Hansard

As a former member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I know that there was a perception that the committee might not have had enough time to pay sufficient attention to the issue of planning, given the weight of its legislative work and its other responsibilities. I expect that the successor committee will devote more attention to planning issues, because considerable work undoubtedly needs to be carried out on the system in Scotland. As we are in the process of considering how to take forward that agenda, it is perhaps particularly appropriate to have this dialogue here and now.I have been asked to discuss in some detail the proposed national planning framework for Scotland, which needs to be considered in the context of a wide-ranging modernisation of the planning system in Scotland. The key components of that modernisation are a review of strategic planning, improving participation and raising standards of design. All those are laudable objectives, but it is important that we take them forward in a sensible, considered and consultative way.The Executive has proposed that there should be a national planning framework. In our view, the process of drawing up that framework must be inclusive and must involve the key institutions so that we can try to take account of their aspirations for the Scotland that we all want to see. I emphasise that the national planning framework is not about the Executive making decisions that are more appropriately made by councils. As an old local government hand, I am fairly clear about where the boundaries between the Executive's responsibilities and councils' responsibilities should be.We need to have a genuinely national framework that begins to address the choices that lie before us not only about Scotland's economic development, but about social issues and the built environment. Planning brings together all those different strands. If we can get an appropriate national planning framework, it will guide and influence the decisions and, we hope, make them more rational and systematic than they perhaps were in the past.I hope that beginning the preparation of a national planning framework will send out a positive message about what we want to do. We need to look forwards, but we must also take on board some of the good lessons that can be learned from south of the border and from other countries. We can then begin to identify best practice and build it into the way in which planning decisions are made in Scotland. The framework is emphatically not about short-term fixes; we need a longer-term strategy for planning in Scotland.We need to identify the issues that are crucial to Scotland's long-term development and consider what kinds of planning arrangements and what kinds of infrastructure stemming from planning need to be put in place to meet those challenges. As I have emphasised, I see the national planning framework as an attempt to make the process of decision making more rational and more systematic than has hitherto been the case. Establishing a stronger planning framework will undoubtedly help us in developing a more systematic method of approaching, for example, infrastructure decisions or decisions about the balance of development between different kinds of use. Nobody benefits if we have ill-defined structures and proceed by a process of unco-ordinated incrementalism, as has perhaps been the case with some decisions in the past. At the same time, we do not want a rigid blueprint for Scotland that is set down at a particular point in time and then becomes a constraint on development.The framework that we establish must be flexible, but it must also be coherent. By establishing a reasonable framework in the broadest terms, we allow local authorities, developers, public bodies and others who need to make development proposals to work within the context of rules that everyone knows and understands.As part of the process, we need to achieve a better understanding of the current state of Scotland's development and infrastructure, the factors that drive change and the policy levers that are genuinely open to us. There may be differences of view among different agencies and different strands in the equation. There may even be some differences in approach between political parties. However, it is important that we do what we can to analyse the evidence to enable us to reach a shared understanding of what the issues are and how they might be taken forward.Some of the proposals are likely to be controversial. I would not expect to achieve uniform agreement across the board to everything that the Executive proposes. A lot of the planning system relates to legislation that has been in existence for a considerable period. Therefore, if we are to move the planning agenda forward, I expect significant discussion and debate between different points of view and different structural and statutory interests. It is important that, in charting the way ahead, we listen to different views and perspectives and try to include as many of them as possible.One key strand of what we want to achieve is greater public involvement in the planning system and in decision making. However, that involvement has to be meaningful. It cannot be partial and for show; we have to make the process genuine. We also have to recognise—those of us who have been involved in difficult planning decisions will be aware of this—that some views on planning issues are irreconcilable and that it is not possible to get everybody to agree about the rights or wrongs of a particular process. In such circumstances, planning decisions have to be taken in the context of the wider public good. The issue is how we arrive at those decisions and how we involve people in a genuine and meaningful way, while recognising that decisions have to be made and that those decisions will not all be unanimous.The framework will involve hard choices, as will the decisions that have to be made in the context of it. There may well be circumstances in which everybody is on board and we can achieve a win-win outcome, but undoubtedly there will be instances where some people feel themselves to be beneficiaries of a planning decision or framework while other people feel that their interests have not been adequately addressed. Being realistic about that, we have to try to make everybody think that the process of arriving at the planning framework and the application of the framework is as transparent and fair as possible.If we can establish a clear structure to advance planning and planning decision making, we can perhaps cut out some of the resentment that people feel about procedural issues, such as the way in which planning decisions are made. We must try to remove the frustration that key agencies—whether they be business, environmental or other interests—feel about the system, especially if they think that the system does not work for them. If there are to be real differences of view, let them be differences of view about the substance of the issue at stake, rather than about the procedures. That is what we want to achieve.Inevitably, if we get the national planning framework right, it will set out a vision for Scotland as a place and begin to colour in how different parts of Scotland or different interests in Scotland can achieve their objectives. It is important that we make progress systematically. We should emphasise the deliverability of what we want to achieve. There is no point in having grand plans that are undeliverable in resource terms or unrealistic in terms of the balance of interests. We need to achieve the best that we can achieve, taking into account all the relevant factors and different issues involved.We also want to speed up the process of development and change in the best sense, so that the time scales that are involved in reaching decisions and establishing frameworks are cut, at least in terms of the unnecessary bureaucratic elements. As far as possible, we want to ensure that decisions on planning applications or on streams of planning applications are right first time. The more transparent and realistic we can make the front end of the planning system, the more we will cut out the prospect of lengthy and tortuous appeals which, ultimately, are symptoms of failure. That is what we want to do.Some people have questioned the inclusion of planning in the social justice portfolio and argue that it should belong in another portfolio. From my perspective—I have been a minister for only two and a half months—there is considerable value in having planning within the framework of social justice, because that enables social justice considerations to be taken into account from the earliest stages of the planning process and it makes us think of the overall balance of what we want to achieve. Planning in a social justice context is perhaps less driven by the special interests of the economy or the transport providers. It is about needing a social conscience from day one. The inclusion of planning in the social justice context has acted as a spur to the planning officials; they have to think about how they fit into the social justice agenda. It also gives pause for thought about how we can make the planning system more responsive to the needs of minority groups and interests and perhaps more responsive in the broader framework of accessibility with which we want to proceed. For example, I have just signed off some guidelines in which I have tried to influence the provision of facilities for walkers and cyclists. I suspect that, in an economically driven agenda, that would be less likely to have happened. However, there are senses in which, in a social justice perspective, what is in one's mind influences how one makes planning decisions. Planning is already important and will become increasingly so in the work of the Scottish Executive. From whatever perspective, if we are to make a better Scotland, how we plan that, how we gather the different elements of our vision, how we make decisions and how those are carried forward will all be crucial to our success. We will embark on a systematic review of the planning process, looking at issues such as increasing public involvement and how decisions are made, as well as establishing the proposed national planning framework. That is an important signal of intent. Whatever happens on 1 May, I anticipate that the committee's successor will end up dealing with those issues systematically and comprehensively over the next two or three years.I do not know whether committee members want to ask me questions immediately or to hear Jim Mackinnon's presentation first.