Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is us unmuted now. Can you hear me?

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.

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.

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.