Chamber and committees

I see your point that, at present, hutting takes place mostly on private land, but there is an incredible opportunity to have hutting happen on public land; that is why the trial is taking place. My amendment is about creating more opportunities, and possibly making it easier in some ways, for people to access that land. In addition, we have to acknowledge that there is quite a lot of public land surrounding communities that could become available to people.

Thank you, convener—it is good to be here. I apologise to colleagues that I was not able to be at the previous meeting because I was convening the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

Informal buildings, or huts, are important for a number of reasons. They provide a base for outdoor activity; enable the development of better understanding of our natural environment; encourage the development of new skills; provide a platform for the creation of cohesive communities; and contribute to sustainable rural development.

No Government-endorsed model lease currently exists for public bodies that are seeking to create plots of land for hutting. A lease has been trialled at Carnock in south-west Fife to enable a group of hutters to build 12 huts on the national forest estate. Amendment 380 would require ministers to publish a model lease for similar hutting developments that could be used by public bodies in other areas of the country. That would support further public access to land and outdoor recreation, which—I believe—we all understand is badly needed in Scotland.

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2025 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I remind all members and witnesses to ensure that their devices are on silent.

The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to take item 4 in private. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item on our agenda is an evidence-taking session as part of our annual review of the operation of the fourth national planning framework. We are joined in the room for this item by: Pamela Clifford, chair, Heads of Planning Scotland, otherwise known as HOPS; and Dr Caroline Brown, director of Scotland and Ireland, Royal Town Planning Institute. Online, we are joined by: Clare Symonds, chair, Planning Democracy; and Neil Sutherland, founding director, MAKAR Ltd. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting.

We have about 90 minutes for this discussion. Before I turn to questions, I want to acknowledge that planners across Scotland are doing the best that they can in changing circumstances. I want to put that on record, because while we are scrutinising and talking about challenging situations, I want to recognise the workers who are doing such important work for us.

I will start with an overarching question, which I will throw to you first, Caroline. Is there evidence that NPF4 is helping to deliver developments that actually support the six spatial priorities, such as compact urban growth and rural revitalisation, and, if not, why might that be the case? It is not a small question.

Thank you. Throughout the morning, we will be asking questions that will probably tease out some more of those issues.

Okay. There is something to recommend there, I think.

I will come back to Clare Symonds. In its evidence, Planning Democracy highlighted concerns about an overreliance on planning conditions to deliver biodiversity goals and argued that conditions are often not complied with and that enforcement action is relatively rare. Do you have a sense that conditions are flouted? If so, what needs to happen to increase compliance with planning conditions?

I will bring in Clare Symonds but, before I do, I need to say that we must all become a bit more succinct, as we are about halfway through our questions but more than halfway through our time. The evidence has all been very important, which is why I have allowed that to happen, but I give everyone notice that we might roll past 11 o’clock.

Both Clare Symonds and Neil Sutherland would like to come in online. Neil, it looks like you are up on screen.

Neil Sutherland, I have a question on 20-minute neighbourhood policies. Concern has been expressed that rigid interpretation of NPF4 policies is stifling development, particularly with the application of 20-minute neighbourhood policies to remote rural developments. I remember that, when 20-minute neighbourhoods were named in the first draft, the minister took on board the point that they would not be relevant to rural communities, so I am surprised that there are concerns in that regard. The language changed to “sustainable communities” or something like that, and it was not being said rigidly that rural communities had to be 20-minute neighbourhoods. Do you have any awareness of how that is filtering down to people on the ground?

We have two negative Scottish statutory instruments to consider under item 3. The first is the Valuation (Proposals Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2025. As no member has any comments, is the committee agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.