Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have touched on those actions briefly. One is resource, and the committee has previously discussed the resource that is required. The current resource review is therefore incredibly important. Homes for Scotland is part of that review.

I have mentioned the planning round-table that we had, which Homes for Scotland was involved in. We are having discussions with Heads of Planning Scotland at the moment, which have been productive so far. Another round table is planned on how we look at those issues. That is one part of resource.

The second part is about what the transition from national planning framework 3 to NPF4 will look like, which has been raised in the feedback that we received. It comes back to deliverability and a focus on resource—how we get the plans done in time, which is the focus of the round table that is looking at the transition from NPF3 to NPF4. Joe FitzPatrick and I have joint meetings with Homes for Scotland, and those issues have been raised. The round table was held partly to look at those issues, which the resource review feeds into. Obviously, we need to look at the planning system so that it works as effectively as possible. That work is on-going. I, or Mr Fitzpatrick, will be happy to come back to the committee and report on progress.

You made a point about delivery of new starts. That relates to how we support the SME sector because, as we have seen, it is more vulnerable in some situations—for example, when interest rates or borrowing costs go up. We are having discussions about our support of SMEs through the resource review and how we make sure that we transition from NPF3 to NPF4 and to local development plans.

Again, Homes for Scotland has done work on demand and is having individual discussions with local authorities on local development plans and what the minimum all-tenures housing land requirement—MATHLR—process involves. That all feeds into what we are doing. It is about resources and making sure that the system works as effectively as possible.

I note that I have not been a councillor for 15 years. The larger developments do take longer, but 62 weeks is too long—the resource review has indicated that. There is also a piece of work to be done with Homes for Scotland, for example. It has to be a partnership in terms of the information that is provided at the start of an application. There may be on-going back-and-forth discussions where people say, “We need this”, and it may take time for information to come back. I saw that in relation to applications when I was a councillor.

The review will look at where the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water come in and how those organisations can speed up their processes. They have been part of the discussions on reducing the length of time that applications take. Mr FitzPatrick is probably the best person to speak about the specifics, but I know that there have been discussions with SEPA and Scottish Water, as statutory consultees, about reducing the time that applications take. The time varies in different parts of Scotland, so we need to learn from best practice and reduce the time period for applications. I hope that we will begin to show some progress on that through the resource review and the round tables that we have been having. We have another one planned.

That is an important issue. The discussions that we had with housing associations and local authorities were slightly different from the discussions that we have had with the SFT, SNIB and hubco. Local authorities are represented and are inputting to the broader housing investment task force, but the investment that we are talking about should be an addition or a supplement rather than a replacement.

Discussions on institutional investment have been going on for about nine months. I mentioned that I had discussions with institutional investors in October. I want to be in the same position as other countries in Europe, but I do not have the same ability to go out and borrow money to build houses—it is as simple as that. I therefore need to look at how we flex the system with what we have just now.

I have said it before and I will say it again here: the intention is not to replace the funding but to supplement it. As I have said, the housing to 2040 strategy group has been talking about innovative ways of financing and it sees them as very important, but the devil will be in the detail. Discussions are on-going with SNIB, the SFT and hubco, as well as with local authorities and landlords, on what this sort of thing will look like and what will give them comfort—the discussions are going down to that level of detail.

The use of guarantees might give some reassurance. The discussion cannot be framed in terms of questions such as, “If we get institutional investment, where will rent levels go?” There has to be some balance. Local authorities and RSLs are being included in the discussions with the housing investment task force, and they are inputting to—and are part of—the process. However, this is not about replacing the funding that is there. It is about supplementing it and trying to get more money into the system. As I said, they are fully involved in the on-going discussions, and nothing will be decided with regard to the recommendations that come forward without their input.

I come back to the fact that the housing to 2040 group, which will obviously play a major part in all of this, is being included in the debate, too. Moreover, we have talked about the deliverability review, and the housing investment task force is fully integral to that.

You are right—there has to be a balance. The pre-application consultation process came in a number of years ago, and I think that it is really valued and important. The approach can vary in different parts of the country and with different developers, but it is really important.

I come back to the convener’s point about place plans. With all developments that come forward, the developers should be looking at the place plans that are involved. It is really important that developments are not just thrown in without any cognisance being taken of the place plans. Of course, people have become suspicious and have been asking, “What’s the point of a place plan?” However, a lot of work goes into those plans, and we must ensure that there is a flow from them to the local development plans and that developers who come forward recognise their importance. There has been progress, and that will continue.

That brings me back to the need for a two-way process that involves developers and local authorities to ensure that the information that is sent in is the information that is needed, because that quickens things, and that SEPA, Scottish Water and the other statutory consultees can come back on such matters, too. That is the broader discussion that is needed.

As Pam Gosal said, we need to reduce the time period, but we cannot do so to the detriment of local communities.

Good morning, convener. It is always good to be back in the room with the committee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this important discussion. I thought that it might be helpful to provide a short update on progress on some issues that the committee has been considering lately.

I am delighted that the Housing (Scotland) Bill has now been introduced, as per our commitment in the 2023-24 programme for government. The bill delivers on our new deal for tenants and represents a package of measures that will help to improve affordability through implementing a national system of rent controls alongside a range of other rented sector reforms. Together, those measures represent a robust package of additional rights and protections for tenants that will improve their experience of renting a home.

In addition, we are determined to tackle the negative and sometimes devastating effects on people’s lives of living with damp and mould. Although any instance of damp or mould is a cause for concern, I am heartened to see analysis of the latest Scottish house condition survey data, which we have shared with the committee. That shows that there has been no significant increase in the levels of condensation or mould across all tenures. However, we have noted a small increase in homes recorded as suffering from rising or penetrating damp. Those increased from 3 to 4 per cent between 2019 and 2022. That is why it was so important that urgent action was taken in the early part of this year.

The Scottish Housing Regulator, along with other stakeholders in the housing sector, responded to that issue through the publication of new guidance for the social sector. We also published updated statutory guidance on the repairing standard that covers the private rented sector. We will continue to consider what is necessary to tackle that scourge as we take forward work on cross-tenure standards. We are committed to tackling disrepair and driving a culture in which good maintenance is always given a high priority.

In response to the committee’s letter of 15 March, I provided, on 9 April, an update on the engagement with Aberdeen City Council on its rehoming programme due to there being reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in its homes. We are continuing the work of our cross-sector working group on RAAC to understand the extent of RAAC in our housing stock, and we are engaging with landlords who have identified the presence of RAAC. We will keep in close contact with the Scottish Housing Regulator and local authorities that have taken the difficult decision to decant residents from their homes, and we will ensure that we understand the impacts of the long-term remediation plans, particularly on the home owners involved.

More broadly, I welcome the work that the committee has undertaken to carry out a review of the housing to 2040 strategy, and I look forward to seeing the report of its findings in due course. I have followed with interest the work so far through the committee’s evidence sessions, and I am pleased to note that stakeholders and members of the housing to 2040 strategic board generally appear to still agree with the strategy’s overall vision and aims. However, I appreciate and understand the concerns that have been raised concerning the challenging environment that the housing sector and local authorities face and the impact that that is having on delivery.

It is important to note that, when we published “Housing to 2040” in March 2021, we were in the depths of the Covid-19 pandemic, which was swiftly followed by the cost crisis and the fuel crisis, as well as the negative impact of Brexit on the construction supply chain, labour shortages and record-high inflationary pressures. That has been further compounded by a nearly 9 per cent real-terms fall in our United Kingdom capital funding for 2023 to 2028.

Of course, the Government cannot deliver the ambitions in “Housing to 2040” alone. We look forward to continuing our work with the housing to 2040 strategic board and the sector more widely to tackle the short-term challenges and maintain the longer-term path to delivering the strategies, aims and visions.

I hope that the committee has found this short update helpful.

Again, to come back to the issue of cladding—I am sure that this will come up next week—discussions are continuing with developers about the single building assessment process and how we take that issue forward. On that issue, I think that a number of amendments to the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill are being lodged by Mark Griffin and Miles Briggs and I imagine that there will be others. I think that discussions are continuing with developers on that. As the bill progresses and discussions go beyond it, that matter will be brought up and discussed. However, it is really important to speak to developers about that. There are on-going discussions about the SBA process, which we will touch on in more detail next week, I am sure. However, again, the issue that you mentioned could be considered as we get more into the depths of what the developers say on how we can work with them collaboratively. That is a really important point—that we work in partnership with them on that.

Not as yet, but we hope that we will get some kind of report, as I said, post the summer recess. We have had an indication that there will be an update in the autumn, so that could be between September and November.

With regard to local government, I have tried to get round to as many local authorities as I possibly can—I have about three to go, and then I will have been round all of them. The issue that comes up first and foremost is what they should prioritise. We are having discussions around the retrofitting agenda, and local authorities have prepared their local heat and energy efficiency strategies. What happens beyond that is the deliverability, which is due towards the end of this year. The green heat finance task force is looking broadly at how that work is financed—it is looking at local authorities and registered social landlords, and how those can be funded.

We are also talking about investment in new stock, and where that fits in. The repairing standard applies in that regard. One element of that is that local authorities should always, in preparing their budgets, be engaging on, and looking at, how that aspect fits in. For local authorities, the role is very different. The green heat and retrofitting agenda, and how authorities invest in that, or invest in new stock, is an on-going discussion, and there will be different solutions for different local authorities. They will prioritise what they need to in that regard. It is up to each local authority what it chooses to do around that point.

Having had 15 years of experience in local authorities, I know that that discussion came up every year. One would hope that a local authority would seek to ensure that priorities are updated every year. There was a maintenance backlog after Covid, on which local authorities are starting to catch up. Again, however, that is a decision for each local authority, and we are working with them on that.

On things such as damp and mould, for example—which you mentioned, convener—the Scottish Housing Regulator has a role, and there are discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and ALACHO on that. Again, it depends on each local authority, and we are working with them on that. We have been working a wee bit with ALACHO on that point to ensure that it is picked up.

There is a broader issue with adaptations, which fits into the broader agenda. Each local authority probably knows more than anybody else about that in respect of their specific area, so we are working with local authorities individually and ensuring that local teams are working with them on that. However, it ultimately comes down to each local authority making its own decision on investment in retrofitting, for example.

The role for national Government is to work with local authorities in terms of funding for adaptations and so on, and we are working closely with the Scottish Housing Regulator, ALACHO and COSLA on the themes that emerge.

I will come back to that question in a second. The first point is that we are working with the Scottish Housing Regulator on identifying properties that are affected, through both local authorities and housing associations. We are still working with the regulator on that, and it is doing the engagement.

On the specific issues that have been picked up, we go back to the impact of the incident down south, when we started to look at the issues through the RAAC oversight group.

To come back to the housing point, a number of local authorities have been in touch. Clackmannanshire Council was identified as having a small number of properties. Aberdeen City Council is in a similar position, with a slightly larger number of properties. I have met Clackmannanshire on a number of occasions, and I have also met Aberdeen. Both local authorities are going through an options appraisal at the moment, which is important. They have looked at some of the houses that are impacted by RAAC, some of which may be repairable and some of which may not, so a broader overview is being undertaken by Clackmannanshire and Aberdeen. We continue to engage with them, and when they come back with their options appraisals, we will sit down with them and discuss them in more detail. So, there have been discussions and I am happy to pick up with you in relation to the issues that you mentioned in Midlothian.

Aberdeen and Clackmannanshire have been impacted the most by the issue, so we have had a number of meetings and we continue to work with them. The options appraisal is a really important part of it, and there is detailed work going on in both local authorities on what they need to do to move that forward. The complexity is that some properties are privately owned and some are owned by the local authority. We continue to engage with both Aberdeen and Clackmannanshire and with other local authorities, and the broader RAAC oversight group is looking at the issue.

It is very much an on-going discussion, but there have not been any requirements for funding. In relation to the asks, we have worked very closely with Clackmannanshire and Aberdeen on some of the more detailed work that they need to do on the properties.

It is an on-going situation, particularly for those two local authorities. Aberdeen, for example, has indicated that its work will take six months from around March or April, so it is talking about reporting in late summer. We continue to engage regularly with both local authorities and we will see what specific demands come out of the overall work that they are doing just now.

In Aberdeen, it is more individual houses that are involved. The fact that RAAC has been identified does not mean that it cannot be remediated—the condition surveys that are carried out on the properties will identify that. Part of the options appraisal is to ask whether a property can be remediated or whether other options are available. That work is being done in Aberdeen, and there is liaison with the Scottish Government and building control colleagues. When the options appraisal comes forward, it will identify what the council needs to do.

The identification of RAAC does not mean that it cannot be repaired. The key element is what the costs are for local authority and private residents.