investment in the area. Consideration must also be given to the money that planning departments must spend on reviewing subsequent applications. Over the years, I have raised the issue with the Scottish Government a number of times. In 2015 I met Alex Neil in an attempt to address the frequency issue, but I am sad to say that there was no appetite to change the timescale at that stage. I hope that we can make the change in the bill; I recognise that the minister has moved on the issue since our discussions before the summer recess. In its stage 1 report on the bill, the committee noted, in relation to local development plans: “we are content with the proposals to move to a 10 year cycle”, the aim of which is “to provide for greater connection between the LDP and local outcome improvement plans which should provide for a more coherent vision for communities.” If the time period in relation to repeat applications reflected the local development plan cycle and local authorities were given the power to decline to determine a second application for a similar development, we would help to secure that long-term vision for Scotland. In the context of my attempt to restrict the occurrence of repeat applications, with amendment 145 amending the timescale, amendment 146 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on what constitutes a “significant change” in a planning application. There is currently no statutory definition of “significant change”, as the minister said in his remarks on amendment 257. It is at the planning authority’s discretion to ascertain whether an application is similar to a previous one. I note the minister’s comments about the courts, but I think that guidance would provide for consistent and confident decision making on the part of planning authorities. Guidance would also inform developers about the level of change that would be expected before a subsequent application could be considered. Amendment 147 is part of my package of amendments to address serial applications, which includes amendments 145 and 146. We must look at fees and the cost of submitting a similar application. I propose that if a developer makes a further application in the 10-year period that is proposed in amendment 145, and the application is found to be similar to the previous application, the planning authority should have the discretion to apply an appropriately significant fee. If amendment 147 is agreed to, I suggest—in parenthesis—that it might be better to consider imposing a fine, given that the aim of the proposed approach is to remove the incentive to lodge a similar application to one that has been declined or is still under review.