Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that the committee agrees with the intent behind this, which is to create an environment that is supportive of our hospitality sector. I note the strong welcome that the proposals have had. However, I recognise that local authorities, on the basis of engagement with their communities, may deem the application of those permitted development rights to a particular area to be incompatible with wider aims and concerns around the wellbeing and amenity of people living in that area. Other mechanisms are there to raise issues retrospectively that can be enforced through our regimes and, as Tom Winter said, for local authorities to decide that the application of PD rights for a particular area is not important, and to seek to amend, restrict or remove the PDR entirely for a particular area through an article 4 order.

I stress that, as we introduce this legislation, local authorities will monitor it, and they will be best placed to make decisions based on the impact. Where issues arise, they will have several means to address them.

I take the point that you are making. I stress that, although it may be the case that the process of obtaining a permit, for example, through the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 provisions, is distinct from what would normally take place through the planning process, it is important to remember that street furniture, for example, would not always constitute development. As things stand, there could be scenarios where street furniture that does not constitute development would not be subject to the planning system. However, I stress and reiterate that there are other consenting regimes and they have to be adhered to. There are existing enforcement powers, and where members of the public think that an obstruction is taking place or that an amenity is being affected by noise and nuisance, there are means for seeking remedy via the local authority and those other regimes. Is there anything that you want to add, Tom?

I am happy to give an undertaking to take that away and to engage with the advisory group and relevant ministerial colleagues on the matter in order to identify whether any issues of concern have not been identified through the consultation. I certainly do not rule out an amending order, but, in the first instance, I would want to establish an evidence base for such an order. I am happy to ensure that we undertake that work and write to the committee with an update. Any further action that emerges, up to and including changes to legislation, can be considered as part of that process.

The reality is that a lot of the various scenarios—for example, tables and chairs being set up—that we associate with permitted development rights are already not captured as development. As such, the appropriate regulatory provisions are found in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. If there are requirements for a permit, local authorities define that permit in various terms—“cafe permit”, “pavement permit” and so on. There is a means through that process for a decision to be made and, indeed, enforcement action to be taken. If issues around accessibility and obstruction are identified, there is a remedy available to the local authority. Of course, local authorities are democratic bodies that are accountable to the people within their authority area. I can give a reassurance that that means exists.

As I have set out, should any issues arise as a consequence of the regulations coming into force, there is a means, through the article 4 provisions, for local authorities, with the approval of ministers, to restrict PD rights in particular areas or to remove PD rights entirely in particular areas. It is not the case that, if a local authority found itself in a situation in which it had seen development take place that would usually require planning permission but planning permission or a planning application was not required because of PD rights, it would have no recourse—it would not be centrally mandated and something that it could not change. Notwithstanding the provisions in the 1984 act, there would be means to seek an article 4 direction, which, with the agreement of ministers, could remedy the situation.

That will be characterised differently in different local authorities. It could be cafe permits, outdoor seating permits and things like that, depending on how different local authorities characterise it. As Tom Winter touched on, there is no statutory requirement for local authorities, as roads authorities, to consult on this particular issue, but they are at liberty to do so. Clearly, where issues impacting on accessibility are identified by members of the public, they can make representations to local authorities through the usual channels. Local authorities are empowered to take action to address those issues should they choose to do so.

If I may interject, we are straying into the territory of equipment standards, and that is in a different sphere from the planning discussion that we are having. We have long-established PDR, now nine years old, for wall-mounted EV charging infrastructure. The majority of the PDR focuses on established parking areas and expanding capacity to reflect increased demand. Clearly, for the installation of chargers on buildings, other factors come into play in the decision-making process, such as ownership of the building. The safety of particular kit is covered by different regulatory regimes. It is important to clarify that.

As I said, under the provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, there is a means for local authorities, as the roads authority, to ensure that the public realm is not being blocked or being made less accessible. They have enforcement powers to ensure that they can take action, where appropriate. If anyone experienced circumstances in which furniture was placed in an insensitive way that impacted on accessibility, they would be able to raise that directly with their local authority, which, through the existing statutory provisions, would be able to take action to ensure that any obstruction was removed.

I touched on the points about concerns around obstructions. It is important to bear in mind that many hospitality establishments will be subject to local licensing requirements. As a former councillor, you will be familiar with the established processes for achieving that. There is an opportunity through direct engagement with a local authority to engage in issues. Clearly, there are other provisions to which every hospitality establishment is subject, around levels of noise, impact on amenity and environmental health. A range of mechanisms are in place. We have overlapping consenting mechanisms. It is also important to recognise that outdoor furniture does not always constitute development for planning purposes. There can be instances where outdoor furniture is not captured by the planning system as it exists. There are other means of addressing any particular concerns that a local community has, whether they be around obstruction or things that perhaps impinge on existing licensing arrangements.

Tom, do you want to add anything?

These matters, obviously, are decisions for the local authority, as the licensing authority, to take, and they will be based upon the specific circumstances there. I have confidence and trust in the local authorities to apply the existing legislative provisions and to do so in a way that is proportionate and takes account of concerns raised by local people.

The important point to remember is that we are seeking to remove overlapping consenting regimes that exist, so this does not impact on roads, as we touched on, or on any existing licensing requirements. Any development at the moment that comes into the scope of licensing issues is not impacted by the change around planning, so these existing provisions would continue as they are.

The important thing to bear in mind is that street furniture does not necessarily constitute development under planning so, as things stand, decisions will not necessarily be taken either by delegated authority to officers or by a planning committee or a local review body within a local authority. It is important to recognise, however, that the views of the community will of course be taken into account by a local authority. Therefore, where issues arise, whether they be around obstruction or the impact on areas pertaining to licensing or environmental health, the existing opportunity to make representations to the local authority, and for the local authority to take action under those separate statutory provisions, which are unaffected by the changes to permitted development rights, will continue.