Seòmar agus comataidhean

Indeed. Point taken.

The data across planning authorities shows that none of them have planning fees that cover the cost of the planning department. The best that the fees generate is about 80-odd per cent of the overall cost; the average is about 67 per cent. Even with the fee increase, there is still a gap between what it costs local authorities to run their planning department and what the fee income generates. Clearly, the economic and other social benefits of the planning system justify the support for it, but that is the reality of where we are at. The steps that we have taken to introduce different planning fees and index-link them has helped provide planning authorities with more resources.

The point about ring fencing is important. The Verity house agreement between the Government, local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has a presumption against ring fencing. We strongly encourage planning authorities to use the fee increases to further invest in their planning functions, but, as a consequence of the Verity house agreement that we have signed up to, we are not in a position to mandate that through ring fencing.

As well as resourcing, the efficiency of the process is an issue. In that regard, the work that the national planning improvement champion is progressing—the peer-to-peer audit work between planning authorities to identify best practice, the digitisation work and the whole series of process improvement activities that are being actively pursued—can deliver more with the same resource.

In the past few months, we have taken a number of quite solid measures to increase the number of people who come into the system, such as trialling a number of funded bursaries. That has triggered others in the industry and elsewhere to come in on the back of that and further invest in bursaries in order to bring more planners into the system. At our own expense, we have brought 18 planners into the Government so that we can train them to go and work in the planning system. I have been heavily involved in other work. In the Government, my team has been leading on encouraging individuals in the early or middle stages of their careers to choose a career in planning, and we have been raising the profile of the career in general. A lot of things are happening to take that work forward.

It is important to recognise that a lot of people who leave planning authorities go to work in industry. We are also having conversations with the industry about how we can work together on that, because it does not do anyone any good if developers cannot get their plans through because they have hired the planner who used to work at the planning authority.

I understand clearly that planning decisions are made at the local level, so it is up to local planning authorities to make those decisions, and NPF4 gives them the framework within which to do that, so, as you are aware, those policies cover everything that should require to be covered. The structure means that there is no hierarchy, so all aspects of NPF4 would be considered in the round in relation to any individual planning decision. There are a number of other factors that affect how planned developments are taken forward or decisions are made not to take them forward.

NPF4 is relatively new, so there has been a settling-in period during which we have had to communicate, through guidance and letters, to provide clarification of different aspects as the framework has settled in. However, the framework provides a very solid foundation for planning decisions at the local level. A number of other factors affect what happens but, together with the guidance that has been issued, we are now in a good place with regard to the effectiveness of the system.

I will ask officials to answer with the specifics of the biodiversity guidance, but, in general, we will issue guidance where we see a need, either because planning authorities come forward with questions or because we think that further clarification is needed. There is an awful lot of guidance out there, so there is also an on-going exercise to streamline it and make it more focused. The comments that we get on the guidance are either that there is too much of it or that there is not enough, so getting the balance right is important. However, as I said, this is a settling-in period in which stakeholders, planning authorities and others can come forward with requests for guidance on specific aspects, and we will then produce that guidance.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “not working”—

Resource is clearly an issue for the planning system, but that is not the blockage that is stopping planning permission from being granted.

We have some analysis on stalled sites. The first cohort of sites were identified by industry as sites where blockages were stopping things from happening. The next steps on that involve working through the 164,000 units to understand the reasons for those blockages. Some of the plots will have longer-term build-out plans, so there are then questions about whether we can accelerate some of those and bring them forward. For some sites, commercial aspects might have changed since planning permission was granted and the development might not make economic sense in the way that it used to. There is a whole series of reasons why building is not happening. Frankly, some applications will have been speculative, but if we are using resources within the planning system to give planning permission to units that will never be built, or that are unlikely to be built, that is a separate question that we need to address.

In terms of stalled sites, 20,000 units were looked at, which we distilled to about 11,000 units over a number of sites. Most of those sites are fairly large, comprising some 2,000 units, and are spread around the country. There are some in Aberdeenshire, Fife, Ayrshire and elsewhere. Understanding what the blockages are is a question of getting people around the table. Some of the issues relate to section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and education provision, some relate to transport, and some are key agency issues. For each specific issue, the planning hub team is pulling together the relevant parties. It is the first time that we have taken the approach of getting parties around the table in order to understand what the specific blockages are on specific sites and who needs to do what for things to move on.

It is work that will never conclude, because there will always be more to look at, but we will be able to give you an update as sites move through that process. There is a limit to how much we will say up front, because some of that information will be commercially sensitive, as it will include financial figures. However, as we get the sites unblocked, I will be happy to share the information.

It is a matter of fact that it is a figure that is a high-level estimate. It has come from adding the numbers from local authorities on what they have in their planning systems that has been given planning permission but has not yet been built out. Clearly, the number is dynamic, which I think is the point that the Statistics Authority is making. It is moving, because more units are being given permission and more units are being built on a weekly basis. I absolutely accept that it is a high-level estimate, but that does not take away from the fact that a significant number of units have permission but have not been built out.

We are always looking for ways to streamline processes. We work closely with Heads of Planning Scotland, the national planning improvement champion and others to do that, and that applies to local development plans as well as the planning system more generally.

I recognise that gate checks are there for a reason, which is to make sure that the plans that come through are robust. It is better to address issues with plans earlier in the process rather than later, when a lot more work could have been put into a plan but evidence is not in place or is missing or there are other reasons why the plan cannot be taken forward to completion.

At the moment, six planning authority plans have passed the gate check, and those plans are being further prepared off the back of that. Another two are at the gate check, and three have been sent back because of insufficient evidence. Work by the planning authorities is on-going to fill the gaps in the evidence.

I will let officials answer on the specifics in relation to authorities but, when there are issues because authorities are not clear or have misinterpreted what is required, it is important that there is a dialogue to resolve that. If we felt that it was worth putting in place guidance, we would do that, too.