³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

They should take place as part of that. Again, when I had a discussion with the City of Edinburgh Council, we discussed what period of time we were talking about, and Edinburgh’s own interpretation of the scheme and how that worked.

To go back to the local position as against the national position, Glasgow City Council obviously feels that it is in a particular position. I am happy to discuss that individual position with Glasgow, although it has not been raised with me specifically. I am happy to pick that up.

I will bring in Jessica Niven to see whether she is aware of the point that you make, but it has not been raised with me. Nevertheless, that may be Glasgow’s interpretation. Jessica, do you have anything else to add on that? Are you aware of that point?

That comes back to the financing of some of the schemes. I come from a background of working for the Bank of Scotland for 20 years and I know that, when someone is trying to finance a project, the certainty that a bank has around planning and licensing risks is important in, first, whether the financing is available at all, and, secondly, how that financing is priced. The ability to have a provisional licence gives more security to an applicant and to the bank that the applicant is going to get a licence, which means that the applicant is more likely to get the funding and that the funding will be priced at a less risky point—it might be 4 per cent over base instead of 6 per cent over base.

The provision comes from feedback that we got from applicants who want to come into the sector and have concerns about how they will know that they are doing everything right at any particular stage, so that the application goes through the process and they end up with a full licence. The provisional licence helps with the process. It makes it cheaper and easier for people to get into short-term letting. As I said, the provision is based on feedback that we received, and my banking background enables me to understand where applicants are coming from on that point.

There are a number of points to make in that respect. Again, it comes back to those really important discussions that we have had with SOLAR. There have been lots of discussions with that organisation prior to today; lots of discussions are on-going; and there will be lots of discussions with it beyond this. I will bring in Jess Niven to talk about the operational discussions that have gone on, but I have certainly had meetings with SOLAR on this matter, and if any clarity is required or if any issues arise with regard to outstanding applications, we will obviously continue to work with the local authorities on that. However, we are continuing to have discussions on the matter. Jess, do you want to add anything about the almost day-to-day operational discussions that go on with local authorities?

Thanks, Andy. I suppose that it comes back to local authorities having flexibility on that. I understand why some stakeholders have raised the point, but it is important that local authorities have that flexibility. We have already met the ASSC to speak about those specific points, and Ivan McKee, who is recently in post, and I will meet the ASSC again to discuss this and any other specific issues that it might have.

There were a number of issues. This takes me back to when I was on the committee and we discussed those. It was about trying to bed in what was already in place at that point. That has been the key thing for me during the process and from speaking to the ASSC, the STA and others. Obviously, this is the first point at which we could do that.

I will again bring in Jess Niven, who has been involved in the process, which goes right the way back to 2019.

Covid made an impact in 2019, which continued to 2021, 2022 and 2023. There was a bit of flexibility within the sector, with people coming into and out of it. The issue was highlighted then—and I will bring in Jess Niven to discuss that point. From our interactions with stakeholders, I thought that we needed to act on the issue relatively quickly, hence why we took the opportunity.

Jess Niven has been involved in the process for a lot longer than me, and she was involved in the original discussions.

There will always be an element of interchangeability, with people coming into the sector and people moving out of it. We want to make that process as easy as possible. Stakeholders have told us that we should make it easier. That came from evidence that we received when I was a committee member, but also outwith that. The point was raised by stakeholders such as the STA and the ASSC. Again, that was the main point that was raised through engagement with stakeholders.

There are a number of things to consider. One takes us back to the general principle. Was the scheme to be a national scheme or a local scheme? It was established that it would be best for it to be a local scheme, for a number of reasons. Edinburgh, the Highlands and East Lothian, for instance, are all different areas, and the level of interpretation within local authorities is really important.

There are a wide range of short-term let units. Coming from a local government background, I am aware that there are various licensing schemes, for taxis, alcohol and other things. The idea was to recognise the variances that could exist within the short-term let sector and to allow for local interpretation. There will be variances in what local authorities think and in relation to the local authority’s outlook on certain types of accommodation among short-term lets. The key thing is to be as flexible as possible within that.

We spoke with SOLAR representatives on a regular basis—to people who are themselves engaging with and licensing people. They are engaged not just in short-term lets licensing but in licensing more broadly, too. We have tried to listen to them regarding their approach, and we will continue to listen to them. I know that there are different interpretations of the guidelines and policies; it can come down to individual authorities, as you will see within planning broadly, and in alcohol licensing, for example. It is about recognising that individual local authorities will have their own input and their own outlook, which I think is really important, while understanding the variances in the types of accommodation. It is a matter of being as flexible as possible. However, we want to deliver on the overarching safety aspect behind why the scheme was brought in without having a detrimental effect on tourism, so that people can come to Scotland and have faith that the accommodation that they are staying in is safe and suitable for them.

I do not know if Jess Niven wants to add anything, but the overriding principle is to encourage flexibility.

Conversions have not been picked up as an issue, while new-builds in particular have been. I am happy to pick up that particular point, and we will continue to monitor the on-going feedback. Again, we have not had that fed back from local authorities on a large number of occasions, either—feedback tends to be on the new-builds—but I am happy to pick up on that point.

Yes. That is one of the key issues. It comes back to the point that I made about our meeting SOLAR. I can get anecdotal feedback on what local authorities are saying, but it is really important to hear that directly, and I will continue to meet SOLAR, as my officials will, on that particular point.

I think that you are right. The example of yurts has been given. There could be two different sites for a project that has 30 or 40 yurts, and we might need two groups of 20 yurts in different places. In such cases, there could be slightly different interpretations of how the licence works. We are working with individual local authorities to try to give them that guidance.

I will bring Jess Niven in to go into the detail of the discussions that officials have been having with individual local authorities that have raised the issue, but you are right. There are impacts in relation to the paperwork that is involved—if there is one application for all the yurts, for example. There is also the cost element, because the cost has to be proportionate.

I am not sure that I quite understand your question. I would dispute your interpretation of the provision. My officials and I have gone out of our way to speak to individual groups. As I said, I have met the ASSC on a dozen occasions, although we might not have agreed on everything, and I have also had a number of meetings with the STA, SOLAR and so on, and have listened to their views.

Maybe I am being silly, but I am having difficulty understanding the climate change aspect of what we are looking at. Can you clarify that?