Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are you in a position to say whether there are any plans, through the assessment of that decision, to review policy 16(f) of NPF4, even as an interim measure, given that the data that the pipeline has been assessed against is out of date? Until the new local development plans and the research that backs them up come into force, are there plans to review policy 16(f) in the interim—if there are any early signs that the ruling is choking off development?

What progress has been made on the delivery of the 18 national developments? I know that it is still early on, but do you have any concerns that the delivery of any of them might be off track?

Finally, will this be a bigger issue as we move from five-year to 10-year LDP cycles? An almost nine-year-old document that includes sites that have not come forward during that period now has no safety release mechanism. Will that cause a bigger problem?

Good morning. To kick off, the Miller Homes Ltd v Scottish ministers case decision came through on Friday. Do members of the panel have an indication of whether that decision means that NPF4 and the planning system is working as we would have expected? Does the decision throw up any issues related to how developments will get approval between the introductions of different local development plans? I will go to Craig McLaren first.

I come back to Kevin Murphy to expand on the industry’s response to the decision in the Miller Homes Ltd v Scottish Ministers case on 3 May. How do you understand the impact of that decision on approvals on viable sites over the next few years, until we see LDPs being drafted and implemented?

Previously, when we were getting towards the end of an LDP cycle, if a developer could prove that some of the allocations within an LDP were not viable, and that the figures that the local authority wanted to achieve would not be made under that LDP as it reached the end of the cycle, there was a mechanism that allowed a developer to say that there had not been effective land supply. Does the ruling on Friday in effect stop that happening?

I will follow up on Willie Coffey’s question on the best use of existing homes. Every member of the panel has talked about the proliferation of second or holiday homes. The Government has looked at one side of the tax equation—increasing council tax for those who own second homes—but should it also look at the other side of the tax equation, which is when that holiday home is being purchased? An additional dwelling supplement is in place, which means that people who are buying a rental property or other things must pay a supplement on the land and buildings transaction tax. Given the particular issues that you are raising, should there be a specific category of the additional dwelling supplement for holiday homes or second homes? Would that affect behaviour change, particularly in rural settings?

As the convener has said, we have already touched on the Government’s affordable housing supply programme. The Government’s long-term target is to build an additional 110,000 homes by 2032—and I note that, this year’s budget aside, it has said that it still plans to hit that target—but I am more interested in the 11,000 rural homes target. Does the panel think that that target is still feasible? If not, what needs to change to make it happen? Perhaps I can go from left to right, starting with Ronnie MacRae.

My amendments in the group are probing amendments to get more detail, as per what we heard at stage 1 about what a single building assessment would look like and other content around that. However, I have discussed the matter with the minister in advance and I welcome continuing into stage 3 on the design of the single building assessment.

Amendment 46 will provide a starting point for discussions, based on the report that the SBA should produce, highlighting the products that are used in the context of a ban. By mandating that that data be made available, Parliament would be able to scrutinise the process and ensure that the Scottish context in the PAS—publicly available specification—is not used to allow combustible materials to remain in situ on buildings that are over 11m high. The amendment would require the Scottish single building assessment to include information on the type of products that are present and their Euroclass ratings.

Through amendment 53, the bill would focus on the key concept of a single building assessment, as outlined in the explanatory notes. With so much of the process hanging on that key concept, it is essential that all parties that will be impacted by it have full clarity at the outset about what a Scottish single building assessment is, its specification, what it looks like and what standards it is assessing. None of that detail is provided in the bill but it is important detail that we should define. We should give people—residents and developers—more clarity about the details that should be contained in the SBA.

I will.