Official Report 857KB pdf
The next item of business is a ministerial statement by Ivan McKee on Scotland’s planning system—supporting investment and economic growth and delivering quality homes. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:18
Planning is an essential building block for a successful and growing economy. What we build and where we build it creates the right conditions for economic growth and prosperity. When planning is responsive and has appropriate resources and expertise, it can unlock economic potential and leverage in investment—in particular, in housing. Planning is a powerful tool for delivering development, including new homes, in a way that supports our commitments to net zero and nature and builds stronger communities.
The delivery plan that I am publishing today sets out the actions that we will take so that planning can play its full part in addressing the housing emergency. We are accelerating those actions to ensure tangible results in the coming months. We have already reformed Scotland’s planning system to set out a strong vision with clear national planning policies for the future, through national planning framework 4.
One key objective of NPF4 is to support the delivery of quality homes for everybody who needs one. The policy is clear that applications will be supported if they are on sites that have been allocated in local development plans. Development proposals for new homes will be supported if they improve affordability and choice and address identified gaps in provision. Proposals for new homes will be supported where they make provision for affordable homes to meet an identified need. Our national planning policy on housing is permissive and not prescriptive, and that will not change.
However, our policy does not support development at any cost. Some members will be hearing calls for the so-called presumption in favour of sustainable development—a policy that pre-dated NPF4—to be reintroduced. However, that would not speed up delivery. Instead, it would take us back to more conflict and delay and do nothing to incentivise completions.
It is useful to remind anyone who is now calling for such a change from within this Parliament of the extensive engagement and parliamentary scrutiny that resulted in the Parliament adopting NPF4 in January 2023. At that time, members agreed that we needed to monitor the impact of NPF4 on housing delivery. In its annual review earlier this year, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee also agreed that data on that is crucial. That evidence has informed the priorities that I am setting out today.
In recent weeks, I have been working intensively with my ministerial colleagues and stakeholders to identify how the planning system can help to address the housing emergency in Scotland. Those discussions have exposed that planning is not the only or even the most significant reason for the challenges that we are facing in housing. In a report that was published earlier this year, the Competition and Markets Authority identified that, over recent years, on average, 29,000 homes have been given planning permission annually in Scotland. That figure significantly exceeds local authorities’ land supply targets and it is higher than the target of 25,000 homes that industry representatives have been calling for.
We estimate that, across Scotland, more than 164,000 homes have planning permission but have not yet been built. Looking into it further, we see that analysis of house building applications shows that, in the Glasgow and Edinburgh city regions alone, planning permission has been granted for 121,000 homes that have not yet been built. Of those, around 38,000 units have been started but are not complete. The remainder may or may not be programmed by developers for build out. Land has also been allocated in development plans for a further 60,000 homes that are yet to receive planning permission.
The evidence shows that there is, in fact, no shortage of land, including land with planning permission already in place. What we need now is action to turn those permissions into homes. In the coming year, making progress on stalled applications will be our absolute priority.
There is more that we can and must do in planning to unlock more homes. Today, I am announcing clear actions that this Government will take to ensure that planning is front and centre in our efforts to turn this critical situation around. Those actions are around policy, delivery, efficiency and capacity.
First, on policy, we will continue to work with planning authorities to support them to put the new national policies into practice so that many more homes will be given planning permission every year where they are supported by agreed plans. Guidance will support that. We will also actively progress work to bring homes that have been given planning permission forward. Our work to reform compulsory purchase will contribute to that, and we will identify other mechanisms that could stimulate delivery.
Secondly, delivery is critical, too. We need to be crystal clear about the specific issues that are stalling development. My officials are now working with house builders and planning authorities to examine information that is being gathered on stalled sites. That will identify where well-placed interventions can broker solutions, as well as broader challenges. That group will meet for a detailed discussion later this week to look at the evidence and agree actions. While we will continue to respect the lead role that planning authorities play in determining the future development of their areas, over the next 12 months in particular, we will focus our efforts to help them to proactively enable development.
I announce today that we will establish a further planning hub to support housing delivery. Its approach will be informed by evidence and shaped in agreement with key partners from the public and private sectors, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Heads of Planning Scotland, the Improvement Service and house builders. We want the hub to enable more efficient, responsive and timely decisions and delivery. We are also supporting early adopters of masterplan consent areas and ensuring that new local development plans include a pipeline of deliverable housing land.
Thirdly, on efficiency, it will not come as a surprise to members to hear that making processes and systems more efficient is a passion of mine. In the delivery plan, we have taken a structured approach and reviewed the process from end to end to identify issues that are getting in the way of progress and determine where improvements can be made. For some, unfortunately, the planning process can be unpredictable, costly and lengthy. We will do more with planning authorities to improve and streamline procedures. For example, small and medium-sized house builders have raised concerns about planning conditions, so we are working to promote greater consistency in practice.
We know that we can do more to address proportionality. We are actively working to better align consents, streamline validation and provide a better service through processing agreements. That will help to speed up the planning process and complement the work of the national planning improvement champion, who has already been doing excellent work in the area.
In addition, I can announce that we are taking forward work on further permitted development rights, which could, for example, accelerate the change to residential use of properties above shops . We will consider that, and other options to use that powerful tool, which, essentially, removes the need for planning permission.
I can also advise that work to introduce an infrastructure levy will be stopped. Instead, the focus will be on improving guidance on planning agreements under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. I know that that announcement will be welcomed by the industry, and I hope that it recognises that we are listening to its concerns.
Finally, we need to do more to support and increase the capacity of planning authorities. The housing planning hub will be part of that. I have already taken steps to increase planning fees to enable authorities to recoup more of the costs that are associated with planning. Although the presumption against ring fencing means that we will not direct where local authorities invest any increased revenue, I expect them to use that income to support their planning services.
We have also initiated efforts to recruit and train additional planners through a Government graduate programme and by promoting skills and training. To encourage more people to consider a career in planning, I can announce today that, next year, we will treble the number of bursaries that are available to postgraduate planning students.
In addition, we need to improve the capacity of local elected members, who are key to the planning process. Planning Aid Scotland is developing a fuller package of training for local elected members to support that.
The First Minister has made it clear that Scotland is open for business and that growing our economy by increasing investment is a key priority. Enabling more homes to be built will help to fulfil that aim, and the measures that I have set out today will benefit wider developments and projects.
However, house building must also be about home making and giving people good-quality places in which to live. We cannot develop at the expense of Scotland’s natural capital and we must continue to work towards net zero. That is how to create a sustainable economy that harnesses all Scotland’s natural and cultural assets for the benefit of current and future generations. Our policies are now designed to incentivise developers to build out their sites more quickly and to support the provision of affordable homes that meet diverse needs. Those policies and the actions that I have outlined will ensure that homes are built in planned locations that will better meet people’s needs.
Planning has not created the housing emergency, but it can help us to find solutions to the challenges that we face. Everyone who is involved in planning has a role to play in achieving that—including, not least, the Government. Through the national planning policy on housing and the delivery plan that I am publishing today, the Government is taking urgent action to hasten development and to create the homes all across Scotland that people need and deserve.
The minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement; however, it was an admission of defeat. I was hoping for some ground-breaking planning legislation to build more homes, and a plan to fix the challenges that we face right across our housing sector, yet we have been left with another hub and an increase in planning application costs that will deter future housing developments.
The minister has the brass neck to turn up today to say that he needs to be crystal clear about the issues that are stalling development. It is his Government that is standing in the way of building more homes. How does the Government reconcile the aim of delivering more quality homes with the decision to propose rent controls both during and between tenancies, when the minister perfectly understands that that will restrict rental income flexibility and deter vital investment?
The burning question is, if the hub is designed to be the saviour of our planning system, why was it not included in the initial drafting of the Housing (Scotland) Bill? Is it the Government’s last-ditch attempt to save that failing housing legislation?
Wow. In asking us to speed up the process, Meghan Gallacher asks us to bring forward more legislation, which would take years and would not add anything to the legislation that we already have.
She complained about rises in fees, but if she spent any time at all talking to those in the sector, she would understand that the sector is very comfortable with paying more fees, provided that the money goes into increasing capacity in the planning system.
She ridiculed the idea of a hub, but if she spent any time talking to those in the sector, she would know that the first ask is for a hub to be set up to help accelerate planning applications through the system.
Right across the piece, Megan Gallacher is absolutely wide of the mark, and has clearly spent no time at all talking to those in the sector or looking at any of the 23 actions in the delivery plan that was published today, which includes actions to speed up the process and make it more efficient; the master plan consent areas that are in the legislation; the fact that we are accelerating work to treble the number of young people coming through the bursary route into the system; or the many other actions that we are taking.
We are serious about the role that planning can take in tackling the housing emergency, but Megan Gallacher should also recognise that the data published by the Competition and Markets Authority shows that, on average, 29,000 homes a year have been given planning permission during the past few years, which is far in excess of the asks of the sector. That land is there to be built out already, with planning permission.
It seems that the minister has been listening to the sector, to an extent, and there is a lot to be welcomed this afternoon. However, although the minister says that our national planning policy on housing is “permissive, not prescriptive”, which is technically correct, I am not quite sure that that sentiment is shared by house builders.
Based on the statistics that were released yesterday and the actions that were outlined in his statement today, when does the Government expect processing times to start to fall for major applications? The processing time is now more than a year, against a 16-week statutory timeframe.
Planning applications for sites with permission that have not been developed cost developers significant sums of money—money that they cannot borrow for. That money generally comes straight out of their cash flow, so it is not in their interest to sit on those permissions. Will the minister commit to an audit of the approvals and the sites that have been zoned for housing in the system on the basis of deliverability and the time that they have had that approval, so that we can get an accurate understanding of the capacity to build the homes that we so desperately need?
I welcome the member’s recognition that we have been listening to and engaging closely with the sector. The Government stands ready to work with all parties in this place and people across the sector to deliver what we need for Scotland’s planning system, housing needs and wider economy.
I absolutely commit to working to identify stalled sites as a first priority. I have asked for information on stalled sites to be pulled together so that we can understand what is in the 164 homes that have already been given approval. I have also asked for sight of large planning applications that are going through the system across all 34 of our planning authorities, so that we can better focus the resources of the hub on providing a brokerage service to address the priority need to shift the dial on the number of homes that are being given planning permission each year and to speed up processing times, particularly on the larger developments, where processing times make a difference.
I will be honest. That data is held at the local authority level. We are reaching out to local authorities to secure it, so that we have visibility on where best to apply and focus resources to support them. We are also reaching out to Homes for Scotland and others in the sector to ask them to provide information on applications that are stuck in the system, so that we can help to move them forward. As I said, we are very keen to work with all parties to make a big difference.
The minister indicated in his statement that the Scottish Government has already made significant reforms to planning policy. Although Labour down south has also promised significant reform, I will not be alone in feeling that the proposed actions fall short. I hope that the Scottish Government has more ambition. Does the housing sector need further reform to enable more house building? What is the minister planning to do to move that reform forward, and how does that work compare with what is being progressed by the United Kingdom Government?
As I indicated earlier, we are happy to work with anyone who can help us to move the agenda forward.
I am just back from a British-Irish Council meeting last week, where I had close engagement with not only the Northern Irish Government but the Welsh Government, the Government of Ireland and the UK Government’s new housing minister in the House of Lords. We had a very useful conversation about what we can learn from each other. It is interesting to note that we all face the same challenges.
We have had a close look at what the UK Government is proposing, and we are already either doing or working on delivering pretty much everything on its agenda.
The calculation method is interesting. When we use the UK Government’s proposed new calculation method for housing targets against our housing landscape, we find that it delivers a lower number than we already have in place through the housing need and demand assessment and minimum all-tenure housing land requirement system.
The UK Government is taking forward a five-year housing land supply requirement, which is already in place through our local development plans. It talks about a 10 per cent affordable target, and we are already at a 25 per cent affordable target. The UK Government talks about brownfield and community infrastructure activities, which are already in NPF4 policies. It also talks about increasing fees, which we have already taken steps on, and about 300 more planners, which we will more than match on a proportionate basis.
We are working closely with others and learning where we can, but it is interesting to note that we are already delivering on much of what the UK Government is proposing.
The minister’s statement does not address the impact of the Government’s proposed rent controls between tenancies, which is a policy that continues to be of major concern to investors. How does the Scottish Government plan to mitigate the likely decline in housing supplies as a result of those restrictions?
Mr Stewart might not be aware that, today, we are talking about the planning process and how it can help to support house building.
With regard to rent controls, my colleague, the Minister for Housing, has already lodged amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to address those concerns.
As I identified in my statement, we need to address many factors in order to resolve the housing emergency. Planning has a significant role to play, but many other parts of the system are working hard across Government to deliver on other aspects.
Good housing is central to health and wellbeing, but it is difficult in rural areas, such as the Scottish Borders, to have house builders engage in small developments. Some communities might feel that they will be sidestepped in the interests of accelerated house building, and many, as we know, only become engaged in the planning process late in the day.
I welcome reference to Planning Aid Scotland. Frankly, local members should be well aware of its functions, but most of the public are not. What can the Scottish Government do to help communities to engage with Planning Aid?
Planning Aid Scotland is an excellent organisation that I was not aware of until I became planning minister. I have had a number of meetings and events with the organisation over the past months. To give it a plug, Planning Aid Scotland uses the services of current and retired experienced planners to support individuals who are engaging with the planning system. I thoroughly commend the work that it is doing. Communities and individuals who want to avail themselves of those services should reach out and engage with Planning Aid Scotland.
The minister is correct to identify the need to bring on more planners to deliver against those targets. However, he knows that the workforce of planners currently sits at its lowest, with 1,205 town planners working in local authorities. Skills Development Scotland estimates that we need 700 more planners to replace people leaving the workforce and meet demand. The University of Dundee is the sole institution that is training planners, and the bursaries that he mentions fund just 10 planners at present. Can he confirm that his proposals will increase that number only to 30? Will we have more centres to train planners? When will the Government bring forward more detail on the work-based training for planners that is outlined in the action plan?
That is a valid point. One of the things that struck me in my engagement with planning authorities and the planning ecosystem is the demands on planning resource. That is a consequence of a number of factors. As the system has become, rightly, more complicated and we have more challenges to address—such as climate, flooding, biodiversity and the housing emergency—and as other private sector organisations require more planning resource in the housing space, in energy and in many other aspects of the ecosystem, the supply of planners has not kept pace with the demand. That is why we are addressing the issue.
Adding 30 more planners a year to the total is not an insignificant thing to do. That is one element of what we are doing through the bursary scheme, which is the quickest, most cost-effective way to deliver planners—and I am absolutely open to increasing that further if there is capacity in the system. Very soon, we will bring forward information on the proposal for graduate planners to be employed within the Scottish Government as they go through their courses, in parallel with the bursary scheme. That will add a significant number of additional planners into the pipeline, and that will be targeted to start in the next academic year—in 2025.
In parallel with that, we have identified a need to encourage retired planners to come back and perhaps work part-time, and to identify where those who have left the planning profession mid-career can come back into the system. It is also a matter of identifying roles that can be played in the planning system through digitisation, automation or process improvement, or by individuals who are not fully trained planners. In all those aspects, we are taking forward work that we believe will have a cumulative impact on the resource within the planning system.
How will today’s announcements help in areas of rapidly growing populations, for example here in the capital? Will they help to progress the Granton waterfront development, for example, as a strategic site? Can the minister reassure the Parliament that stopping work to introduce an infrastructure levy will not affect the provision of necessary services in those areas of rapidly growing populations, such as general practices, primary schools, secondary schools and road infrastructure?
Those are all very good points. We absolutely recognise the points that the member makes about the infrastructure levy. When we considered the issue, we came to the conclusion that the existing section 75 provisions, which raise far more money than the proposed infrastructure levy would do, represent the most effective way to continue to provide infrastructure.
An infrastructure-first provision is part of the planning process in national planning framework 4, so we absolutely recognise the need for joining up infrastructure provision with housing development. We think that there are other ways to deliver on that more effectively.
On the Granton waterfront, the member will not be surprised to know that, as planning minister, I will not comment on any individual applications. More generally, in Edinburgh and other parts of the country that are experiencing rapid population growth, we will be identifying stalled sites and applications that have been in the system for a considerable period of time, working closely with planning authorities to see what needs to be done to unblock them and move them forward through the brokerage service to be provided by the new planning hub.
I welcome the move to promote the change of use of properties, such as those above shops, to residential use. That measure will support us in creating three homes for the price of one.
Will the planning hubs enlist ecological specialists and provide an opportunity to fund empty homes officers to be deployed where needed?
I am glad that the member welcomes the focus on change of use. She is right that that can provide additional capacity within the system to bring more homes on to the market. We have carefully considered how best the planning hub can deliver on the need to increase significantly the number of houses that are available as they come through the planning system. For that purpose, the work of the hub will be closely focused on those large stalled sites where we see that there is scope to make a difference quickly.
We also absolutely recognise that work needs to be done with small and medium-sized enterprises on smaller sites. We are taking that forward in parallel with other provisions that we have described in the delivery plan that I have outlined today.
The member is right that, in the increasingly complex planning system, there is a need for other professions—and environmental services is absolutely one of those. Flooding experts, biodiversity experts and a whole range of other skill sets are required in the system and in the hub, which will be designed specifically to reach out to experts in adjacent professions to move forward applications in the planning system that are taking longer than they should.
I am very keen that all members who have pressed to put a question have an opportunity to do so. I would be grateful for slightly more concise responses, minister.
Today’s statement made reference to potentially expanding permitted development rights, but in England that has led to inappropriate conversions that have often resulted in the creation of poor housing. How will the minister ensure that such outcomes are avoided here in Scotland?
The member makes a valid point. We recognise the issue. We are open to considering more development rights, but I know that that can be a blunt instrument and that a careful approach is required to avoid unintended consequences, as the member outlines.
We can learn lessons from the experiences in England. We absolutely do not want the experience of homes in industrial areas, overcrowded conversions and poor-quality living accommodation to be replicated here. Instead, our starting point will be to explore how PDRs can help us to deliver town centre living, reuse empty buildings in a sustainable way and support rural communities.
The minister knows that change is essential, following the housing conference that he and I spoke at recently. It seems sensible to progress a more pragmatic way of making the current policy work more effectively, but I am concerned about the availability of usable development land, which is clearly a problem in certain parts of the country. Is the minister prepared to look again at the policy to ensure that sufficient land is available?
It is important to recognise that there is a balance between the need for housing development and the need to ensure that developments are in the right place. Developments should not be on prime agricultural land that is without infrastructure and not adjacent to transport links, or in places that do not meet planning authorities’ local development plans—that is not the direction that we want to take.
I have outlined the numbers. There is already a significant amount of land with planning permission and significantly more land that is in local development plans but has not yet been brought forward for planning permission. We have a lot to go at there.
The member would agree that we do not want to be in a position where land that is being brought forward for planning permission runs counter to our need to maintain good-quality agricultural land or is challenging in terms of biodiversity, climate change, flooding provisions or other very important aspects of NPF4.
There is a need to encourage registered social landlords to build the new properties that are needed and wanted by tenants, including in my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. How will today’s announcement support an acceleration in the provision of social housing, and how will the Scottish Government ensure that registered social landlords buy into the aim to speed up delivery alongside planning authorities and developers?
Clearly, that work happens at a local level. Local authorities are the statutory housing authority, with a responsibility for assessing housing requirements locally and for working with RSLs and others to identify priorities for affordable housing delivery as part of a strategic housing investment plan.
My colleague the Minister for Housing works closely with local authorities and RSLs through Scottish Government area teams to oversee delivery of affordable housing programmes. It is important to recognise that the Scottish Government has a strong track record in housing, through its support for the delivery of more than 133,000 affordable homes since 2007, with more than 94,000 of those being for social rent.
The problem is that council planning departments have been hollowed out for many years. It is a question of funding, but I do not see anything in the statement that addresses that. The minister seems to be pinning his hopes on a rather vague planning hub, but that will work only if it has the ability to deliver. Will it have any powers to do that, and will it have a budget?
It is interesting that Graham Simpson asks about the resources going to planning departments. The member who is sitting next to him was complaining just a minute ago about us increasing fees.
That was not my question.
—and it is important to recognise—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
It is important to recognise that, on average, only approximately 65 per cent of the costs of council planning departments are covered by fees that are collected from planning applicants. We recognise that increasing fees, alongside improving services, will be critical to providing the resources that are required.
The hub itself will have a budget and will focus on unblocking the stalled sites around the country that already have planning permission. In particular, it will focus, as I described, on working through what is preventing applications for sites that are in the planning system from proceeding more rapidly through that system. It will be targeted and focused on working with planning authorities in local councils, which are the statutory providers in delivering that process.
Again, I note that if the member has spent any time at all talking to those in the sector, he will recognise that they have absolutely been calling for the planning hub.
Planning authorities and planning committees in local authorities often have to make decisions on applications on the basis of evidence that has been commissioned by the applicant. That can be particularly problematic in contentious cases that involve, for example, the demolition of listed buildings.
Would it be possible for the minister to look at options to enable planning authorities to commission independent adjudication or advice on things such as structural condition surveys, which can then be billed to the applicant? That would ensure that there is integrity in the planning process and that we do not have people shopping around to get the outcome that they want, which can lead to the unnecessary demolition of our national heritage.
The member makes an important point. Again, that is among the many aspects that have to be considered in the round—in NPF4, there are 33 different policies. National heritage, and the cultural importance of historic buildings, is an important part of considerations.
I think that it is true to say—if I am not mistaken—that planning authorities already have the ability to commission independent advice as required. When applications come to the Scottish Government on appeal through the reporter process, work is done to consider the independent advice that has been brought forward as part of the process in order to ensure that all sides have been considered. Nevertheless, I take on board the member’s point, and it is important that we ensure that our national heritage is considered as part of the process.
In his statement, the minister referred to net zero, nature and building stronger communities, all of which suggests the use of more brownfield sites and fewer greenfield sites. As it is, the minister’s constituency and mine have a number of brownfield sites, and yet we see building going on and on to the extent that, one of these days, Glasgow might even get to Coatbridge.
Can the minister reassure us that brownfield sites will be used even more through this statement?
Absolutely—the member is right to identify net zero, biodiversity, nature and building communities as policies in NPF4, and those need to be considered in the round. There is a presumption in favour of brownfield sites, and I recognise what the member identifies with regard to our constituencies in that respect. That is critical to our focus, and as the hub works through those sites that are stuck in the planning system, or which already have permission but have not been taken forward, I have no doubt that many of those will be on brownfield sites. Work to join up different partners to help unlock those sites will be a key part of what the hub takes forward.
That concludes the ministerial statement.
Previous
Topical Question Time