Chamber and committees

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

On 27 March 2025, the Scottish Government laid in the Parliament the 15th annual report on the operation of section 72 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as required by the act. Section 3F of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 relates to greenhouse gas emissions from the use or operation of new buildings. It was introduced into the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 by section 72 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. It requires local development plans that are prepared by planning authorities to include policy that aims to avoid a specified and rising proportion of greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of buildings. The reduction of emissions is to be achieved by using low and zero-carbon generating technologies.

Ministers are required by section 73 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 to report annually on the operation, effectiveness and continued requirement for section 3F of the 1997 act. Where that requirement is considered no longer to be necessary, section 73 of the 2009 act explicitly enables the repeal of section 3F by order. The most recent annual report concluded that

“... after 1 January 2025 the latest policy and regulatory position goes beyond what Section 3F can achieve and that the requirement to include policies within development plans under Section 3F is no longer necessary.”

That conclusion enabled the repeal order that is being considered today to be prepared under the existing provision in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

Planning and heat policy related to building decarbonisation has progressed significantly since section 3F of the 1997 act was introduced, surpassing what section 3F can achieve. Maintaining section 3F places unnecessary and redundant resource burdens on planning authorities at a time when streamlining costs and processes in the planning system is vital.

The repeal of the legislation acts only on the requirement for planning authorities to include the section 3F approach in their next local development plans. Repeal of the legislation does not alter or repeal any current adopted local development plan policies that are a response to section 3F.

The principle of repeal was included in the 2017 consultation regarding the planning bill, which is now the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. At that time, there was general support for the withdrawal of section 3F of the 1997 act. With the 2019 act giving the national planning framework an enhanced status as part of the statutory development plan, and national planning framework 4 now firmly established, section 3F requirements for local development plans are no longer required.

I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that the committee may have regarding the details that are contained in the repeal order.

They would have to comply with those policies, but there are other things in the planning system that they would also have to comply with.

No need.

The requirements are the same. Obviously, they would understand that the decision would be made in the context of NPF4 policies and the new-build heat standard, as we have outlined. For any plans that they expect to be passed, they would need to comply with the NPF4 policies and the standard.

The new-build heat standard lays down the requirement to move away from heat sources that use fossil fuels. The standard is already in place and gives effect to that requirement. NPF4 does that through its range of policies; it has policies on climate and requirements for planning decisions to be made in that light.

It is true to say that section 3F was of its time and it was useful in focusing on the requirement to reduce carbon emissions through local development plans. However, those requirements are now addressed through the new-build heat standard and NPF4, and there is no need to have an effectively redundant process that chews up resource.

You are absolutely right. It is down to individuals in local authorities, community groups and organisations across Scotland, including development trusts and other bodies that are doing great work and have a real focus on this. Some of the committee’s witnesses have done a lot of the thinking behind the theory and have learned from international examples. Those individuals are the folks who drive this.

I suppose that we are saying that we have that approach in part, as you rightly identify, but we do not have it to the extent that we could or should have across the whole country. It is about whether the bill gives the impetus to make the issue one that people need to take more seriously, which will then force them to learn from others about best practice.

That is an interesting question. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are huge linkages with the wider public service reform agenda, the work on community empowerment, the democracy matters work, the work that we are doing on single authority models and the work to strengthen community planning partnerships. There are a lot of linkages.

The place plans sit within a very formal structure for how local development plans are put together. Communities do not think in silos; for example, they will want to do something because it has a place, economic, social or other benefit. They might want more houses—or they might not; they might want more economic activity and economic development. It is all joined up. One thing that I am keen to explore further over the coming weeks is the relationship between this work and the work that we are doing on community planning partnerships, including how integrated this work should be with the work of those partnerships, for which there is an existing structure.

You are absolutely right. It is down to individuals in local authorities, community groups and organisations across Scotland, including development trusts and other bodies that are doing great work and have a real focus on this. Some of the committee’s witnesses have done a lot of the thinking behind the theory and have learned from international examples. Those individuals are the folks who drive this.

I suppose that we are saying that we have that approach in part, as you rightly identify, but we do not have it to the extent that we could or should have across the whole country. It is about whether the bill gives the impetus to make the issue one that people need to take more seriously, which will then force them to learn from others about best practice.

That is an interesting question. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are huge linkages with the wider public service reform agenda, the work on community empowerment, the democracy matters work, the work that we are doing on single authority models and the work to strengthen community planning partnerships. There are a lot of linkages.

The place plans sit within a very formal structure for how local development plans are put together. Communities do not think in silos; for example, they will want to do something because it has a place, economic, social or other benefit. They might want more houses—or they might not; they might want more economic activity and economic development. It is all joined up. One thing that I am keen to explore further over the coming weeks is the relationship between this work and the work that we are doing on community planning partnerships, including how integrated this work should be with the work of those partnerships, for which there is an existing structure.

Yes. It goes back to my earlier point about how we define communities.