Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 29, 2022

Official Report 749KB pdf

---

National Planning Framework 4

The second item on our agenda is an evidence session on the national planning framework. From the Scottish Government we are joined by Tom Arthur, the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth; Fiona Simpson, who is the chief planner; Andy Kinnaird, who is the head of transforming planning; Cara Davidson, who is the head of environment and energy; and Carrie Thomson, who is the head of development planning and housing. I warmly welcome you all.

This might be the first time that we have all been in the same place during the national planning framework 4 process, which I know has been a great deal of work. It was around this time last year that it was being brought in, and it is tremendous to see that you have taken on board a great deal of feedback. This is such an important piece of work, as we look forward to shaping the next 10 years in Scotland in response to the climate and biodiversity emergencies. I also welcome Liam Kerr, who is attending in his capacity as a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

I invite the minister to make a brief statement.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee.

I very much welcome the opportunity to come back to afddress the committee on NPF4 again, now that we have our revised draft before the Parliament. I am delighted to be at this stage of the NPF4 journey. As you recognised, convener, getting to this point has taken a mammoth effort and commitment from many people, to all of whom I am exceptionally grateful. It has taken three years, three wide-ranging and wide-reaching public consultations, extensive stakeholder engagement and thorough parliamentary scrutiny, on which the committee led earlier this year.

I gave my commitment to listen carefully to what people were telling us about the earlier draft and to take the time needed to get NPF4 right, both in its intent and in its structure and specific wording. We reached the revised version by engaging with others. We listened, we learned and we changed the document where needed. I was delighted to hear the feedback that was presented to the committee last week, which overwhelmingly recognised the significant improvements in the clarity and focus of NPF4 and its policies. I have also been delighted by the substantial support from across society for the change of direction in how we plan Scotland’s places and communities. It is a rare thing for any planning strategy to unite so many different interests in the way in which NPF4 has.

Of course, that is not to say that we enjoy universal agreement on everything, nor could we ever expect that in planning. A planning document will inevitably generate a range of views. There will always be those who support and those who do not support any given planning policy. In the revised draft, we have made choices that are informed by all those views. In doing so, as the committee will recognise, it is not possible to please everyone. We are charting a new course for Scotland’s development, with climate, nature and a wellbeing economy central to our thoughts and decisions.

NPF4 is about less compromise and a clearer commitment to net zero. As Professor Cliff Hague noted here last week, we now do not have much choice about having that focus. We will therefore not shy away from the challenges that society faces, nor will we shy away from the difficult decisions that may need to be made.

NPF4 will ensure that Scotland has a truly plan-led system. There are different views on how far planning policies can and should go towards prescribing the outcome of a planning decision. That is, perhaps, because, too often, decisions have been made that compromise on the development plan. NPF4’s strong policies will provide more certainty and confidence for all of us, so that if proposals are supported by a sustainable locally driven plan that has been developed with communities, we can all have more confidence that they will be delivered on the ground.

Although NPF4 is now clear in its intentions, there will still be some flexibility at the local level, and each case will still be treated on its own merits. That is hard-wired into our planning system, which allows and, indeed, requires professional judgment and discretion to be applied.

I know that there are some concerns about implementation and how competing policies will be reconciled in specific cases. In every planning decision, there will always be planning policies that support the proposal and those that do not. That is why we always stress the importance of reading NPF4 as a whole. It is also why the planning system is operated by professionals whose job it is to apply professional judgment and provide sound advice to inform democratic decisions. I know that, if decisions are backed by strong planning policy that is clear in its intent, Scotland’s planning authorities will be up to the job. Indeed, the strong focus on well-functioning, healthy and high-quality places strongly featured across NPF4 is why people get into the planning profession in the first place.

We are nearing the end of the beginning for NPF4, and I am keen that we get on now and move to implementation. In a few weeks, I will ask Parliament to give its approval, and, should that be agreed, we will move swiftly to adoption and give NPF4 its new statutory status as Scotland’s development plan. I do not underestimate the scale of the work that lies ahead to deliver NPF4. That is where my officials and I are turning our focus. After several years of policy development and legislative change, we are ready to shift our attention fully to delivery. However, we cannot deliver NPF4 alone: it will take further wide-reaching cross-sector collaborative commitment. The Scottish Government will be a key actor in driving and supporting that implementation. Monitoring will also, of course, be vital. This is the first time that Scotland has had a standard set of national planning policies. It will take some time to establish whether the policies are being implemented as intended, where there is room for improvement and where there is a need for the detail to be adjusted. We will monitor that carefully while supporting the interpretation of policies. We will also work with everyone involved in planning to build skills and share experience, particularly, in the first instance, in the newer areas of policy, such as climate change, the nature crisis and community wealth building.

The committee is well aware of the resource pressures facing the planning system, our authorities and the wider public sector. I reiterate my commitment to progressing the work that we are doing with our partners through the high-level group on planning performance, with the planning profession and with our authorities, to raise a positive profile of planning and make progress on its effective resourcing.

We have made clear throughout our work on NPF4 exactly where our priorities lie for Scotland’s future development. Our task now and in the vote to come is to consider whether the NPF4 is doing enough to address the global climate emergency and nature crisis and doing it in a way that improves our places and builds a sustainable wellbeing economy. We cannot afford to miss the opportunity to make real and progressive change. I have welcomed and appreciated the committee’s support and hard work in its careful scrutiny of NPF4, and I look forward to your questions this morning in what, I am sure, will be an interesting and stimulating discussion.

Thank you, minister. You covered a range of things in your statement. I want to begin by focusing on how evidence and feedback on the revised draft will be used. During last week’s session, the planning stakeholders suggested several possible improvements to NPF4. How will those and other stakeholder suggestions be taken on board before NPF4 is formally adopted?

Secondly, can you commit to further engagement when NPF4 is in place to improve areas that do not work as intended, perhaps through a chief planner’s letter?

The answer to your first question lies in your second question. As I said in my opening remarks, we have arrived at this point through an extended period of work—there have been more than three years of work to get to this point—and the intention now is that the NPF4 draft, as revised, which is before the committee for consideration today, will be brought to Parliament for a vote. Under the legislation, a parliamentary vote is required before ministers can adopt. We will bring the revised version to Parliament for a vote, so there is no scope at this juncture for changes or amendments. To do so would be to effectively reopen the process and delay getting on with the work of implementing and delivering NPF4.

With regard to your second question, engagement, collaboration and partnership working are absolutely essential to the delivery of NPF4, so we have set out in the first iteration of our delivery programme how we will work with partners to help to achieve that. Of course, the delivery programme will be reviewed after six months, and I am grateful to those who have already offered comments about what changes they would like to see and what additions they would like to see in the delivery programme. We will engage on that, and, of course, as I referenced in my opening remarks, through our monitoring process we will be able to learn how the policies are delivering on the ground. We will begin to see how that impacts on the development of new local development plans, and it is through that process that we will then be able to evaluate the impact that NPF4 is having.

There is provision in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 to amend NPF4. We will introduce those regulations next year, but, clearly, any changes to NPF4 would have to be evidenced and carefully considered. The priority and the focus now is on the adoption of NPF4, subject to Parliament’s agreement, and then its implementation and delivery, which will be done in a genuine spirit of collaboration and partnership working.

Thanks very much for that response. It is really heartening to hear the continued commitment to engagement and collaboration.

I will touch on resourcing and biodiversity, because I have heard you talk a number of times in conversations about NPF4 about the fact that climate and biodiversity is the headline that we are trying to attend to. Last week, Bruce Wilson, who is the head of policy and advocacy at the Scottish Wildlife Trust, said that there was a lack of resources to measure biodiversity and that that threatened the ability of planners and developers to understand what is at risk and how they must modify developments to safeguard biodiversity. The increased workload of that additional responsibility is further augmented by the shortages of planners across Scotland. Therefore, how will the Government ensure that local authority planning departments are resourced and supported to properly evaluate and monitor the impact of developments on biodiversity?

As I indicated in response to questions on my statement in Parliament last year when I introduced the draft NPF4, the resourcing of our planning system is a priority for me. To realise the ambition and vision in NPF4, we need a properly resourced planning system. The actions that I have taken since then include increasing planning fees from April this year, which there is already some evidence to suggest is feeding through to additional positions in some planning departments.

We are working through the high-level group to support collective and collaborative work to address challenges around recruitment and retention. For example, the future planners project, which I was delighted that the Scottish Government was able to provide financial support to, has developed a report that has provided a series of recommendations on how we can recruit more people into the planning profession as well as retain people in the planning profession.

I should note that the challenges that Scotland faces around recruitment in our planning sector are not unique to Scotland—they are much wider challenges. However, I am clear that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to do all that it can to support our planning authority partners to ensure that we have a well-resourced planning system. We have taken action towards that through higher fees, and we continue to take action, through engagement and dialogue, towards a model of full cost recovery. That is an ambition, but it requires careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences.

To ensure that we have a sufficient workforce in our planning sector, we are taking action through the future planners project with our key partners to assist in making sure that we maximise the number of people coming into and staying in the profession.

09:45  

My final point is to recognise that NPF4 provides an opportunity to inspire many more people to choose planning as a career. Planning is a wonderful career choice for any young person thinking about what they want to do in life. It provides an opportunity for people to make a huge and impactful difference not just to their own communities but to the country as a whole. Planners will be at the forefront of shaping our places and ensuring that we can meet our obligations to reach net zero by 2045.

On the issue of biodiversity, Cara Davidson may want to add something about the specific support provided there, particularly given the new policies that are coming online.

I can add that the Scottish Government has commissioned research to explore options for a biodiversity metric or other tool and will be working with NatureScot on a programme of engagement as that work moves forward.

Will that be linked into the biodiversity strategy and the natural environment bill? Will there be a cross-connection there?

It is certainly a cross-collaborative exercise across Scottish Government, including colleagues leading on those workstreams, and NatureScot. It is absolutely a joined-up exercise, and we are keen to engage across the piece as that work moves forward.

It is good to know that that is happening. It seems to be a critical tool.

Tom Arthur spoke at great length about NPF4, which was very welcome. We cannot do it alone. It is not a stand-alone document. It will be wide-ranging, cross-sector and so on. We have had some of that discussion over the time that we have looked at the progress of NPF4.

Last week, Professor Hague widened it out to talk about how it might interact and interface with other Government departments. We heard, too, from our Irish Government colleagues. Their departments set out how they will deliver their priorities within their own national planning framework. Do you see that happening in Scotland? Will other Scottish departments be able to demonstrate how their policy delivery interfaces and interacts with NPF4?

I will make two points. First, on process, this has been a cross-government endeavour. More than 200 officials have been involved in the development of NPF4. Of course, it has been a collaborative effort across wider Scottish society and the Parliament with the process that has got us to this stage. By design, it reflects the full gamut of Scottish Government policy, but, beyond that, planning, by its nature, touches on every aspect of our lives from the homes that we live in, the places where we work, where we go for leisure and recreation and the spaces that give us a sense of identity, to how our economy operates and functions. Planning is inherent in every aspect of how modern, contemporary society functions, so it is inevitable that, in any work of this stature and magnitude, every aspect of Government policy will have had input. Clearly, there is a focus on the climate emergency and the nature crisis, but that is a lens through which all other policies have been considered. That is what NPF4 seeks to bring together.

You will have seen that our colleagues in the Economy and Fair Work Committee have released their report on town centres this morning. Many of the themes in that were covered during our discussions, particularly on how we might improve town centres. Some of the comments from our members and those giving evidence to us over recent months are about those issues too. For me, it is a good example of how it must cross cut and embrace issues that are coming out of a sister committee’s report. Is that something that you support and hope to develop over the time that NPF is in place?

Absolutely. I was delighted to give evidence to that committee earlier this year, and I am grateful that the report has been published. I have not had an opportunity to consider it in full yet, with its having been published just this morning, but, looking at the headline items that were covered, it is encouraging to see such unanimous support for and recognition of the key and vital role that our town centres play for our communities and our country overall. That is reflected in NPF4, which sees our town centres and, indeed, our other local centres, city and commercial centres as key strategic assets.

I am sure that it is recognised throughout the work that the committee has undertaken in looking specifically at town centres—as was recognised in our town centre action plan, which we published earlier this year, and, indeed, as is reflected in NPF4—that there is no single lever that we can pull to address the challenges that our town centres face. It needs a collaborative joined-up approach. Planning has a huge role to play, and so does fundamentally reorganising and rewiring how our local economies work. Community wealth building—which we will have a lot more to say about in the new year—can have an important role to play in ensuring that our economies and local communities retain more wealth. That, in itself, will support vibrant and flourishing town centres.

Thank you very much for that. I hope that I can come back in later, convener.

Good morning to you, minister, and to your officials, and thank you for joining us. You mentioned that NPF4 has been a cross-Government endeavour. I welcome the positive and constructive nature of the discussions that we have had, but I am concerned about where housing sits in NPF4 and the fact that the housing crisis is not necessarily being addressed. I have a few specific questions on that. How does the revised NPF4 address the issue of potential underdelivery of land in the pipeline? Is there any trigger in place if land is not being brought forward?

I will take one question at a time. First, the Government recognises the centrality of housing. With NPF4, we seek to move the debate on from being one about numbers to one in which we focus on quality of place. A quality home does not end at the front door.

Specifically on numbers, having the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement—I realise that the committee fully understands that that is a floor rather than a ceiling—can help to provide greater certainty. However, it is also important to recognise the role that local development plans will play. As we work towards the introduction of the regulations that will commence new-style local development plans and accompanying guidance, I am committed to engaging with stakeholders, Heads of Planning Scotland and industry to ensure that there is clarity. That will play a key role.

I ask Carrie Thomson to address the question on triggers and issues of underdelivery.

We set out in NPF4 that, where there is underdelivery of housing, the longer-term sites that are allocated can be brought forward. The pipeline is split into three stages: years 1 to 3 are short term, years 4 to 6 are medium term and years 7 to 10 are long term. We have also asked for plans to allocate sites beyond 10 years so that, if delivery is not happening early on, those longer-term sites can be brought forward.

I will give an example from my area in Edinburgh. Eighty per cent of the local development plan land that is allocated is brownfield site, and 80 per cent of that has businesses on it, some of which are not aware that the land is allocated—the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home is also in that situation. There is no plan for where those organisations will be moved to. In Edinburgh, where the housing crisis is acute, I do not see where the land will come from. I hoped that a mechanism would be put in place to address that problem. As far as I can see, the land will not come forward, at least within the seven-year period. There needs to be a mechanism for adjustment when we see a problem clearly on the horizon, as is the case here in the capital.

I stress that, although we are considering the NPF4 today, local development plans will have a very important role to play. NPF4 will allow for LDPs to be less characterised by written policy and more focused on spatial strategy. We will, of course, monitor implementation and how NPF4, ultimately, is delivering on the ground. There will be a continuous process of engagement and monitoring. That will be a learning process in itself because, as I said in my earlier remarks, we have never had a national statutory planning framework before.

We will engage ahead of the introduction of the LDP regulation and guidance. If NPF4 were in any way not delivering what we would want, of course, we would take action, but it is important to recognise the significant role that LDPs have in that.

Andy Kinnaird might want to come in to offer some views and information on what we are doing to work towards new-style LDPs and the guidance that we will provide. I know that stakeholders have expressed a concern about the transitional arrangements. I would be grateful if you can provide some information on that, Andy.

Sure. This is the perfect example of how we need to make sure that we do not look at NPF4 in isolation but look at planning reform as a whole and how the NPF and local development plans will work together. For that reason, this time last year, we ran the consultations on NPF4 and the new local development planning system at the same time, because they are so closely interlinked. Likewise, coming into the implementation phase, the links are there for all to see.

Assuming that NPF4 is approved and then adopted by ministers, we will want to move quickly to bring the new local development plan regulations into play. The authorities are looking to get work under way on their LDPs. At the point of adoption of NPF4, we will produce a bit of guidance on the transitional arrangements for how that will fall into place. A couple of years ago, we published guidance on how we expected the transitional matters to work. Authorities that are already working through their existing local development plans will continue to do that and see that through to completion, while the others can get started. It is a logistical process that flows from getting NPF4 through, to laying the regulations for LDPs. The guidance will come with that, which will include thematic guidance on implementing NPF through LDPs.

It is important to bear in mind that central to the housing policy is getting back to a plan-led system. That is absolutely essential for developing the kind of communities that we want and for ensuring consistency with our obligations and, indeed, the policies in the document that address the climate emergency and the nature crisis. As I said, I will engage closely with the house-building sector, and we will have a programme of monitoring that will involve regular engagement. As I also indicated in my opening remarks, as a Government and as a planning, architecture and regeneration division, we are moving from the phase of policy development and legislative change into delivery, and part of that will include a lot more engagement with planning authorities and wider stakeholders.

Thank you—that is helpful. We have heard all sectors ask for transitional guidance, so it is good to have that commitment on record.

The committee has also heard concerns about a flood of local development plans being published shortly after the adoption of NPF4. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that local development plans will be phased in conjunction with NPF4?

10:00  

To an extent, that will happen naturally. About five authorities are in the process of completing their LDPs using the existing arrangements. We envisage that, within about five years, all planning authorities will have adopted the new-style LDP. However, the pace at which they do that will be determined by a number of factors: the age of existing LDPs; the particular impacts of new policies on their areas; and the capacity in their teams. We will, of course, engage closely with authorities to understand their plans, and the planning and environmental appeals division will similarly assist them in their business programming.

I recognise the point, but it should be recognised that it is not unusual for authorities to move at different paces, reflecting their particular circumstances.

I have a supplementary question. If a council is in the process of updating its local development plan but has not quite completed that before NPF4 is adopted, what will apply locally in planning decisions? Will it be NPF4 or the council’s current LDP? Will the guidance make clear which will apply?

As set out in the legislation, when NPF4 is adopted, the development plan will consist of NPF4 and the local development plan, but NPF4 will take precedence over any existing LDP. Once new LDPs come online, that situation will change, as they will be a more up-to-date reflection of policy. After NPF4 is adopted, if there is a conflict between it and an existing LDP, NPF4 will prevail.

In previous meetings, the committee raised issues around a potential capital investment plan. Essentially, that was to allow us to scrutinise how the ambitions of NPF4 could be met. Will the minister set out why a decision has been taken not to include a capital investment plan? Might the Government reconsider that?

I recognise that some stakeholders have taken an interest in that. The delivery programme sets out the existing funding, whether it be through the infrastructure investment plan, the place-based investment programme, the vacant and derelict land investment programme, our strategic investment in transport or the investment in housing. All of that will contribute to delivering the ambitions of NPF4. Therefore, there is a range of existing investment plans with which NPF4 aligns. As those plans go on to further iterations, NPF4 will help to inform that.

That speaks to the importance of the delivery programme being a live document. As the funding landscape changes?unfortunately, in the circumstances that we face, our funding landscape can be volatile as a consequence of how devolution and the fiscal framework operate?it is important to have that flexibility. However, through the delivery plan, we will be in a position to demonstrate how existing and new funding streams, as they emerge, align with the ambitions in NPF4. I recognise that there is a call for a neat, concise and specific capital investment plan to be published alongside NPF4 but, in essence, the delivery programme captures that intent.

I ask Fiona Simpson whether she wants to add anything.

Obviously, we have proposed the planning, infrastructure and place advisory group in the delivery programme. Alongside that, we have previously established the infrastructure delivery group, which involves private sector infrastructure providers as well as the public sector. That reflects the complexity of the picture. It is not as simple as a single capital investment plan that is fully funded by the public sector; it is about engagement with the private sector, too.

That is the key point. It is not solely public money that will deliver on NPF4—the private sector has a huge role to play. Even in the public sector, there is a mix between Scottish Government and local government funding. It is quite a complex funding landscape. We seek to present, on the public sector side, the money that is available through existing funding streams and how that aligns with the ambitions and principles of NPF4.

I will move on to another area. You have touched on the MATHLR figures. I want to bring it back to a stage before that, and to the housing need and demand assessment tool that informs those figures. Last week at committee, we heard contrasting evidence from witnesses who said that the HNDA tool was not fit for purpose because it both underestimated and overestimated figures. I am also concerned that it does not fully take into account the number of concealed households out there, which is a potential obstruction for young people who, clearly, have both a need and a demand to go out and make their own way. I wonder whether, given those conflicting views from witnesses, there is enough confidence in that tool and whether the work that has informed the MATHLR figures is robust enough.

I will ask Carrie Thomson to come in, in a moment. We have taken an evidence-based approach, and I think that you will recognise that that is absolutely vital. The numbers that we arrived at are based on national and local data, but it is also important to recognise that the HNDA was a starting point in reaching the MATHLR figures, so there is also flexibility. It is important to remember that, as part of the new-style LDPs, there is also the opportunity for local evidence, through the evidence reports, to identify where there is additional need and demand. That flexibility is built in.

The HNDA guidance and the tool are kept under review, and they are regularly updated when updated household projections are released by National Records of Scotland. HNDA is well understood and well established, and I recognise that, at the session last week, Homes for Scotland offered to facilitate a workshop for the committee on HNDA. I am keen to maintain positive engagement with Homes for Scotland, so planning officials and those from the centre for housing market analysis will, of course, be happy to have discussions on the HNDA tool and other matters with Homes for Scotland.

Do you want to provide more detail, Carrie?

On the MATHLR figures, we engaged quite a lot with the local authorities in the process that was undertaken. We provided baseline information that was national data and statistically based, and then we provided the local authorities with an opportunity to feed in local-level evidence and information to inform it. They could use whatever data they had at their level—information based on policy ambition or policy drivers—to influence the data and the information that they fed into the figures and increase them. Those figures will be a baseline for the next LDPs, so we should say that they are minimum figures. The HNDA will then be completed in full to inform the LDP as it progresses through the new system.

I will ask about local engagement with the various planning authorities. Did they all engage fully, or were there various levels of interaction with your department?

Every authority responded—some collectively. The west of Scotland and Glasgow city region areas responded collectively. Every local authority is at a different stage of their housing and planning processes, so they provided the information that they were able to provide at that time. We have updated the information on the basis of HNDAs that have progressed prior to the draft, and authorities will be able to use updated information as they progress their LDPs.

During our evidence-taking, the committee also discussed the infrastructure first approach to the planning system across Scotland. What level of buy-in is there from infrastructure providers to support that approach? We heard evidence from witnesses about how important buy-in is to delivering and achieving that. How confident are you that that can be done?

The support that NPF4 provides can bring a degree of confidence and certainty. It has been my experience as planning minister over the past 18 months that infrastructure is a key interest of many colleagues. It is a policy commitment in NPF4 that is very welcome. As important as NPF4 is in itself, local development plans have a key role to play. They can play a very important role in securing that buy-in and providing that confidence at the local level.

Collaborative working will be at the heart of this work. We set out, through our delivery programme, some of the practical ways in which we will seek to engender collaborative working. Moreover, I have been trying to set out more generally the work that we do as a Government to move from policy and design to implementation. That can help to support that work as well.

Okay. Thank you for that.

In response to one of the questions, you mentioned community wealth building. There was some evidence given to the committee that the definition of that in NPF4 is a little bit lacking in clarity, and perhaps it is not so well understood in planning circles, even now. Can you say a wee bit more about how you might address that and whether you agree with the concerns and issues that have been raised in order to make it clearer for everyone?

I recognise and welcome the comments from stakeholders, who have themselves welcomed the greater clarity on community wealth building in the NPF. Community wealth building is at different stages of implementation. You will be aware from your constituency, Mr Coffey, that, across Ayrshire—it started with North Ayrshire but now includes the whole region—we are seeing trailblazing work being done on community wealth building. I was delighted to be out and about in the area in the summer and to see some of the great work that has been going on there through place-based approaches to procurement.

Community wealth building is something that more and more local authorities will take up. As things stand, the Scottish Government has supported five pilot areas. There is the work that is taking place in Ayrshire, and other local authorities are taking forward, under their own steam, community wealth-building approaches. As a Government, we have a commitment to support all local authorities to develop their community wealth-building strategies. I will have more to say about that in the new year. We also have a commitment to introduce legislation to support community wealth building, on which we will consult ahead of its introduction. We have established a bill steering group in that space, as well. Again, I will have more to say about that in the new year.

Community wealth building is also referenced in our national strategy for economic transformation. Community wealth building will be a key practical tool for realising the ambitions around a wellbeing economy. It will be integral to rewiring how our local and regional economies operate so that they do so in a way that sees less wealth extraction and more wealth retained by communities. As the model is rolled out and more local authorities adopt it, we will see more local authorities with their own community wealth-building plans. As the policy references, that will have to be recognised in planning decisions.

Do you think that local people have enough understanding of what we mean by community wealth building? Do they get it? That is the question, minister. How will the public shape community wealth-building plans as they develop? The committee has always been in favour of the view that Governments and councils should not do things to people. Rather, we should do things with them and embrace people at ground level in order to enable them to shape policy development. Do you think that there is enough local knowledge of what we mean by community wealth building, and are there enough opportunities for people to get involved in the process to help shape policy development?

10:15  

The term “community wealth building” may be new to some people, but the concept underlying it is not. Certainly, the key components are all well understood strands of work, many of which have had long-standing support from the Scottish Government and local authorities. Many of the key components are well established in Scotland, whether they are around sustainable procurement, supporting local businesses or localising supply chains, the retention of local assets and seeing more local assets in community ownership, promoting fair work and progressive recruitment practices, or, indeed, promoting more progressive models of ownership, be they co-operatives, employee-owned businesses or social enterprises.

Community wealth building brings a strategic lens to those individual strands in such a way that we can effect quite significant and radical change in how our local and regional economies operate. I am heartened to see the interest to date in community wealth building from across the political spectrum and, indeed, among stakeholders. I have had very positive engagement on community wealth building with, for example, the Federation of Small Businesses, and I look forward to more constructive engagement.

This is something that has real potential. It will not be an overnight fix: there are no magic bullets here to address all the challenges that our local and regional economies face. However, community wealth building has something of a track record in other areas: it is already delivering on the ground in Ayr, and, as more and more communities throughout Scotland adopt it, we will see the benefits of it. Spatial planning can have a key role in delivering community wealth building, which is why I am delighted that we have the policy in NPF4. Although I cannot say for certain that this is the case, one contributor has suggested that it may be the first planning policy in the world to have within it a specific community wealth-building policy. That is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to advancing the community wealth-building agenda. I hope very much to have the opportunity to discuss that in more detail with the committee in due course.

Okay. Those comments are very welcome.

Thanks very much. I move on to questions from Marie McNair, who joins us online.

Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. In the evidence that we received last week from stakeholders, there were some calls for improvements that could assist the general public. Would you consider publishing a non-technical summary of NPF4 to aid community groups and others in understanding what can be a fairly technical document that will be integral to future planning decisions?

Yes, absolutely. I want to see as much engagement in the planning system as possible. I have been clear that this will be a collective endeavour, which will take time. However, I want to move the narrative from one of conflict to one of collaboration, which means genuine community empowerment and engagement in the planning process.

We already have tools at our disposal. Earlier this year, we introduced the regulations on local place plans, which can provide communities with a key opportunity to shape their places. I noted the comments made last week—it might have been Professor Hague who made them—in regard to how, when we seek engagement in the planning system, it is often in the negative context of wanting to stop a development. We have so much insight and knowledge in our communities, and we need to do more to harness that and feed it through our local place plans and other mechanisms to ensure that communities are much more engaged at an earlier stage and have the opportunities to bring their experience, their local insight and, most important, their ambitions for their communities to bear through local place plans and other measures such as local development plans. That can do planning overall a power of good, because it gets us much more into a space of talking about what we want to see rather than the developments that we do not want to see.

Thank you for that reassurance. Some planning stakeholders are concerned that delivery continues to be the weakest area across the NPF4 documents. Can you assure us that the policy priorities that are set out in NPF4 will be delivered?

I apologise; may I ask you to repeat the question? I missed the first part of it.

Some planning stakeholders are concerned that delivery continues to be the weakest area across the NPF4 documents. How can you assure us that the planning priorities that are set out in NPF4 will be delivered?

I want to give reassurance, and I have sought to do that in the evidence that I have provided so far to the committee. As a Government, we are turning the focus away from policy development and legislative change and towards implementation. We are working constructively and collaboratively with stakeholders to ensure that the planning profession is supported and resourced. Notwithstanding our focus on delivery, we will also roll out the further provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which will help to support the delivery of NPF4, for example through the provision of masterplan consent areas.

We are also taking forward a phased permitted development rights review programme—again, that can help support delivery. Delivery is an absolute priority, and monitoring will be key in assessing how we are progressing in that regard. However, delivery will require collaboration, and I am absolutely committed to the closest engagement possible with stakeholders because, ultimately, planning is for everyone, and everyone has a role to play in planning and in making NPF4 a success.

Thank you for that, minister. I have no further questions, convener.

Thanks, Marie.

Minister, I have a question on your point about everybody having a role in success of this. The climate and biodiversity are at the forefront, and there is a need to move to a spatial strategy, which you mentioned earlier and which you have also mentioned in the past. I would add that maybe we are also facing a spatial squeeze. We heard something about that in relation to Edinburgh in Miles Briggs’s questions.

In the development of NPF4, do you have a sense that sectors that are involved in development—housing, for example—understand that they may need to change their business models? What I am starting to see across all my work in Parliament is that, in the need to respond to the climate and nature emergency, business models need to change, and we have to move from how things are being done now. We really need to consider how we will be doing housing and everything else 10 or 20 years from now. Do you feel that that collaboration is really happening in the sectors that will be putting in our infrastructure?

I think that it is happening. I go back to the point by Professor Hague that I referenced earlier: we do not have a choice. We can say that it is a social imperative, an economic imperative or, indeed, an environmental imperative, but we do not have a choice. Climate change is happening. Yes, we have to mitigate, but we have to adapt as well. I think that we could all say that if we do not do that, the consequences will be incalculable.

We have put the climate emergency and the nature crisis right at the heart of NPF4. Policy number 1 runs through the entire vision of the document, but such considerations are not unique to Government. Every business and every local authority is having similar discussions. What NPF4 does is provide a clear direction in our planning system as to the action that has to be taken. Planning is uniquely placed to help us to address the climate emergency because of the power that it has to direct, in a coherent, considered and rational way, the types of development that we need to see to meet these strategic challenges.

Further, given the timescales within which planning operates, there is no overnight fix or quick cure. This will take sustained work. That is why we have set out a vision to 2045 in NPF4.

Thanks for that. It will be interesting to see what happens once we move into the delivery plan phase and the changes that come about from the private sector.

I just want to dig down into one particular policy area. We heard last week that there could be a conflict between renewable energy and wild land. I note that one of the tests for allowing renewable energy development on wild land is whether it supports the meeting of renewable energy targets, but concerns have been raised by Scottish Environment LINK and the John Muir Trust that all renewable energy developments, by their very nature, meet that test. Can you assure the committee that NPF4 strikes the correct balance between protecting wild land and meeting renewable energy targets, and can you provide more clarity on that issue?

I highlight last week’s evidence from Scottish Renewables, which recognised the significance of our renewable energy policy in NPF4; indeed, it is at the forefront of thinking in a European context. It also recognised that protections for wild land already exist and are retained—and, in that respect, I would highlight as an example the percentage of wild land that we find in our national parks or national scenic areas.

I also point out that it is important to read NPF4 as a whole. Ultimately, decisions have to be considered on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the development plan—including the local development plan—and the individual decision maker has to take all of those factors into consideration.

Do you want to add anything, Cara?

There is a separate process for setting targets, including for onshore wind. The draft onshore wind policy statement was consulted on in autumn 2021, I believe, and I understand that colleagues will shortly bring forward a final onshore wind policy statement.

I can see that NPF4 will be the core curriculum for all the new planners that we will be bringing on board. You have said a number of times now that it needs to be read as a whole, minister, so it will be a central document.

I call Paul McLennan.

Good morning, minister and good morning, panel.

At last week’s meeting, we discussed the resourcing and upskilling of planning staff, particularly in the DPEA; indeed, you have just touched on that issue, too, minister. However, in addition to that, the Royal Town Planning Institute mentioned the issue of recruitment. Can you say a little more about that? I think that it has been estimated that 700 additional planners will be required, and we have heard that Marine Scotland requires resources as well. What will the recruitment process look like over the next few years? People have said that they welcome NPF4, but they need resources to deliver it, and probably at an early stage.

First of all, I encourage all aspiring planners outwith Scotland or in other parts of the UK to come to Scotland to work in planning and help us deliver this really significant framework.

As we will all recognise, there will be no quick fix to this challenge. There are high-level things that we can do to raise the profile of planning and make it as attractive a career choice as possible. Again, I make it clear: planning has so much potential to deliver so much good, and it represents an excellent career choice for anyone.

As for the practical work that we are doing in that respect, there are, as I have already mentioned, issues with resourcing. In some planning authorities, fees have translated to additional posts, and there has been work to bring in full cost recovery. I would caveat that by making it clear that there are complexities in that respect, and we do not want any unintended consequences, but that commitment is being taken forward.

There is also the future planners project, which earlier this year published a report containing a number of thoughtful suggestions for actions that we can take to increase the number of people coming into the profession. Fiona, do you want to say anything about that?

The project makes a range of practical suggestions, including a planning apprenticeship scheme and working with graduates coming into the profession to give them a rounded experience. After all, this is partly about how we retain planners in local authority services instead of seeing them move to the private sector. There is a range of issues that we can work on with the profession and with heads of planning, who are really keen to progress all this.

Part of the issue is the planning profession itself. We need more planners, but we also need to think about interdisciplinary working and how planners can work alongside the other built environment professions. There is lots of work to do on that.

The committee is keen to find out how we monitor NPF4 over the next few years. Given that it is a living document, what key metrics should we be looking at? The key question is this: how will the Government or the directorate monitor all this and review the policy itself, particularly over the next 10 years? We have seen how much things have changed in the past 10 years. How can we monitor NPF4 to ensure that it really is a living document? The committee is keen to consider what, from the Government’s point of view, the key metrics are that we will be looking at over the coming years. Indeed, I think that we have raised that issue with Andy Miller before.

10:30  

First of all, I recognise that monitoring is absolutely vital. With this new approach, which follows on from the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, I am keen to have the closest possible engagement; indeed, I am very keen to hear the committee’s views and insights at the point of the framework’s adoption and as we move through the iterative process with the delivery programme. I want to make that crystal clear from the start.

We also need to recognise, as I think we all do, that the impact of planning can take time to feed through. Indeed, that is intrinsic to its very nature. Clearly, there are a number of different metrics that we could go through—and I will ask colleagues to touch on them in a moment—but I have to say that I was struck by Professor Hague’s comments at last week’s meeting. Although he recognised the importance of looking at how LDPs were shaping up and at planning appeal decisions, he said that there was also a need to discuss collectively and report on the real, tangible and measurable impacts that the NPF4 was having, particularly with regard to community engagement and ensuring that people felt involved. A very important rule not just for the delivery programme itself but for the impact of NPF4 on the ground is that we show these things in a clear and accessible way.

There are other strands of work where monitoring can play a role. I should point out that we are working towards recruiting the national planning improvement co-ordinator, a role that has been created through the 2019 act, and work is also being carried out the new planning performance framework reports that will replace the current voluntary regime. All of those can play a particular role in this respect, too.

Fiona, do you have any comments to make?

Before you do so, Fiona, I will just say that this is not just on Government—I think that there is an emphasis in local development plans on having the same process, too. As you have said, minister, NPF4 is the framework, but local delivery is mostly done through the local authorities. I think that there is some element of that in the local development plans.

That comes back to the pivot in our focus that I have talked about. As we move to implementing and delivering NPF4, the Government can have more active engagement in that.

Monitoring is work in progress for us. We have choices to make. For example, do we make use of high-level, strategic, broader data sets such as the data and indicators used for the national outcomes, or do we focus more on specifics such as the direct impact of planning decisions and where LDPs are in the process? It is probably a mix of both, but we need to work through that.

Digital will also have a really important role to play here, if we can get through the next stage of the digital programme. The focus of the strategy will turn to data and how we use it in a really smart way, and the idea is that the data sets will, at any point, allow us to see what is happening and where the sites are, and then we can bring all of that together and move from a national perspective down to a local perspective. Again, there is lots of work to do on that, but that would be the ideal.

Thanks for that.

Convener, I have one more question, which is on a specific issue. As you will probably be aware, the issue of out-of-town developments and drive-throughs, which has been in the press, was raised last week, and I am just looking for a bit of clarity on that. I do not know whether this is a question for you, minister, or for Andy Miller or Fiona Simpson, but what does the policy state in that respect? The press has been quite confusing on that, but the issue has, I think, been raised with all of us on certain occasions.

Some of the reporting on this matter could be misleading or lead to misunderstanding. Under the policy, drive-throughs should go ahead only if they are supported by the local development plan. As we will all recognise, that will sit beside support for a range of policy outcomes on, for example, local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods, our ambitions for reducing emissions and car travel and, of course, other out-of-town scenarios. I am conscious of the issues that have been raised, and I will engage with relevant stakeholders and seek to provide reassurance and clarity on the policy intent and what it will deliver.

Thank you, minister. That was clear.

I will now bring in Miles Briggs, who has a few questions on behalf of Annie Wells. Annie is with us online, but she has a throat ailment. Afterwards, I will bring in Liam Kerr.

The first question follows on from Paul McLennan’s question. Last week, we heard from Jim Miller, chair of Heads of Planning Scotland, who suggested that his interpretation of policy 27(d) pointed towards a ban. That is where there has been concern. I saw the minister coming in with a coffee this morning; I do not know whether he used a drive-through to get that. It is important to make sure that, when the policy gets down to local authority level, it is not misinterpreted.

Policy 27 was not even part of the original consultation and there has been no subsequent consultation on it. I was pleased to hear what the minister said to Paul McLennan, but, as for any future consultation on the policy, he said, “This is it”. What will that policy look like in guidance, because that is not clear, given the interpretation that people are taking from NPF4 currently?

As I referenced earlier, speaking in general terms, we will provide advice on transitional arrangements should Parliament agree to and approve NPF4. Following the adoption of NPF4, we will work to deliver the regulations on local development plans, along with guidance. In general, that is what we will do.

The policy is clear, and I think that, when the policy is read, its intention is straightforward to understand. As I said, I will engage with relevant stakeholders in the sector to ensure that the intent of the policy is clearly understood. I recognise that some confusion may have been caused by how it was misreported, but the policy is consistent with what we want to see in a plan-led approach.

Of course, my coffee, as always, was purchased in the garden lobby. It is the best coffee in Edinburgh.

I am pleased to hear that and will feed that back to Kirsty.

On a separate point, we have all welcomed the positive engagement and work around renewables, but I am slightly concerned about what that means with there being no specific strategy for grid reinforcement works. That is still missing in the document, although the minister will maybe point towards the delivery programme for the guidance in that regard. In relation to renewables coming online, where does that now sit in relation to the development of major grid reinforcement works that will be needed to realise that potential?

I highlight the status of strategic renewable electricity generation and transmission as a national development and the clear support for renewables behind the policy. With regard to the detail of your question, I will ask Cara to come in.

Policy 11 sets out that the support includes enabling works, such as grid transmission and distribution infrastructure. We are well aware of the role and the strategic importance of the expansion of the grid network, not least because of its role in supporting the roll-out of offshore renewables as well. Certainly, policy 11 makes clear support for that reason.

Okay; thank you.

Good morning to the witnesses. On that exact point of transmission and the grid, policy 6(b) concerns forestry, woodland and trees. It states:

“Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in ... Any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition”.

During the consultation, various stakeholders, including Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission, pointed out that such a black and white position means that transmission infrastructure, perhaps linking new wind farms to the grid, reinforcing the network to transport that clean power to areas of demand or strengthening grid resilience for rural communities—in other words, minister, meeting the strategic challenges that you talked about—would not be done on a case-by-case basis and would not be able to go ahead, at least not without things like public inquiries. That policy has not changed in the revised draft. What was the thinking that led to the rejection of those representations and to there being no change?

With regard to policy 6, it is important to recognise that our ancient woodlands are irreplaceable habitats. Given the clear commitments around tackling both the climate emergency and the nature crisis, there is an imperative to ensure that we are protecting those vital natural assets.

I am conscious of the concerns raised by SSENT, and, in the interests of transparency, I will meet the organisation shortly. My officials have already had engagement to discuss those issues.

I will ask Cara to come in to provide a bit more detail with regard to the development of the policy.

I reiterate what the minister said about NPF4 being read and applied as a whole. I point to the minister’s opening remark that judgments will always need to be made on the basis of the circumstances of individual cases. Grid connections are already subject to planning requirements, and there is an opportunity for judgment to be applied where public need may outweigh any negative impacts.

Policy 6 aligns with and reflects established Scottish Government policy on the control of woodland removal, which is set out in Scottish Forestry’s policy.

I understand the points that the minister makes about the ancient woodlands, which could probably be similarly applied to peatland. Of course, policy 5 specifically concerns peatland. It also was not changed, but it is worded in slightly different terms. Policy 5(c) says:

“Development proposals on peatland, carbon-rich soils and priority peatland habitat will only be supported for ... Essential infrastructure and there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site”.

That is an appropriately stringent but, nevertheless, arguably more sensible position that recognises the importance of peatland, particularly in the drive to net zero, but allows for nuance where there are infrastructure projects, such as transmission, that are required. Given that, minister, would you consider reviewing policy 6(b) so that it would be more akin to or mirror policy 5(c) on peatland?

As I mentioned in my previous answer, I am happy to engage with and will engage with SSENT to understand its concerns in more detail. I recognise the point that you are making, Mr Kerr. I am very conscious of the significance of ancient woodlands and of the fact that they are an irreplaceable habitat.

I will make two points. The first is that we are at the end of a process, which it has taken some time to get to. I want to focus on bringing NPF4 to Parliament for a vote of approval and subsequently, in short order, its adoption by ministers. However, I am absolutely committed to the closest monitoring and engagement with stakeholders, going forward. In any policy development, no one wants any outcomes that are not consistent with the intent.

Through the monitoring and engagement that I have already indicated that I am committed to undertaking, we will look carefully at the policy, understand concerns and carefully monitor any impact that it has. The current position is that we will bring NPF4 back to Parliament for a vote of approval and, should Parliament agree to it, it will subsequently be adopted by ministers. There will be the closest engagement with all sectors, specifically on the points that you raised. As I said, I will meet SSENT shortly to discuss its concerns in more detail. My officials have already had engagement with it.

That being the case, will guidance be issued to assist local authorities with interpreting policies such as 6(b) so that they can be assisted in deciding, for example, what the loss of ancient woodlands means in cases in which, accepting the point that the minister rightly made, the developer was perhaps going to replace or even enhance what was there? If there is to be guidance, does the minister know when it will be out?

10:45  

On the general point about guidance and transitional arrangements, I refer to my earlier answer and say that we are committed to providing transitional advice shortly following a vote in Parliament, should Parliament approve NPF4. Guidance will be published alongside the regulations for the local development plans. That guidance will cover not only the process of LDP development but thematic guidance on how to reflect specific policies in LDPs.

I will be happy to reflect on any issues or concerns about specific guidance that are raised through the monitoring process and the engagement. Do you want to add to that, Andy?

Sure. Guidance can take different forms—it may be that there is a need for some Government-published guidance. Also, part of our new approach as we move into that delivery phase in our own team will mean engaging with those who are delivering the policies and working together on the interpretation. Guidance can take various forms, including in the form of best practice.

On policy 6 in particular, NPF4 does not sit in isolation. There is existing specific implementation guidance that supports the control of woodland removal policy. As Andy said, there are wider plans around engagement and sharing best practice to support the delivery of NPF4 specifically.

I have a final question. Minister, you have suggested throughout today, for understandable reasons, that the parliamentary process for NPF4 does not allow for amendments to be considered at this stage. How can amendments specifically relating to, given my line of questioning, critical national infrastructure and the perhaps unavoidable impacts of developments on ancient woodland be lodged in the future? How soon can that amending process commence?

There are provisions to make amendments to NPF4. That can take place at any time following the commencement of the relevant regulations. Clearly, careful consideration would have to be given to that, and it is not a step that would be taken lightly, but that provision is in the legislation for good reason. Of course, should it be necessary to do so, that will be taken forward through consultation and engagement and in a way that is evidence led. I do not know whether there is anything that you want to add about the process, Andy.

No, other than to say that we will start that work early in the new year, once we have NPF4 through.

Once we adopt it, we will take forward the process to provide that clarity. I reassure you that there will be a means of amending NPF4 at any time, once it is operational and the provision has commenced.

I am grateful to the witnesses.

That concludes our questions. I really appreciate all of you coming in to allow us to hear what you have to say about NPF4 and the work that you have been doing. It has been a useful session, and I look forward to the next steps in the process.

I will suspend the meeting for five minutes before we move on to our next item of business.

10:49 Meeting suspended.  

10:56 On resuming—