Chamber and committees

Have any local authorities come with specific concerns, for example that they might want housing or something else that they are already aware of?

There has always been a question floating around the committee regarding local place plans. How do we honour them? Would the proposed flexibility allow local place plans to be accepted into an LDP? I know that many communities are working on their plans now, but if a community is slower off the mark, might accepting a local place plan be possible, using an amendment?

The committee will publish a report setting out its recommendations on the instrument in the coming days.

We now turn to consideration of the motion on the second instrument, the Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-14815.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee recommends that the Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Ivan McKee.]

The committee will publish a report setting out its recommendations on the instrument in the coming days.

With regard to the two negative instruments on planning—the Town and Country Planning (Masterplan Consent Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 and the Town and Country Planning (Amendment of National Planning Framework) (Scotland) Regulations 2024—I am minded to reflect on the evidence that we have heard today and bring them back to the committee next week. Are members content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not think that anyone is moved to speak.

One of my concerns is that if a local authority designates an area as an MCA and it does the overarching environmental impact assessment, once the development has been decided on—for example, for housing or roads—we could lose that nuance and miss out something in that overarching area.

This flowchart that I have is the route map.

Are you able to say what kind of reporting package will come with it?

I come back to the commitment to co-design. We talk a lot about ARIOB, but our papers say that the Government

“refers to its commitment to co-design those new schemes and will continue to engage with stakeholders through mechanisms including the ARIOB, wider Agriculture Reform Programme and during the passage of secondary legislation”.

Will you explain to us what the agriculture reform programme is so that we can understand it a bit more? How are you engaging with people through it? Is that what you talked about?

I have a question about having to pass the SSI 40 days before 1 January if we do not pass it today. Would passing it today mean that you could just get on with things? If it were not passed, would you be prevented from doing so? I think that we have until 22 November or something. If we wanted to delay the regulations, take more evidence and get some more understanding, would that halt you? Would it create a barrier and prevent you from moving forward, or would you be able to move forward and get some more systems in place to ensure that things rolled out smoothly on 1 January?

Without rehashing anything that has already been brought up, my understanding is that the SSI is required to continue the SRDP payments, but it has also flagged up and brought to light the issue of the rebasing of LFASS. It has, in fact, provided a great opportunity, because we now see that people are concerned about LFASS.

I understand from reading the policy note that, in relation to the SRDP, you have not provided for reporting to 2030 because the rural support plan is coming in. The policy note says that the reporting requirement

“has not been extended until 2030, as reporting of legacy CAP schemes”—

which are all the things that we are talking about, such as LFASS, the agri-environment climate scheme and the forestry grant scheme—

“is a requirement of Rural Support Plan reporting in the ARC Act.”

Therefore, there is no need to report under the SRDP because the reporting will fit in under the rural support plan. Is the SRDP on a parallel with the rural support plan, or will it get tucked inside it, with reporting continuing in that way?

We definitely need some diagrams as we go forward with the programme.

The rebasing of LFASS was also flagged up. As you pointed out, the route map talks about LFASS continuing until 2026, and then it says that

“Engagement”

will be

“required with farmers and crofters on how this type of support will be delivered from 2027”.

Will you wait until that point to start addressing that or, because of the issue that has been raised, is it time to bring that work a bit further forward in your schedule? It seems like people are concerned about it.