Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is the same with any process. The appellant would take a view on whether they wanted to proceed with the appeal, as they do when they make an application at the beginning of the process, because there are costs associated with that, too. If you are saying that we should not charge any planning fees at all, which is a logical extension of what you are saying, you would find resistance to that. If you are saying that we should not charge any fees at all, because it would encourage more people to bring forward housing development proposals, the problem would be that we would not have a well-resourced planning system. Everyone recognises that underresourcing is a particular challenge that we need to address.

It is important that we separate the cost of running the planning system from the cost of the appeals process, which requires to be funded separately from the taking of decisions as part of the planning process. As I have said, in the planning process, decisions will be based on the information that is in front of the planning authority at various stages of the process. It is important that the process runs on that basis, and that is separate from the issue of the fees that are charged, which, as I said earlier, are to cover the cost of running the process.

That there should be no ring fencing is an important principle. If we were to say, “We’re gonnae tell local authorities how they should spend their money”, I think that the committee would have something to say about that. That is an important point to recognise.

However, we have made it clear that we expect local authorities to use the money that they receive through the planning system—whether from fees for applications or fees for appeals—to resource the planning system. At the moment, councils are having to put extra money into the planning system in order to be able to process the applications and appeals that are in front of them.

The important principle that there should be no ring fencing, which we agreed through the Verity house agreement, is in place, but, as I have said, I would encourage local authorities to utilise the resource that is generated to support the planning system.

It is the same process. The fees that come to the Scottish Government for those appeals are calculated as being sufficient to cover the costs of processing the appeals through the system that the Government has in place.

I do not know the specific local cases that you are referring to, but in general, with regard to resourcing, we have taken significant steps. We have trebled the number of bursaries for planners coming through the system, which the Government is paying for, to help address the resourcing challenge. We have also hired a significant number of apprentice planners into the Government, which, again, the Government is paying for, to support the training of more young—and not-so-young—people who are coming into the system.

I have carried out a significant number of events with young planners to support and encourage them, and to look at routes for others who are mid-career and are seeking to come into the planning system. We have done quite a bit of work on the resourcing piece and on skills.

On best practice, the work that Craig McLaren, the national planning improvement champion, has taken forward is significant. It has involved peer-to-peer reviews across all 34 planning authorities, and the work that has come out of that has helped him objectively identify what best practice looks like and how planning authorities can learn from one another to improve the service that they offer to applicants.

You are absolutely right that having an informed conversation early in the process is better for everybody. It helps applications be of a higher standard, and it allows the applicant to understand what the planning authority is looking for when making its determination.

It is important to recognise that planning appeals cost money, so somebody has to pay for them. The principle in the Scottish public finance manual is that the appellant should pay rather than the taxpayer.

We recognise that we are in a housing emergency. There are also many challenges in relation to the climate emergency, biodiversity and nature, and other challenges arising as a consequence of those. The planning system looks at all of that in the round, and there is a well-structured process. If people feel the need to appeal decisions, it is only right that the appellant, rather than the taxpayer, should carry the cost.

Yes. We do not know how many appeals there will be or their complexity, but, in general, that is the intent.

It is important to recognise that the costs need to be recovered from somewhere. If we do not recover them through this process, they will have to be covered by councils. I think that everybody around the table will agree that councils are in a challenging financial situation, and everyone involved in the planning system and the development of housing will recognise that it is important to get more resource into the system. This is one way of doing that. If we did not raise the money through this route, we would need to raise it through another route, but I think that this is the most effective way—that is, by charging those who seek to make an appeal on that basis. We will be able to get more money into the planning system through that route, rather than through any other route.

No, I do not think that that is the case at all—quite the opposite. What that does is to get more resources into the planning system, which everyone recognises requires extra resources. As I have said, the data shows that, on average, local authorities recover only about two thirds of the cost of running the planning system from fees, so it is important that we address that. A range of measures has been taken, including linking fees with inflation, to support resource going into the planning system, which everyone will tell you is a significant part of the problem.

On the issue of SMEs, I have already addressed that point. If we charged for smaller appeals according to how much it costs the system to process them, the cost of smaller appeals would be higher than it is in the proposals that we are taking forward. We recognise that the fees need to be weighted more heavily against larger developments than against SMEs, and that is embedded in the proposals that we are taking forward.

We monitor the data on the number of appeals, the level of fees and the amount of resources that come into the system on a regular basis, and we will continue to do so. If we found that there were issues, we would look at them.