³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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?

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.

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.

We are more than happy to engage with stakeholders who wish to engage with us and to consider any proposed changes that come out of that. To the best of my knowledge, no concerns have been expressed to us directly regarding the existing permitted development rights and nothing has come to us through the consultation on the proposals to expand PDR for EV infrastructure. As I said, should there be a need to exempt any particular area of a planning authority from permitted development rights, that can be done through an article 4 direction. Of course, we continue to keep all legislation under review. Should any specific concerns be raised with us about planning provisions, we will take them on board seriously and will engage with them closely. As I said, nothing of that nature has been brought directly to my attention.

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.