Official Report 549KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is ministerial evidence on the draft national planning framework 3. I welcome Derek Mackay, who is the Minister for Local Government and Planning; Keith Brown, who is the Minister for Transport and Veterans; David Anderson, who is the head of planning and design at Transport Scotland; Fiona Simpson, who is assistant chief planner with the Scottish Government; and Helen Wood, who is principal planner with the Scottish Government. I also welcome Patricia Ferguson MSP, who is joining us for the evidence on NPF3. The Minister for Local Government and Planning will make an opening statement.
The proposed national planning framework 3 is the spatial expression of the Government’s economic strategy. It is about our ambition to create high-quality places that support sustainable economic growth across the country and which realise our opportunities for development and investment. It brings together our plans and strategies to provide a coherent vision for how Scotland as a place should evolve over the next 20 to 30 years.
From the beginning of the process, I have made it clear that I want the national planning framework and Scottish planning policy to focus the planning system on economic recovery, on the transition to the low-carbon economy and on sustainable economic growth. The spatial strategy that is set out in NPF3 aims to achieve balanced and sustainable growth across Scotland. It plays to our strengths by, for example, highlighting the role of city regions and towns in continuing to attract investment, and by highlighting where planning can help to reduce disadvantage.
The vision for our future development describes Scotland as “A successful, sustainable place”, “A low carbon place”, “A natural, resilient place” and “A connected place”. However, that is more than just a vision. The national planning framework will be taken forward by development plans and in decisions on planning applications, which make a real difference to our places and communities. To help to guide that, the proposed NPF3 explains what the strategy means for our cities, regions, towns, rural areas, coasts and islands.
I understand that the committee is interested in the 14 proposed national developments. We designed the process for identifying national developments having reflected on the views of Parliament in its response to NPF2. For the first time, we issued a call for national developments at the outset of the process, and more than 240 proposals were formally submitted. Also for the first time, the analyses of those proposals were published for further consultation alongside the main issues report in April 2013. Every proposal has been considered carefully, first against our published criteria and then in relation to the wider spatial strategy.
As well as that, we considered what benefit there would be from national development status—benefit could take the form of streamlining consent or of attracting wider interest, partnership or investment. As a result, we have made choices and we have prioritised the projects that best reflect our spatial vision and which are considered to be in the national interest.
National development status does not automatically grant planning consent—robust planning and assessment are still required for projects and proposals to move forward from applications—and neither does national development status imply a Scottish Government spending commitment. Rather, it provides greater certainty for investors and delivery partners by establishing the need for those developments.
The draft action plan contains more detail on the lead partners for each individual project. I have no doubt that the committee will hear a wide range of views about the national developments that we have proposed. There will be representations from those who contend that other projects should also be given national development status. I emphasise that although we focus on 14 national developments, many of those bring together several individual proposals. Many other proposals are also recognised and supported within the wider strategy.
I am conscious that the committee has an interest in other issues, including transport, infrastructure and housing. Those are key issues for planning in Scotland—when considered both separately and together. On transport, I stress that the proposed NPF3 supports rather than replaces the infrastructure investment plan and the strategic transport projects review.
Our vision is for Scotland to be “A connected place”, which means not only improved transport infrastructure but better digital connections. On housing, our approach has been to promote positive and flexible planning for housing in NPF3 and to focus on achieving that through strategic and local development plans. The draft Scottish planning policy set out our view on how that could best be achieved.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed NPF3 with the committee and Mr Brown, and I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you, minister.
How does the proposed framework tie in with the policies and proposals that are set out in the infrastructure investment plan, the strategic transport projects review and the national transport strategy?
As with many other strategies, they have been pulled together to be embodied in a spatial expression that is the national planning framework. A number of the projects that have been outlined have been expressed as having priority in the framework when the planning system can add value—there is a two-way relationship. The investment plans then inform NPF3. That allows us to consider whether the added status that can be gained from national development designation priority within NPF3 makes a difference, because NPF3 is not a spending document, but a planning document. For some people, it is an interpretation of what matters as a material consideration in the planning system; for others, it is an investment document for Scotland. I think that it very helpfully outlines where planning can add value to the system and to individual projects, where necessary.
All the transport projects in NPF3 are either committed projects or projects that are at an advanced stage of development. Why is that and why is there no indication of the possible next round of major transport projects from 2025 onwards?
That is a very fair question. I will refer you back to the decision-making process for the individual strategies. Mr Brown, in his ministerial capacity, will still be considering the infrastructure and transport projects for the future—those that might be emerging—and deciding on how they might be prioritised. NPF3 expresses specifically in terms of infrastructure investment and transport what is required by the nation and where the planning system can add value and give certainty. For that reason, the iterative staged process of considering current infrastructure investments would further inform any future NPF—indeed, planning policy itself would be taken into account.
For the first time, we have integrated NPF3 with SPP; we are reviewing them and coming to conclusions on them at the same time, which is where the “A connected place” vision features. However, all the other Government strategies will still take place in the normal fashion—for example, decisions on investment for transport projects and consultation will be undertaken through the strategic transport review investment considerations.
NPF3 is a spatial expression of existing Government plans. The new elements would come in from other areas—the private sector or emerging development proposals—and might be more of a surprise. An example of that could be emphasis on energy and storage, which is entirely private-sector led. The Cruachan dam is an example of that. It is not for the Government to say that it must happen, but in terms of the planning regime we would present a supportive framework. The private sector and the Government bring forward proposals in different ways; the Government’s proposals are embodied in individual strategies that have been subjected to scrutiny and now feature in NPF3 in an integrated way.
My final question is more specific and relates to high-speed rail. Again, that has been designated—quite rightly, in my view—as a national development. Can you provide an update on how it fits in to development? I mean both the Edinburgh to Glasgow high-speed rail link and the greater issue of the United Kingdom-wide high-speed rail mechanism?
There are two points to be made on that. Alex Johnstone will know about the ongoing preparation of the business case for Edinburgh to Glasgow high-speed rail. That should come to ministers in the next few weeks and will give us more certainty about how we intend to take it forward. In considering the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement project, for example, we have taken into account that the high-speed link may happen. However, we should not get involved in a lot of expenditure or plans in respect of high-speed rail that would supersede the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement project.
That is what we are doing within Scotland. In UK terms, for the first time we have real engagement with high speed 2: Patrick McLoughlin has agreed to that. We are looking at things such as possible routes and the implications of extension of HS2 to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Generally, we are continuing with the proposal and we are working with the partnership group—which includes Glasgow City Council, the City of Edinburgh Council, Scottish Chambers of Commerce and others—to continue to put pressure on the UK Government to make an early commitment. We still do not have that commitment from the UK Government, but we are pleased to welcome the engagement on HS2. The two things are running alongside each other.
Can you go into more detail about how particular projects are designated as national developments, in particular when transport projects of a certain size and scale are included but others, such as A9 dualling, are not?
That is a helpful question and the example that Mark Griffin gave will help me to make the point. When investment decisions have been taken on individual projects, they will feature in transport plans. We pose the question whether a project meets the criteria that will allow it to be considered as a national development, and there is further scrutiny beyond that. We have here the whole matrix of individual projects; if members suffer from insomnia, we can share it.
Crucially, we ask whether NPF3 planning status adds value. The work to which Mark Griffin referred will be happening as planned, so that added-value status is not required. That is the case for a great number of transport project proposals, particularly concerning roads, where—although NPF3 planning status does not add value—the proposals are referenced in the documents because of their importance to the country. That is the difference between the two. Generally, transport projects are of such significance in achievement of our vision of Scotland being a well-connected place that they are referenced, but a project must meet the criteria to reach national development status. That is not to say that it will happen, but to explain that the planning system is generally supportive in terms of the hierarchy within the arrangement.
Developments are scored against a range of factors including reducing emissions to meet targets, job creation and improving the quality of the built and natural environments. We are very clear what the criteria are for every candidate project and how each would be analysed, weighted and presented to committees for consideration. Projects such as the A9 dualling are referenced in NPF3. They are significant but do not require national development status in order to proceed.
10:15
Good morning. What is the proposed framework’s role in encouraging and assisting development of policies that encourage the modal shift from car and public transport to active travel, including cycling? That is probably one for the Minister for Transport and Veterans.
I am happy to answer that. Jim Eadie will have seen the references in the document to the NPF2 policy on active travel. We have had a substantial number of responses on how we should promote active travel. You will also be aware of the additional moneys that John Swinney has allocated to it. Many responses asked specifically about things such as additions to the national cycle network. We said to individual councils and others who asked about it that it is done through Sustrans, with money that we allocate to it for such projects. Jim Eadie will be aware of the project in Edinburgh that is funded from that pot. Local authorities must come forward with their proposals and work with Sustrans. Our role is in relation to funding. The Edinburgh project is intended to be an exemplar project from which other authorities can learn lessons.
On the previous question on dualling the A9, that project is included in the infrastructure and investment plan, so the substantive decisions have been taken on it and we will proceed with it and complete it by 2025. We have also set up a small group with Sustrans to look at the active travel network coming down the A9. One of the issues is that maintenance has not been as it should have for that active travel network. However, future trunk-road operating contracts will include the obligation to look after the active travel corridor coming down the A9.
As I think Derek Mackay also said previously, local authorities will have to work with Sustrans to come forward with proposals for specific projects.
What you said about exemplar projects is interesting. I accept what you say about the Government setting the direction of travel and allocating the expenditure, then leaving it to local authorities to pursue projects. However, could not more be done to promote exemplar projects so that we implement the policies in the framework? For example, there is a commitment in the framework that local authorities will identify one walking and cycling friendly project where accessibility will be significantly improved. How can the Government do more to encourage local authorities to take that commitment forward?
We say to local authorities, mainly through Sustrans, that they must look at the network in their area and identify gaps because they know it better than we do. In my area, for example, Clackmannanshire Council has a very well-developed element of the national cycle network, but it has gaps. It is best for local authorities to talk to Sustrans. Of course, we have a role when it comes to signing off projects and ensuring that they happen.
The Leith Walk development is an exemplar project that other large urban areas in Scotland can examine to find out what lessons they can learn from it. There is an iterative process whereby local authorities know what they want to do. I have to say that some local authorities have been much more proactive in that regard than others. However, we want to encourage all local authorities to get involved. They are best placed to say what needs are in their areas. Their work with Sustrans is a kind of bottom-up approach. Derek Mackay wants to add something.
Purely from the planning point of view, I think that it should be welcomed that, for the first time, in terms of modal shift, a long-distance cycling and walking network is being established as a priority for national development. That policy change should be welcomed. That is not to say that one must walk the entire route in one day. The emphasis on the network will identify the gaps in it.
Mr Brown made a point about his constituency. When I visited the national cycling route there as part of my consideration of whether to include it in NPF3, I saw that there was a blockage there because of a pretty heavily used roundabout. That emphasises the point that in all future planning decisions we should think about the impact on accessibility and transport, and do so more stringently than we have in the past. From the policy perspective, that will tighten up where we are in the modal shift, and it will support other projects including the electrification of rail networks and the transition to the low-carbon economy. There is a range of policy indicators and guides in NPF3 that will help planning authorities to make decisions.
Jim Eadie talked about exemplars. “Designing Streets” is accessibility friendly; we have promoted and analysed it and we know that more developers need to take it up and deliver it. We will share exemplars of good practice across the country.
The framework contains a commitment for each local authority to identify one walking and cycling-friendly settlement. The timescale that is attached to that is 2030. In evidence last week, John Lauder of Sustrans said:
“I do not understand the 2030 date. It does not fit in with the cycling action plan”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 29 January 2014; c 2504.]
Does that date represent the Government’s ambition or could it be brought forward?
As with many areas, the date will be dictated partly by the resources that are available. The committee has seen fairly strong evidence for an additional commitment from the Government. If we have additional resources, we can take that forward.
I emphasise that, as I think John Lauder is aware, such commitments involve a partnership. The Government is not simply saying that it will do something; we are not saying to councils, “We’re coming to your area to do this active travel project.” The partnership relies on people coming together and on the resources being available to do that. We have given a date of 2025 for completing the A9 project. We are examining closely whether we can do anything to bring that forward, and that approach applies in most policy areas.
Many of the aspirations exist in the context of a tough budget environment—we have had a cut of about 11 per cent to our revenue budget and about 26 per cent to our capital budget. It is better to ensure that we have the time available to achieve the aims, but we should be aware of the opportunities that might present themselves to do that earlier. We should not have to wait too long for all local authorities to produce their own proposals, which the framework refers to. The date will depend on resources and on partners’ willingness to work together.
I totally and utterly agree with having walking and cycling-friendly spaces, but how is it that in a development that is going up in my constituency, there are no pavements outside the houses? How do local authorities get away with allowing a developer not to build pavements, when we are talking about having living streets?
Every planning application is considered on its merits. Under the current and emerging SPPs, we expect the local environment, accessibility and safety to be taken into account. I am not aware of the development that you refer to. I cannot use the excuse that the application is live and so I cannot refer to the development, if you say that it is being built.
We expect the basic minimum requirements to be met. The best practice is exemplified in a development at Polnoon in East Renfrewshire, where the developer went over and above what it had to do to design a quality place, where space is designated, real accessibility is provided and the environment is attractive. The developer has got the balance right and produced an exemplar that we should share across the country. We have promoted the “Designing Streets” policy to achieve such developments.
I cannot refer to individual applications that a planning authority might have considered, but we want safe and accessible places for development. I would be surprised if current or emerging planning policy had not been considered.
How do you reconcile the Scottish Government’s climate change targets with the designation of the expansion of five airports as a national development?
The inclusion of the airports is important to Scotland’s economy. They are a gateway to Scotland and they are important to business, travellers and the population at large. It is welcome that we have upgraded the airports’ status in NPF3 from that in NPF2. Some people would have you believe that we have downgraded their status, but they have been upgraded to national development status. That is right, because the airport enhancements will contribute to sustainable economic growth.
There is a counterbalance in emissions, although development is taking place in relation to aviation emissions, which I suppose will continue. Greater accessibility and direct flights to Scottish airports, rather than access through connections elsewhere, might also have an impact. A range of factors must be borne in mind in relation to the airports.
However, they are a dynamo for the economy, and we think that any increase in aviation emissions would be offset by a range of other policies around energy, other forms of transport and modal shift and other contributions to climate change targets. As with everything else, it is about achieving a balance, but we think that we have struck the right balance between economic growth and greater protection of the environment.
The other point is that the expansion plans of individual airports very often—in fact, I think in all cases—include an aspiration for a greater number of direct flights and direct routes. Of course, if those aspirations are met, we do not need to have the intermediate short-haul flight, which is environmentally damaging to a greater extent than long-haul flights are. It could help if we get more direct routes into each of the airports.
It is also true to say that the expansion that is referred to—for example, at Aberdeen airport—often includes things that are about customer service, better security arrangements and better customer comfort, so the expansion is of the quality of service that is offered, as well as of the air business through direct flights, which are less environmentally damaging.
Bear it in mind that one reason for using national development status is because development around the periphery of the airports can be a dynamo for growth, so it is not necessarily just about an increase in the number of flights or an aspiration to have an extra runway that might never materialise; the consequential development from airport growth, which can bring jobs and economic growth, would be welcomed.
I take on board the point about technological advances and the reduction in carbon from direct flights, but another way of reducing the carbon footprint would be to have more efficient access to our airports. Why has the surface access strategy been removed from NPF3 when it has been in previous versions of the document? Witnesses commented on that at last week’s meeting.
Glasgow airport, for example, is carrying out its own study on the surface access strategy—in fact, it is coming to a conclusion. We have enhanced the designation for Glasgow airport in NPF3, but we recognise that this is not always about what the Government does. We are a partner in the study that the airport is taking forward, and nothing in NPF3 precludes us from taking forward anything that comes from that study. However, NPF3 is much more about enabling the creation of an environment in which such things can be taken forward. There is no downgrading of the issues that we are looking at in relation to surface access.
As no members have further questions on transport and digital infrastructure, we will move on to housing.
The committee has heard concerns—this follows on from the convener’s previous question—that housing developments do not meet Scottish Government best practice guidance on street design and the provision of digital infrastructure. On the digital infrastructure point in particular, when developments go up, people who move into them sometimes automatically expect a modern house to have a modern internet connection, but that does not seem to be the case in a lot of developments. How does the proposed framework and associated Scottish planning policy tackle that issue?
We have to be mindful of what NPF3 and planning policy are about. Really, they are about decisions on land use; they are not necessarily about the quality of the product, although I agree that it is a fair assumption and expectation that the developer will provide the infrastructure for a development to be connected.
Our role as a Government is to be supportive of the roll-out of digital technology. That is why I have made major investment in that and why the policies around the planning regime have been updated and strengthened. We are also attaching significance to digital infrastructure as a national project in NPF3.
It does not feel particularly proportionate to go beyond NPF3 and, as you suggest, into setting individual planning policies around the quality of digital connection, for example, even though I agree with you that individual developers should certainly provide that.
We set conditions on energy standards in building control. What you suggest might be more appropriate in there, rather than in planning policy, given the way in which planning policy operates. Planning involves a decision around land use and not necessarily the internals of a property. I absolute agree with the sentiment, but I think that developers should consider best practice in that regard; there is a reason why it is called best practice, but for many it should be seen as a minimum.
The policy is to be supportive across the country and to have roll-out and coverage in every part of the country. There is investment and there is policy support in the planning system, but we cannot compel a developer to connect to broadband, as much as we think that that is attractive. It would not be competent.
10:30
You could do that if broadband was designated as a utility. Is that a possibility?
I like your creative thinking, convener, but we are trying to keep the purity of the planning process, which is about decisions on land use and what is appropriate development and what is not. We want a sympathetic process.
I have met digital operators who share the ambition to take broadband to every part of the country, and they are surprised by some of the partners that they work with. There is liaison with Homes for Scotland on how we can encourage developers to deliver this; it is actually in their interests as well as in the interests of individual purchasers and tenants. However, it is not something that the planning system can compel. We can make it available. We can provide a supportive planning environment through Government actions. We are rolling out broadband and taking coverage to as much of the country as we can as quickly as we can, but, within the planning system, we cannot compel individual developers to connect to broadband. My officials will reassure me that that is indeed the case.
I want to emphasise a point that Mr Mackay made about how we try to work within the system. CalMac Ferries travels to many remote parts of the country. It is now actively looking at whether by providing wi-fi on its ferries and at some of the ports and harbours it can also provide a more general community benefit to some of the more remote areas. The Government is trying to look at these things across the piece, and where there are opportunities to provide greater coverage, we are taking them forward.
It is good to hear that there is some kind of joined-up thinking in parts of the country.
I will continue on the housing theme. With reference to green belt, in evidence last week Professor Bramley stated:
“If we consider the development economics and the residual land values, for every house that is built in that area, there will be hundreds of thousands of pounds of free development gain to the landowner. We should be capturing that to pay for the infrastructure.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 29 January 2014; c 2511.]
Is there a need for a mechanism to enable infrastructure works to be funded by the developer or landowner? Is the Government considering that?
Right now, for any development to proceed, any mitigation that is required has to be delivered. Sometimes it is a matter of negotiation as to what is delivered and how and when. The planning system already demands that where there is a question about infrastructure contribution, any required mitigation is delivered through the planning obligations or sometimes the conditions. Where development requires infrastructure improvement to make it happen, that is delivered at the moment. You might question some of the decisions that planning authorities take, but that is already a requirement in the planning system.
Is 100 per cent of the additional cost met or is it a far lower proportion?
It depends on the nature of the application and the nature of the development. For example, if there was a housing development and some extra resource for a school was required, you would think about what proportion it was fair to expect that development to contribute to that school. The same would apply to a road connection. Of course you cannot build half a junction, but if a junction was required to support the growth of a housing development, you would require the applicant to contribute to that and, generally, it would be the full cost. It is still a matter for the planning authority, but generally the approach would be to require the full cost of the development.
As a planning minister, I often have to guard against planning authorities asking for a wee added extra—a bit of icing on the cake. That is in the public spirit and could be a public benefit, so I understand the reason for it and, as a former local authority councillor, I know that people sometimes try to get a bit extra for the public good. However, although that is well intentioned, it does not fit with the spirit of planning legislation. It should really be a question of what mitigation is required to allow the development to happen. Generally, full cost is required, but sometimes there is flexibility, although that is for the planning authority to determine and it might allow flexibility for a range of reasons.
I hope that that answers Mr MacDonald’s question.
The committee also heard that the location of housing developments is, in some cases, being driven more by the wishes of developers than by those of planning authorities. What guidance does the proposed framework and SPP provide on the location of large-scale housing developments?
We believe in the plan-led system, but a plan-led system requires credible plans. My challenge to planning authorities is to ensure that all their development plans are credible, up to date and robust, have been consulted on and can inspire confidence. We have put a great deal of effort into that.
We hold that the plan-led system—where the planning authority has suggested development should go—should be the foundation of the planning system. That said, developments do not have to happen within a particular zone if material considerations allow you to depart from the plan, and that is made all the more vulnerable if a planning authority does not have a robust, credible and up-to-date local development plan, which, unfortunately, is still the case for far too many planning authorities. The law says that a development plan should be less than five years old. It may surprise you to learn that almost half of them are more than five years old.
We believe in a plan-led system, but local authorities have to deliver. We hope that many of the actions that we have discussed in Parliament over the past weeks and months will precipitate an improvement in the situation.
To answer your question, yes, planning authorities should be determining through their plans and through engagement with their communities where development should go, but there will be circumstances in which that does not apply and in which development can still be justified, but only if an application can show in a transparent way that there is a material consideration that would allow such a decision.
Do you see any conflict between Scottish planning policy and planning advice? Planning policy says that redevelopment of urban and rural brownfield sites is preferred to development on greenfield sites, and some of the planning advice notes refer to marketability, where planning authorities discuss with housing providers what can be developed.
I think that they are compatible, because the hierarchy starts with NPF3 and SPP, and the planning advice notes are to advise those making decisions on what should be taken into account.
When producing plans on the generous supply of housing land and sustainable places, it would be unfair to developers and to communities to have whole tracts of land that were not developable, either because there was no demand or because they were contaminated or too complex. It would be pointless having a land supply system if you could not actually market the houses. The planning advice notes actually support policy, which generally supports the principle that you have cited—not just for housing but in many other areas—that we should look to develop brownfield sites or previously developed land first, before we turn to other areas, such as the green belt. We would rather develop those locations first, but local circumstances might present a range of reasons why other decisions have to be taken.
Last week, Professor Bramley stated:
“I would be suspicious of just asking developers to tell us about marketability. We should have our own independent assessment of the economics and viability of developments and that should be what influences our decisions. In most parts of Scotland, but not all areas, a housing development is viable and we should not just let developers cherry pick.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 29 January 2014; c 2509.]
What is your view on that? Would the Scottish Government consider independent assessment?
You cannot make generalised comments about the planning system, because it is far too complex and is particularly sensitive to local circumstances. I suppose that, on the whole, developers will be looking to find the best sites, and if we are talking about private sector developments, of course they will want sites that can be marketed and which people will want to buy. It could be argued that that is a response to market demand and to individuals’ needs and decisions on where they want to live.
We know that there are developments in city and town centres on previously developed land and proposals for further regeneration, so I do not think that you can generalise or take a black-and-white approach.
Developers do not get to cherry pick, because we ask for an independent analysis. That is called the planning system. Planners take an impartial view in weighing up all the factors in any planning application, and they make a determination based on the facts and the material considerations. If they do not trust the information that they are presented with, they can probe it further and further analysis can be undertaken. In any large-scale development, where appropriate, we would also require an environmental impact assessment. The planning system should be proportionate, fair and transparent.
In some areas of planning more than others, the system is fraught with difficulty. He who pays the piper calls the tune, it is said. If you pay a consultant to write up a report, you attach the weight that you want to attach to the findings as they are presented. That applies to any planning application. However, I trust the planning profession, as many others do, to make the right decisions and to weigh up those considerations. If the application goes to committee, it will be for democratically elected local members to make the decisions.
You have said that greenfield or green-belt developments are preferred. Are any incentives in place to encourage developers to build on brownfield sites first?
Through the sequential approach—the hierarchy that we have—there is policy encouragement to look at brownfield first.
In designating sites through the development plan process, we would be far more enthusiastic about finding sites that had been previously developed than about finding greenfield sites. That would be part of our policy approach, and therefore it is appropriate to NPF3 and SPP. We do not propose any financial incentive but, when it comes to public sector investment and housing, there would be a particular methodology to encourage development on previously developed sites. The financial incentive would not come in with the private sector, although it does exist in the public sector.
I highlight that because, during the town centre debate a few weeks ago, we made the point that the town centre action plan discusses extending the sequential approach, as it relates to retail businesses locating in town centres first, to all other parts of the planning system. We have proposed—and we are saying—that, in addition to planning, other parts of the public sector should consider their investment decisions. For instance, housing associations considering housing grant should consider town centre sites and previously developed land before turning to other sites.
That is a very strong point in policy, and it is not diluted in any way by what we propose. The incentive is to apply the planning policy in order to get permission. If a developer is choosing to go to a greenfield site, it will have to have a very strong case if it is to be considered and then approved.
You said that we have a plan-led system that can inspire public confidence. You spoke about developers looking for the best sites and responding to market demand. Understandably, they will be looking to maximise their financial gain. Without wanting to generalise—you said that you did not want to go down this route—do you think that there is a role for the planning system and planning guidance in setting a level for what would represent a fair return on a company’s investment, so that it can make a profit without profiteering at the public’s expense?
There is no role for a mechanism as you have described. I would propose no such role. Taxation can be dealt with in other ways.
Hear, hear.
I am a bit concerned that I have had a “Hear, hear” from the Conservatives on that point, but from no one else.
What you have described, Mr Eadie, would be a substantial change to the planning system, which should remain focused on decisions on the appropriateness of land use. I should not contaminate that with other considerations, however well meaning. Planning must be about land use.
I add, however, that it is exactly because a housing development will have an element of profit that we have constructed policies that consider not just profit, which is secondary, but need. We ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable housing and that, even in private sector developments, there is still a quota or share of affordable housing as part of the mix. We achieve public good through a different mechanism to the one that you suggest.
I will put the question in a slightly different way. Would you be equally concerned at a presumption within planning guidance or heritage guidelines that identified a particular level of profit as being appropriate?
That would be inappropriate for the planning system. To do that would almost lead us to engage in the development company’s ethics and in other considerations that are not particularly appropriate to planning.
It is not for the planning system to make any judgment on what profits someone is making. It is for the planning system to get the right developments in the right places, to meet local and national needs and to do that in a fair and transparent way—that has nothing to do with ensuring that someone gets a slice of the cake. Nice try, Mr Eadie.
I got a useful reply on the record.
10:45
Mary Fee will continue the theme.
I will follow up on the need to have the right developments in the right places. We have heard evidence that retail housing and business developments continue to be built around access by car, with limited or no access to walking, cycling and public transport networks. What can be done specifically through the NPF and the SPP to ensure that all new developments are accessible by active travel and public transport?
We have put greater emphasis on that matter in NPF3 and emerging planning policy.
You mentioned retail. We already have a sequential approach in that sector. For example, developments should be considered first in town centres. Why is that the case? Because town centres are generally more accessible than developments that are out of town, on the periphery or in more remote locations.
As I say, decisions will be made from time to time where the economic impact or other considerations allow us to depart from that approach but, generally speaking, we propose that developments take place in population hubs where people can more easily access them through public transport. The approach is a strong feature of planning policy as we propose and include the transition to the low-carbon economy and everything else that goes behind that. That applies not only to retail but to housing and any future developments.
That takes me back to the importance of a plan-led system, which sets out clearly where development should be channelled. The policy suggests that those developments should be as you describe and not in random locations across the country because that might suit a developer. How we have composed the policy is very strategic.
You mentioned decisions taken contrary to that approach. It will still be for each planning authority to make the right decision in its area. We absolutely support—if you will pardon the pun—the direction of travel for future developments to be more accessible, to contribute to the low-carbon economy and to be prioritised in town centres where that is appropriate. That is why we are extending the sequential approach.
Making that modal shift to get people out of cars and move towards walking and cycling is a very aspirational and long-term policy. Is there an opportunity to give more guidance to local authorities on developments in that regard?
Having conducted—this is the first time that a planning minister has done this—a roadshow to every planning authority in the country, I am aware that there is a need for greater guidance, so that planners know more clearly what is required of them. For that reason I will commit, once we have concluded NPF3 and SPP, to issuing further guidance. We will have to refresh and update the policies, and perhaps we will give a bit more clarity, as you request, around what issues they should take into account.
Let us say that a wonderful development is proposed but it is perhaps not in the plan-led system. As a planner, I would want to understand what issues to take into account. A question is about net growth, because sometimes it may simply be the case that a development is just an amalgamation of economic activity that is happening elsewhere and will be displaced. Consequently, I have been very keen on attaching greater significance and weighting to economic impact in the planning system and having a clearer understanding on what is new net growth as opposed to displacement from one place to another.
Why are no major housing developments identified as national developments? NPF3 gives emphasis to certain areas where there is critical need of housing, but there are no developments identified.
There are if you include Ravenscraig, which is predominately a housing development. That is a national development because it is mixed use. I disagree that there are no housing developments; it might just be that housing is connected to the project as a whole.
Our policies are incredibly supportive of house building and growth in Scotland. Households are becoming smaller, so we will require more houses. All the housing demand needs assessments tell us that there is housing demand. Building will happen at a different pace in different parts of the country.
There should be national designation only when all the necessary criteria are met. If all the policies that we have discussed today are abided by, planning consent is likely to be given. No individual national project required such an approach, with the exception of Ravenscraig, and there were clear reasons for Ravenscraig’s inclusion.
It has been suggested that regional housing supply targets should be in the NPF rather than in strategic development plans. What is your view?
We have commissioned work on strategic development plans and the added value that they provide to the system. Right now, housing need is determined through local authorities’ assessments, and local authorities deliver housing as part of the development plan process. The approach broadly works well.
Some members will be sensitive to the fact that local authorities get into horse trading about who will build houses and where, which can conflict with public opinion on where sites should be. If we are to address the issue, we should have full engagement at the earliest opportunity. We should find the right number of adequate sites, in order to meet the need for a generous supply of land. Clarity on the plan-led system should ensure that there is adequate provision. For that reason, additional targets should not be required, as long as we abide by our current policies and approach.
I concede—and it is obvious—that there is conflict where individual local authorities feel that they have done their bit and do not want to contribute to the wider target. However, the targets are there for a reason. If we want the right number of houses in the right places, there will have to be a bit of give and take in the system, but I see no value in adding an extra layer or transferring targets.
What constitutes a major housing development? At what point should such a development be included in the process?
I knew that you would ask me a difficult question. We do not have a definition for the purposes of NPF3. There are criteria in relation to a range of indicators that determine whether a project has that status. It is not just about how many houses are involved. If a development met a few of the criteria, it might be able to feature.
It is almost as though national designation is a status symbol, but the question that we must pose is what added value that status brings. A major housing development should be considered on its own merits and does not require NPF3 status.
Ravenscraig is an exception because there are so many other uses. A new town centre will be created. It is unique. It is a massive regeneration project, which is why it meets a range of criteria and has been designated a national development. In general, housing projects do not require and would not benefit from having that status.
As you know, there is a major issue in the west of Edinburgh. The Edinburgh’s garden district proposal is for up to 4,000 houses. Last night, 150 people attended a public meeting about the proposal. The project would have a major impact on the existing communities. There would be congestion on the arterial roads into the city, and we are already failing to meet the European air quality standard in the west of Edinburgh. Surely the proposal is for a major housing development and should be considered, given its impact on the west of the city.
I cannot answer that, but I am happy to see whether we received a submission in relation to the proposal and what factors were considered. I will get back to you. However, if it is a live application—
It is not live yet. It is at the consultation stage.
Okay. I am happy to look into the circumstances, but we would be here all week if members wanted me to explain why every project happens to be in or out of NPF3. This is the second of four committees at which I am giving evidence on NPF3, and it would take some time to go through every project. However, if members want to engage with me about individual projects, I will be happy to do so.
Okay. Thank you.
If there are no more questions on housing, we will move on to water.
Last week, we heard from Professor Gooch of the Scottish centre for water policy, who flagged up to us that the proposed framework does not show an understanding of issues of flooding and water run-off. As we are all aware, we seem to be suffering more extreme adverse weather on a more frequent basis. In my constituency, for example, we had some severe flooding over the Christmas and new year period. Are you aware of concerns about the NPF in that regard, and would you be prepared to look at the issue?
We have considered all the submissions and the oral evidence, and we look forward to the committee’s findings. However, it is our view that many of the environmental assessments and analyses that are required for any development to happen are adequate. Sometimes they are disproportionate, but it is necessary to understand the impact of developments and how that should be mitigated. As we embrace the challenges and ramifications of climate change, the planning system will have to be quite adept.
I do not concur with the view that we have not taken such matters into account. Of course, what is appropriate for NPF3 is quite different from how we engage with matters in SPP. We would expect not only an environmental impact assessment but any assessment to take such issues into account. We also take a great interest in what has happened south of the border with development on flood plains and its impact.
The Government has put a great deal of effort into flood prevention and wider policies on the environment. I suppose that is why we now have some of the most ambitious climate change targets in the world and a comprehensive set of policies to achieve the transition towards them.
Okay. The other issue that was flagged up to us last week is that waste management and the use of waste as a resource is not covered in any detail in the proposed framework. Can you explain the reasons for that? Could that issue be addressed in the final document?
The issue may not require to be in NPF3, but it will be addressed in Scottish planning policy, which is going through a slightly different process.
Intentionally or not, much of what the committee has discussed today has been about SPP not NPF3. We will address the issue of waste through planning policy. NPF3 is about spatial expression, so it would be wrong of us to include in it, for example, information on how national waste will go to energy plants. That is not something that we would put in NPF3 unless we had a national plan to do it, which we do not. It is something that we do in partnership with local authorities, so the considerations that we would take into account will be covered in SPP. I hope that that reassures Mr Ingram.
Thank you.
Can I make one further point around water? I think that it is worth making. We have considered the negative consequences of climate change, but there is great potential in Scotland for the storage of water and being a hydro nation. That is very positively covered in our policies, and it is an emerging area for Scotland that is exciting a great number of people. The storage development at Cruachan is a great example of how that might work for the benefit of the environment and consumer demand.
As it seems that there are no other questions on water, I will go back to the digital issue and the national fibre network.
Mark Griffin asked at last week’s meeting about the construction of new broadband cabling whose length exceeds 8km. Professor Fourman said that it was a bit of a mystery to him why the specific length of 8km is mentioned in the document. Can you shed any light on that, minister?
I am happy to defer to officials on that particular technical mystery. I am sure that Dr Fiona Simpson can answer your question adequately.
The 8km threshold has been used to describe the national development to ensure that only larger-scale proposals are captured by the national development status. The threshold is therefore used to define a major development. We use that in the national development description to avoid tying up smaller-scale developments with the national development.
So a development will be designated as large scale if the fibre covers more than 8km.
Yes. It has to be more than 8km.
Right. Are you any the wiser, Mark?
We need to go back to the professor.
Will the Government’s approach make a difference to digital roll-out?
The 8km threshold will ensure not only that the required large-scale digital infrastructure is supported by the national development status but that the process for smaller scale developments is not slowed down by having to undergo additional processing or be allocated additional time.
11:00
Do members have any further questions?
Can I ask a general question on the NPF, convener?
Yes.
Thank you—and thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here this morning.
Good morning, ministers. I am sure that you are both aware of the Glasgow canal partnership, which is a joint venture involving Glasgow City Council, ISIS Waterside Regeneration, Bigg Regeneration and Scottish Canals. There has been a great deal of regeneration along and investment in the canal corridor, particularly in the north of the city and, indeed, in my constituency. The corridor remains a strategic priority for the council and its partners and will be a focus of continued investment and concerted regeneration efforts, perhaps for the next five to 10 years.
In fact, developments have increased in number and have become more ambitious, even since the publication of NPF2. However, although the corridor merited a mention in NPF2, it does not seem to be in NPF3. Is there any reason for that?
Again, I am happy to look at individual matters. I have to say that, given our support for the project that Patricia Ferguson has mentioned, there is no reason for its omission. However, a lot of the language that we use about and our definition of the central Scotland green network cover many projects in central Scotland, including Glasgow. We have tried to keep the document fairly concise, and if something in it has not been expanded on fully that is not because it is not important or does not carry the Government’s support. It might simply be covered in the principles.
That said, I am happy to consider referring to the project, if that is what the member is suggesting. It does not seem to have met the individual criteria; I am not sure whether it was submitted as an individual bid, but if it had been it would have been assessed along with the others. Nevertheless, we believe that our attractive place and regeneration criteria provide a great deal of coverage and, given that the project itself lies within the central Scotland green network, some of the work will carry support.
The question I come back to is whether the project itself requires the national planning framework in order to achieve planning progress. I do not believe that that is essential for the project, but I appreciate that the member would like it to be included.
Was there a request to include it in the document?
There were several proposals on the canals network, and we have reflected the importance of canals in regeneration and the work of the metropolitan Glasgow strategic drainage partnership.
That is very interesting. Although I understand the need for brevity, I note that NPF2 simply said:
“Ruchill/Keppoch and locations adjacent to the Forth and Clyde Canal are priorities for regeneration in Glasgow.”
That took up only half a line in NPF2, so I do not think that the brevity of the document is at issue here.
The previous NPF referred to a number of other Glasgow projects, such as the Clyde gateway. The canal corridor project is the only one that has not been carried forward and, given its importance to the north of the city, I think that it would be worth mentioning it in NPF3.
Interestingly, although the document refers to the metropolitan Glasgow draining project, a large chunk of which will also be in my constituency, it does not mention that the Glasgow and Clyde corridor element—or, at least, the canal—will be integral to that work. There seems to be a bit of gap with regard to not only regeneration but the connection with the drainage project, and I genuinely think that the project is worthy of inclusion in the document.
If the member is of that view and if the committee agrees, I am more than happy to include the project in the Glasgow and the Clyde valley section in whatever iteration of the framework we arrive at. Indeed, I have no major difficulty with that. If the member were making a full-frontal bid for national designation, she might be chancing it somewhat, but the reference that she has suggested does not seem an unreasonable inclusion and would fit within our current narrative.
Although we have no objection to including a reference to the project, I am not sure that it adds anything to the process. Quite a lot of the canal regeneration that was referred to in the previous document has already been carried out; indeed, it is part of a wider national regeneration strategy for Scottish Canals, including work from Inverness across the country to Fort William as well as in Falkirk. Those projects are equally significant.
I can see the national significance of the drainage scheme, which is very exciting, but I can think of nothing that can be added to the project in question. Up to now, any funds that have become available have been allocated to different parts to add to the different mix of canal redevelopment in that area—most recently, there was the very exciting water sports development—and I do not think that anyone in Scottish Canals or elsewhere has felt it to be an impediment that a project has not been mentioned in the national planning framework.
I suppose the question is whether everything that the Government or others are doing should be included in every document. If so, we will end up with very weighty documents. I have no objection to the project being included, but I do not think that its not being included will impede any process.
I should say to Mr Mackay that my ambitions for my constituency know no bounds. The higher the designation that the project can get, the better.
We have actually seen only a very small element of what we hope will be the overall investment in Glasgow’s canal network over this five to 10-year period. For example, there are some very ambitious ideas for the old Diageo distillery site that lies adjacent to the wonderful water sports development.
I very much welcome the additional investment in the water sports centre, which I look forward to seeing in proper operation. However, given that another part of the project is still to come and given some of the other developments that are likely to come on the back of the work that has been done at Sighthill and elsewhere in my constituency, I think that the element that I highlighted merits some kind of recognition and that those involved in the canals would actually welcome it.
As members have no further questions and as the ministers appear to have no further comments to make, I will conclude the agenda item. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and I suspend the meeting briefly to allow them to leave and new witnesses to take their place.
11:07 Meeting suspended.