Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, convener and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear in front of you this morning, and thank you for your understanding in allowing that to happen virtually.

I want to take the opportunity to briefly outline the aim and purpose of this Scottish statutory instrument. The order provides a technical update to existing marine planning zones to deliver on principles that are already established under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In 2007, the definition of “development” in the 1997 act was amended to include fish and shellfish farming out to 12 nautical miles. Any proposed marine fish or shellfish farm located between zero and 12 nautical miles requires planning permission from the relevant local planning authority. However, the Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Order 2007 only designated Scotland’s marine planning zones out to 3 nautical miles, primarily as a result of the extent of the powers used at that time to designate marine planning zones.

In practice, that has resulted in a legislative gap, because there is no designated planning authority to which a developer may submit an application for a farm located between 3 and 12 nautical miles. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the ability of fish farming businesses to move further from the coast into more dynamic high-dispersal regions of the marine environment, with developments in technology making farms in that region feasible. Such technology has already allowed businesses to locate farms outside of sheltered lochs into more exposed locations. That type of development has the potential to reduce environmental interactions and to support fish health and welfare in line with the aims of our vision for sustainable aquaculture. There is also interest from the shellfish farming sector in exploring opportunities to site farms further from the coast, including co-location with other marine developments such as renewable energy installations. The planning process for fish and shellfish farming in the zero to 3 nautical miles space is already well understood by businesses, regulators and other stakeholders.

It is, therefore, the intention of the provision to resolve the gap in the planning regulations by extending the marine planning zones out to 12 nautical miles to ensure a consistent approach to the appropriate assessment of any proposed developments within the zero-to-12 nautical miles zone in Scotland. The provision aligns with the Scottish Government’s commitment to improve the aquaculture regulatory system as outlined in our vision for sustainable aquaculture and our programme for government.

To ensure transparency and fairness, we engaged with stakeholders and the wider public in consultation on the proposals to extend marine planning zones out to 12 nautical miles and on illustrative interactive maps that outline the extended zones. Responses were carefully considered and informed the progression of today’s provision.

In closing the legislative gap, we can demonstrate that Scotland supports the sustainable development of salmon farming in Scotland and the important role that it plays in supporting employment, with 2,300 jobs supported directly and more than 10,000 roles in the broader supply chains, many of which are skilled and provide average annual incomes well above national and regional averages. I am confident that the enactment of the provision will provide certainty to businesses and stimulate investment in Scotland while offering reassurance to other stakeholders that the regulatory process is consistent and robust.

I am very happy to answer that question more generally.

Marine planning is a very specific aspect of the planning system, but, in general, we are taking significant steps to put more resources in through the work that we have done on fees. Of course, we cannot ring fence that money at the local authority level. The Scottish Government is also working to increase the number of planners significantly by trebling the number of bursaries it has put in place to support those coming into the planning profession.

Moreover, the Government has, for the first time, recruited a total of 18 apprentice planners, who will be trained through the process, and that will help to increase the number of people who are coming into the profession not just at the early stage of their careers but mid-career. Extensive work is being done to support a number of young planners who are coming through and to encourage others to come into the profession.

That is us unmuted now. Can you hear me?

We consulted on the principle of fees for planning appeals and have taken on board the consultation responses. As I have said, there will of course be people who would be happy not to pay any fees for appeals—they would be delighted not to have to pay any planning fees at all—but that is not the world that we live in. We recognise that it is important to be able to resource the planning system. We recognise that there is a gap, as a result of only about two thirds of the cost of the planning system being covered by fees.

We have taken a number of measures, including the one that we are discussing and others to do with index linking and so on, to ensure that a higher proportion of the cost of the planning system is covered by fees than is the case at the moment. We think that tackling the resourcing issue that planning faces is an important step—of course, there are many others that need to be taken—in ensuring that the planning system is able to support development and tackle the housing emergency.

I am very conscious of that, of the need to build more houses in general and of the role that SME builders can play in specific situations. The bulk of building is done by larger house builders but I recognise the important role that SME builders can play in that area.

It is important to recognise the cost of the appeal—and I mean the cost, not the fees involved. When you make an appeal, the fact is that, regardless of its size, certain things need to be done. Some of the cost will be proportional, depending on the number of units; however, the very process of going through an appeal incurs a significant cost to the public purse, and we think it only right that those costs be carried by the appellant.

When we look at it through that lens, we can see that, with smaller developments—which, by definition, will most likely be built by SME builders—we recover less of the cost then we do for larger developments. So, if we were to implement a system that reflected more accurately the costs of conducting an appeal, the charges for SMEs would, under these proposals, be significantly higher than they currently are.

There is scope for that in specific circumstances. More generally, though, if you are talking about making a refund or fee waiver conditional on the outcome of an appeal, that takes us into a space that is not conducive to what we are trying to do, because it means that the decision on the appeal has a financial implication that could impact the decision-making process. If people want to take forward an appeal, an important principle is that the appellant should, by and large, pay for it. The planning process should run on the basis of the information that is in front of the person making the decision and should not run the risk of that decision being influenced by any financial consideration.

As I have said, at the moment, only about two thirds of the total costs of the planning system are covered by planning fees. We have sought to ensure that the costs of the appeals will be covered by the fees that are charged, but, as I have said, the total costs of the planning system are not covered by fees at the moment.

We consulted on the principle of fees for planning appeals and have taken on board the consultation responses. As I have said, there will of course be people who would be happy not to pay any fees for appeals—they would be delighted not to have to pay any planning fees at all—but that is not the world that we live in. We recognise that it is important to be able to resource the planning system. We recognise that there is a gap, as a result of only about two thirds of the cost of the planning system being covered by fees.

We have taken a number of measures, including the one that we are discussing and others to do with index linking and so on, to ensure that a higher proportion of the cost of the planning system is covered by fees than is the case at the moment. We think that tackling the resourcing issue that planning faces is an important step—of course, there are many others that need to be taken—in ensuring that the planning system is able to support development and tackle the housing emergency.

Across the whole planning system, we recover only about two thirds of the fees from applicants. That is a long-standing issue that we are seeking to address by linking fees with inflation. My officials can speak to the specifics of the consultation.

We consulted on the basis of there being planning fees; clearly, there are people who would not want us to introduce planning fees for appeals, because they would have to pay them. However, we did consult on that basis, we gathered views and we took them into account, and the Government has made proposals that we think are the right ones, given all the factors that have been identified. If somebody is saying that we should not raise the money through that route, they will need to be clear about where else we can raise the money from to cover that fiscal gap. It would have to happen either through councils having to take resource from other budgets or through an increase in planning fees more generally.