Seòmar agus comataidhean

Ultimately, those decisions will of course be for local authorities to take, just as decisions around planning applications, for example, have to be taken in the context of the existing legislative framework. If it accords with the development plan, it should go ahead unless material circumstances suggest otherwise and vice versa. Ultimately, it is incumbent on local authorities or any public body to take into account the representations that are made, but it is still for them, as the relevant body, to determine the decision that they want to take.

I will make two points in response to that. First, we have sought to provide significant detail through the policy note. Secondly, to specifically address the point that you raised, the way in which street furniture is situated will ultimately be highly site-specific. It will be determined by the local context so, if guidance is deemed to be desirable, it would be better produced by a local authority reflecting the circumstances of its place. I believe that one local authority—Aberdeen City Council—already has guidance.

The opportunity is there for local authorities, with their local place-based knowledge and understanding of particular circumstances, such as the impact that the festival has on Edinburgh, to ensure that suitable advice or guidance is provided, if the local authority deems it appropriate and proportionate. Ultimately, that is a decision for the local authority.

I referred to the 12-week consultation that we ran over the spring and summer of last year.

Do you want to pick up on any further details on the consultation, Tom?

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here to provide clarification on what we are doing around permitted development rights and the use classes order.

As you will be aware, the Government is carrying out a substantial review of permitted development rights as part of its wider planning reform programme. The review is being taken forward on a phased basis, with each phase focusing on new and extended permitted development rights for specific types of development. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 grants planning permission for certain types of development. They are known as “permitted development rights”.

Permitted development rights—PDR—help to provide certainty and save the time and expense associated with applying for planning permission. Phase 2 of the review has focused on new permitted development rights and changes to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 related to electric vehicle charging infrastructure, town centre changes of use and ports.

A 12-week public consultation on proposed changes was carried out between May and August last year. The statutory instrument will bring into force a package of measures stemming from that consultation. The measures it contains will help to support the roll-out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure across Scotland, including modern high-powered chargers; promote the resilience and recovery of Scotland’s centres; and provide greater flexibility to Scotland’s port operators.

I understand that the committee seeks clarification on the provisions that are intended to support our city, town and local centres. In summary, they provide greater flexibility to change the use of certain buildings and place furniture outside specified hospitality premises. Taken together, the changes are intended to meet a number of aims: to make places more vibrant and welcoming by encouraging the use of outdoor spaces and the reuse of vacant shops and other premises; to promote diverse and mixed uses in our centres, helping them to become more responsive to changing circumstances; and to encourage local enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation as well as the establishment of 20-minute neighbourhoods.

The permitted development right that allows hospitality businesses to place furniture on the pavement adjacent to their premises without a planning application will simplify the process by reducing the number of separate consents that need to be sought. At present, placing furniture on a public road requires the consent of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 if it would cause an obstruction. Planning permission might be required if the works are taken to involve development. Local authority licensing may also apply.

Although the new regulations grant planning permission for furniture on pavements, they do not withdraw other controls addressing safety or access issues using roads legislation and local licensing requirements. The new PDR makes it clear that consent from the local council, in its capacity as the roads authority, continues to be required if placing furniture on the road under the PDR would cause an obstruction. Section 59 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 states that the consent of the roads authority is required before anything, such as furniture, is placed on a road if it would cause an obstruction. The definition of “road” includes the pavement. A roads authority can refuse consent or impose conditions if it thinks that an obstruction will have an unacceptable impact on access or safety. Placing something in a road that causes an obstruction without the relevant consent is an offence. Roads authorities have powers to remove obstructions and recover the cost of doing so.

We have been keenly aware, throughout this phase of the programme, of the potential for furniture that is located in the public realm to cause obstruction and adversely impact on accessibility. Public spaces should be as accessible as possible. We recognise that street furniture, if located insensitively, can create difficulties for disabled people. That is why accessibility considerations were explicitly highlighted in the public consultation process and we specifically sought views on those points.

It is important to reiterate that other existing controls will continue to apply. Those controls ensure that authorities can continue to restrict and remove furniture that has an unacceptable impact on safety or access. The measures strike a sensible balance between supporting hospitality, by removing overlapping consenting processes, while retaining proportionate controls over obstructions that block pavements and the public realm.

On that, I conclude. I am happy to take any questions.

I will ask Tom Winter to come in on that in a moment. In general, the amendments are fairly minor and apply to all ports, not just the aforementioned green ports. They are really seeking to bring about parity with the PDR regime that exists in England. I will ask Tom Winter to respond to the detail.

The point that I am making is that, if that is the case, it is because of the PD right that has been in place for nine years. If there is concern, the local authority could seek an article 4 exemption. That would be the means of addressing the issue. We could look beyond that if there was a need to do so, but we have consulted at length and, to our knowledge, have had no specific correspondence on that issue. Nothing came up in the consultation, so we would need to look at the evidence base for the concern. I am conscious that there are other aspects—building standards and product safety—that pertain in this set of circumstances.

I am happy to go away and look at whether there are any issues relating to existing PD rights. The concern here today is with a package of PD rights, of which EV infrastructure is one part. The package does not introduce a new right relating to wall-mounted chargers—as I said, such rights have been in existence for the better part of a decade—but it includes a number of other measures. I am happy to go away and see whether we hold specific information on the number of pieces of EV kit that are mounted on, or are in proximity to, buildings with cladding. If we do, I will write to the committee or ask the relevant minister to do so.

As happens with the current PDR, when situations arise in which there is a view that the amenity of an area might be impacted negatively or there are unintended consequences or, given the nature of an area, the current set of permitted development rights is not appropriate, there are means—with the usual channels in mind—by which members of the public can make representations to their local authority. As I said, the article 4 direction is an opportunity for local authorities, with confirmation from ministers, to restrict or, indeed, remove permitted development rights for a particular area. It is not a case of our legislating for permitted development rights in Parliament and them being set in stone and not able to be changed, other than through a repeal of those rights or by amending instruments. That means is there. That is a reflection of how the planning system operates and how permitted development rights have operated for a number of years.

I accept that PDR can be a bit of a blunt instrument and that there has to be consideration around how they are used—that is why we are taking this methodical, phased approach to them—but one of their advantages is that they can free up capacity in the planning system where routine cases no longer have to go through the planning system. I recognise that the committee will have a keen interest in that, particularly given its interest on the issues around the resourcing of the planning system, which will be absolutely vital for delivering on the ambitions of NPF4 and the preparation of the new-style local development plans that we will see over the next five years.

We always seek to take a balanced, proportionate approach to permitted development rights. That is why we are taking the phased approach and will continue to do so. Later this year, we aim to move forward with the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 provisions for masterplan consent area schemes, which will create other bespoke opportunities to ensure that there are proportionate flexibilities to incentivise the development and redevelopment that we want to see in not only our town centres but a range of settings and which will be essential for realising the ambition behind NPF4.

To reiterate the point that I made earlier, we held a 12-week consultation and there has been an opportunity for engagement throughout the process. To the best of my knowledge, no specific concerns have been raised with us on what is being proposed. I am not aware of any specific concerns being raised with us around the long-established PDR for EV infrastructure.

I am happy to take that issue away and look at it, but it speaks to existing PD rights, which have been in place for the better part of a decade. These regulations primarily focus on existing parking spaces and enhancing capability in that regard, which the industry and the sector have been calling for. In relation to identifying the number of EV charging points that have been installed on, or are in close proximity to, buildings with cladding, I am happy to take that away and ask the relevant ministerial colleague to write to the committee with that specific information, if we hold it.

If the SSI comes into effect, it will do so at the end of this month—I think that we are approaching the end of the 40-day period. We will continue our phased approach to PD rights. We hope to commence phase 3 later in the spring. As part of our pivot to implementation and delivery following the adoption of national planning framework 4, we will have far closer engagement with planning authorities and a range of other stakeholders. The monitoring process for the implementation of NPF4 will capture broader monitoring of the implementation of a number of aspects of planning reform, of which PD rights is just one. I said earlier that we are looking to commence other provisions in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 later this year, including those relating to masterplan consent areas.

There will be continuous close engagement with planning authorities, and that will build on the collaborative approach that got us to the situation in which we were able to command such overwhelming support for NPF4. As that collaborative approach pivots towards implementation, monitoring will be a key part of that. Our delivery programme for NPF4 will be revised after six months and then yearly. We engage with various bodies, we convene or co-convene groups on planning performance and there is the planning, infrastructure and place advisory group, so there are a number of forums in which planning issues can be raised more widely.

More generally, that culture of close engagement and partnership working with our planning authorities will mean that, should any issues arise, they can be brought to our attention at short notice. When problems are identified, we will, of course, seek to remedy them. We will consider whether that can be done through, for example, article 4 directions or by amendments to the 1992 order, but we need to take a proportionate and evidence-based approach, and we will be able to establish an evidence base through that continued engagement.