Hansard

I will attempt to respond to the debate and then set out all the caveats about challenges to the amendment and our coming back at stage 3. Those are legitimate points to make, but they are not the substance of the argument that I will make in relation to the amendments.First, there is an issue about housing policy. Parliament has taken seriously housing policy and its significance for Scotland's development. As a former convener of the Communities Committee, I know that it has dealt with a great deal of housing and homelessness legislation.Significant investment is being made—it is not the case that political decisions were not taken to invest in housing. We have chosen to invest in housing, but we should not assume that the money will always be there, because it follows and tracks political decisions. Our decision to invest in housing shows our commitment to it.There are issues with the challenge of creating mixed communities, which is why our homelessness policy has to be considered in the context of our broader housing policy. In implementing our homelessness policy, we still want to have mixed communities; the guidance is clear that local authorities are able to provide for that.Jackie Baillie is absolutely right that homelessness policy is not just about bricks and mortar. To assess investment in homelessness only by looking at the budget line on what we are spending on housing is to misunderstand the problem. I do not want us to end up being unable to direct money towards supporting people who, even if they got a tenancy, would not be able to sustain it, because our doing so was somehow not investing in homelessness.There is close monitoring of our homelessness policy and I am always alive to the issues as they emerge locally. Such issues emerge in different ways in different communities. That is why we have addressed the issue of affordable housing and introduced the homestake initiative, which is important.Tricia Marwick talked about people being forced to buy. We also have to acknowledge the increased number of people who choose to buy and see their housing as an investment. That has consequences for the way in which people view the housing market.Scott Barrie said that he did not want ghetto areas to be established. I argue that it is not so much ghettos of affordable housing but a different kind of ghetto that we do not want in strong communities. The view that the only people who should live in a particular area are those who can afford a house above a certain amount creates a different kind of ghetto, which does not create social cohesion.On tackling homelessness, investment and our work on regenerating areas, someone said on the radio this morning that, as a result of investment from the public purse and private sector, people are choosing to live in areas they would not have considered previously and that the houses there are more affordable. The problem is that such houses become unaffordable, because of the drivers in the hotspots to which John Home Robertson referred.Our commitment on community ownership has been to regenerate communities. Instead of people wanting to move out of an area because living there is intolerable, we should have safe communities, in which the problems that put people on to waiting lists have been solved. Those comments are intended to put into context the challenges that exist. I do not underestimate in any way the strength of feeling in the committee on the issue of affordable housing, which must be addressed.Amendment 121 would require that where an area of land or a building has been designated for affordable housing, a proposal to use that land or building for any other purpose would constitute development and would therefore require planning permission. The amendment also specifies that in this context, affordable housing means"housing of reasonable quality that is affordable to people on modest incomes."John Home Robertson will be delighted to hear—and probably knows already—that that is the broad definition that is set out in Scottish planning policy 3, "Planning for Housing". For that reason, I do not think that the argument of technical deficiency necessarily applies.I acknowledge the concerns that exist regarding the lack of affordable housing in parts of Scotland, not least in East Lothian. Those concerns have been forcefully highlighted by John Home Robertson. I also recognise the desire to find an effective and practical way to prevent suitable land from being used for other purposes. Last year we published planning advice note 74, on planning and affordable housing, which outlines ways in which the planning system can support the delivery of affordable housing. A number of planning authorities, including East Lothian Council, have responded positively to the advice, but there is a time lag between the creation of a supportive national and local framework and the construction of affordable homes. John Home Robertson has highlighted that issue. From discussions that he has had over the summer with my officials and with members and officials in East Lothian, I know that he recognises the problem. When he lured me to Dunbar—where some really good work is being done—to see an example of how a town centre can be regenerated, he did not miss the opportunity to raise the issue again.Malcolm Chisholm takes the issue of affordable housing extremely seriously. As the Minister for Communities, he has established a working group to consider options for accelerating the delivery of affordable housing. The group has met once and another meeting is planned. I am sure that some practical ways forward will come out of its work.The introduction of a separate use class for affordable housing has been identified as one potential way forward. We have commissioned independent research into that and I will ensure that its results are made available to the committee. We are very willing to consider the way forward in the light of the research findings. Should there be a clear case for the introduction of a separate use class for affordable housing, that could be introduced, following consultation, through secondary legislation rather than through the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. I therefore ask John Home Robertson to withdraw amendment 121. I reiterate to Tricia Marwick that Malcolm Chisholm and I are open to introducing measures that will work. Any such measures must be tested for workability. For that reason, I urge members not to support the amendment.Amendment 162, in the name of Donald Gorrie, requires that where a property that has been in use as a permanent home is changed to use as a temporary residence, that should be regarded as constituting a material change of use that requires planning permission. I seek clarification of the point from Donald Gorrie, but I understand that if someone was not living in their home for 26 weeks and had to seek planning permission to change it to a temporary residence, the planning authority would have to take account of its affordable housing policy and could refuse that change of use. If it did, where would that leave the person who was living in the house for fewer than 26 weeks of the year? I am not sure where the amendment would take us. It specifies that use as a temporary place of residence would be defined as its being in occupation for less than 26 weeks a year. Examples of people who are not in their home for 26 weeks a year but whose residence could still reasonably be defined as their permanent home have already been highlighted.Amendment 162 also requires that where permission is sought to change the use of a property from permanent occupation to temporary occupation, the planning authority's decision should take account of whether any shortage of affordable housing provision in the local area would be aggravated by the change of use of the property. As I have said, I take seriously the issue of affordable housing provision in Scotland, including the specific issues that are faced by rural areas, where I presume the amendment would have most effect. The issue of second homes and holiday lets and their impact on provision of affordable housing is not straightforward. The income that such temporary accommodation brings in can be vital to the sustainability of many permanent rural communities that are dependent on the tourism industry.The provision of powers to local authorities to vary the rate of council tax on second homes provides a valuable additional source of revenue to support the affordable housing supply. There are some fundamental practical difficulties with defining a property by how long it is occupied and by whom, including families that have a long term connection to an area. At a time when we are seeking to streamline and simplify the planning system, I am not convinced that the monitoring and enforcement that would be required by amendment 162 in relation to permanent and temporary occupation could be achieved effectively. We do not consider that amendment 162 will make material net improvement to the planning system or to the provision of affordable housing. I therefore ask the committee to reject it. Amendment 188 would allow planning authorities to refuse even to consider an application for more than 25 residences, where the proportion of residences that were designated for affordable housing fell below a target that was specified by the planning authority. The key issue for planning authorities is whether a proposal complies with the development plan. Planning advice note 74 advises planning authorities to set a target for the percentage of affordable housing within residential developments in an adopted policy, preferably the statutory development plan. Such a policy should then be applied consistently to relevant planning applications. It would be a material consideration in determination on a planning application, as opposed to being a reason why an application would not even get to the stage of being considered. In short, this is a matter of compliance with the development plan that should be considered in the course of determination on a planning application. It should not be used as a ground for refusing even to consider an application. I urge the committee to reject amendment 188. I recognise the challenges of our housing policy and all the demands upon it, and I am more than happy to give assurances that we will work further on the suggestions that have been flagged up in the committee and through the affordable housing working group, and that we will address the issues that have been highlighted by John Home Robertson and others.