Seòmar agus comataidhean

As Andy Kinnaird outlined earlier, the reporter has a key role to play in that process. All our expectations would be that the reporter would ensure that the behaviour and conduct that the convener has related from the submissions that the committee has received did not take place and would not be accepted. We want to ensure the greatest opportunity to participate. As has been discussed, the reporter has a role to play in that and in recognising the respective backgrounds and positions that people are coming from in the process.

Do you want to add anything, Andy?

On that specific point, I have articulated how support is provided through PAS and Andy Kinnaird has addressed the role of the reporter. Your points speak to a bigger issue, which is the culture of interaction with the planning system overall. A priority for me is to shift the dial and to move away from conflict towards collaboration. That is about earlier engagement with communities in the planning process.

Earlier this year, we introduced regulations to establish local place plans, which are a mechanism for communities to feed their priorities for their area into their local planning authority as part of the development of the local development plan. We are considering the responses to the consultation on new-style LDPs, which, again, will provide opportunities for greater community involvement and engagement. I recognise that all members are in agreement on that issue. We want to see more engagement in the planning system at an earlier stage for our communities so that the conversation moves from being one of conflict and discussions about what developments people perhaps do not want to see to one about what people want to see for the future.

Therefore, yes, there are specific points to be made about the role of the reporters and support through funding for PAS, but there is also that broader cultural change in the planning system, which we are seeking to take forward with specific actions such as the introduction of local place plans. Do you want to add anything to that, Andy?

Good morning. You will appreciate that matters pertaining to planning in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 sit with me, but for developments over 50MW, as you alluded to, they sit with the Electricity Act 1989, which is a reserved piece of legislation. I will ask Neal Rafferty to come in on whether there are flexibilities within devolved competence to modify that threshold.

That reflects the general reservation of energy in the Scotland Act 1998. The processes that pertain to the consent process in line with that legislation are reserved, too, so we in this Parliament do not have any direct influence over it.

Certainly, convener.

I will make two points. First, I recognise the perceptions of your constituents, Mr Whittle, and their feeling that there is a lack of engagement or consultation in the planning system. I touched on that earlier, and I recognise that need. With the new national planning framework coming forward, and with the rolling out of the provisions in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, we have an opportunity to increase that important engagement with communities.

Earlier this morning, I was giving evidence on town centres and their future. Town centres offer solutions to so many of the big problems that we face around climate change, living local, decarbonising, reducing our carbon emissions and a range of other areas. However, for those solutions to be successful, we need community engagement. People need to feel that they have an opportunity to shape their places. In urban environments, in more rural environments and when applications for energy developments come forward, it is important that communities feel that they have a role in shaping their place. I will not repeat what was discussed earlier, but that is why various measures, such as the reformed PAC process and local place plans, have been introduced—they seek to enhance community engagement and involvement.

My second and broader point is that the planning system is about use of land. That is fundamental. Ownership is not really a part of it; instead, the system is about how we use our land, and it is that way for very good reasons. For example, it is why planning obligations are used; they are quite tightly defined and must relate to an aspect of the development and use of land. It is an established process and, for very good reasons, has been so for quite some time now.

Andy, do you want to say a bit more on that?

I know for a fact that Mr Ewing and I are completely aligned on this. We are undertaking a process where I hope we will not have to ask a UK Government for these particular provisions to be devolved, because we will have the powers in the Parliament and we can have those conversations in full.

I am conscious of my responsibilities as planning minister to ensure that we all have a clear understanding of what the planning system is for in relation to land use and what it is and is not appropriate for the system to ask of developers in terms of planning obligations.

With my community wealth hat on, I recognise the importance of community ownership of, and participation in, renewables. I have seen at first hand examples right across Scotland, whether at a vast, awe-inspiring scale, as in the convener’s constituency, or the impact that a single turbine can have in supporting fragile and remote communities in northern Lewis not only to sustain populations but to grow them and support local economic development.

From a community wealth building perspective I recognise the importance of community energy. Although I realise that, as things stand, that involves voluntary agreements, I am alive to the huge contribution that they can make locally and the role that community energy can play in advancing the community wealth building agenda.

I invite Neal Rafferty to say a bit more on interactions with existing legislation.

As I said in response to Mr Sweeney, I would be happy to update the committee in writing on those matters.

Again, they cannot relate to a general concern about ownership; they must relate to the use of land. It is very important to remember that. I am sure that members understand the reasons why the planning system operates in that way.

The draft NPF4 also contains a clear commitment to onshore wind and recognises that it has an incredibly important role to play in meeting our obligations to reach net zero by 2045 and, indeed, to achieve our reductions by 2030.

Did Seneca not throw himself into a volcano?

I am sure that committee members will understand the Scottish Government’s position on where a whole range of powers should rest. However, I am happy to write to the committee to provide further detailed information on what the Scottish Government’s position on that area has been, historically. Obviously, I am happy to respond to any further correspondence that the committee might send on that issue.