Seòmar agus comataidhean

Derek Thomson, the one thing that I am hanging on to is that you have said that the final closure has not been signed off yet. That gives everybody some kind of chance. From what I have heard from colleagues around the table this morning, it doesnae appear that anybody has made a business case for Scarborough that you could look at, scrutinise, compare and so on and so forth. However, is there time for you, with the help of the UK Government and the Scottish Government, to put a business case together for retaining what we can in Scotland?

Robert Deavy, you spoke about proposed chassis production in Falkirk and things like that, so you are putting pieces together that might ultimately be part of a business case to retain production in Scotland. Do you feel that you have the opportunity to prepare that business case? Have the two Governments given you an indication that they are listening?

Good morning. I will continue the convener’s line of questioning on how community groups can have a formal role in this. First, I acknowledge the fantastic work that is already going on in North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire and other places, which a number of the committee members have seen. Some really good stuff is going on. However, it is not the bill that will make the community wealth building approach succeed; that will be driven by the dynamic between community groups and officials in an authority—we have seen evidence of that already. Will the bill amplify that dynamic across Scotland? It is not happening across Scotland yet—we know that—but we hope that that is what the bill will achieve.

Do you recognise that what makes things tick is the good work that goes on locally with the organisations that the convener talked about, driven by really good, committed officials?

The local people who we spoke to were at pains to emphasise that they value having a participative role at the outset, rather than having officials coming along and telling them, “This is what we’re going to do to you.” People very much want to have the sense that they are in a partnership, and to feel as though they are driving the process. I think that people were saying that that is the key to success.

That leads me to the convener’s question about formalising that role in the bill. It is one of the shortest bills that I have read. It has only 12 pages, and it is really nice, but although it talks about giving “due regard”, there is no formal connection to require engagement with the public in shaping the plans to begin with. I wonder whether a balancing act is needed to ensure that the public have a role in defining what the plans look like.

Is there a place for local place planning, which we discussed yesterday at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee in reviewing the national planning framework process and the development of local development plans? As you know, local communities will come up with and devise local place plans. Is there a connection between that process and the process in the bill?

Thank you for that, but I do not quite see how that helps the situation. A number of constituents have come forward and said that, because of what has happened, they cannot sell their house. Only a year ago, their house was not deemed to be liable to flood risk, but it now is. They are living in really expensive homes that they cannot sell because of the change. How does the Government plan to get them out of that situation?

I will have to leave that one and follow up on it with the minister, convener.

On a more positive note, the planning hub idea was broadly well received at previous committee sessions and had quite a lot of support. I will give you an opportunity to remind the committee of the principle that is behind the planning hub. What ideas do you have for its staffing, budget, resources and so on, and what will its specific role be in supporting planning development?

The number of local consultees could be quite large. I am thinking about community groups. They can help to shape such plans, but involving them would require quite wide-ranging and extensive consultation. I would certainly welcome it, but is that part of the vision?

Well, it clearly has to lie with somebody—perhaps SEPA. The question that people are asking me is, “Why should SEPA suddenly designate my home as being at risk of flooding, when I bought it on the strength of it not being at risk of flooding a year ago?” Why are we allowing that situation to develop?

Good morning. I want to jump back to the issue of flooding for a moment. As you know, minister, I have written to the Government about the issue of SEPA’s revised flood risk assessments designating adjacent housing developments—where people are already living—as being at risk of flooding. The clear and obvious problem that local people have with that is that they cannot sell their houses, or are having difficulty doing so, because of the revised flood risk assessment.

My question for the Government and the chief planner is this: how do we plan to resolve that? I have read Fiona Simpson’s letter, but I cannot quite see how it addresses the particular issue of adjacent housing developments being affected by SEPA’s revised flood risk assessment.

Our friends the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland were talking about masterplan consent areas, which is a scheme that has come up at the committee several times. The idea is to reduce the administrative burden on planning authorities, speed up planning decisions and so on. You were a bit less enthusiastic about that idea. What is the Government’s view on the purpose behind masterplan consent areas? Who would be involved in such a scheme and how would local authorities work with it?