Chamber and committees

Good morning. My first question is on targets for house building. We are in a housing emergency. There is a severe housing shortage and demand completely outstrips supply in all the different housing markets. I was interested in what Clare Symonds had to say about the 40,000 empty homes and the 24,000 second homes. I understand the points that she is raising but, even if those homes were to be brought back into use, that would not touch the sides of the present demand for housing and the need to build more homes if we are to tackle the housing emergency as a whole.

On that point, Homes for Scotland has asked for a minimum target of building 25,000 new homes each year to be established. How would that work, given that NPF4 has a presumption in favour of brownfield sites, which are of course more costly to build on, with serious issues in relation to the need to treat ground? Brownfield sites tend to be smaller development areas; they are not necessarily the larger areas that developers might need in order to tackle housing need in the areas concerned.

I will try to put my last three questions together, because they are on the same issue. This morning, we have spoken a lot about out-of-date local development plans and the length of time that it takes to draft and adopt new ones. It would be good if someone wanted to expand on those points and on what we can do to accelerate the process.

We have also heard about the overly rigid interpretation of NPF4. There are policies, whether they are contained within NPF4 or sit outside it, that stifle development. One example of that could be the application of 20-minute neighbourhood policies to remote rural developments.

Does anyone want to expand on those points? The future of LDPs and where we go with them is an important point.

I am completely supportive of what you have said about community empowerment and ensuring that communities are absolutely involved in development plans. We have local place plans, which communities are very much involved in. However, if we are not going to rely so much on the private sector, who on the public side of things is going to provide funding? That is the sticking point, as local government is completely up against it in terms of its finances. What are your thoughts on using public finance, rather than private finance, for developments? I do not think that we can have one without the other. We very much need the private sector to tackle the housing emergency.

I will pick up on what Esme Clelland said in her exchange with my colleague Mark Griffin.

It was interesting that Esme mentioned that point 1 of NPF4 is about the nature and biodiversity crises. No one is going to argue against that, but NPF4 was developed before a housing emergency was declared. She also mentioned that “hierarchy” is not the right word to use. We want to manage nature and biodiversity while ensuring that people have safe, secure and affordable homes. We need to look at the issues in that context. That is an important consideration when it comes to how we look at NPF4.

My first question relates to the adoption of NPF4. A lot of associated advice and guidance has been produced—some of which has been implemented, but some of it has not—and we have had working groups. What impact has that had on the ability of communities to engage meaningfully with the planning system?

I will start with you, Esme, because I picked up on the point that you made. Is NPF4 helping or hindering the development of local place plans?

Perhaps that is a question that we should take to the minister.

Yes, because it is right that we consider the letter in relation to what we are doing here.

I was intrigued to learn that Homes for Scotland has asked for a minimum target to be established of 25,000 new homes to be built each year. Could you expand a little on that minimum target, Kevin? What would it mean in the context of the housing emergency, which we have been speaking about this morning? What about the practical side of things? How could that target be achieved?

I highlight the concerns that were raised in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on amendment 230. We were considering Bob Doris’s amendment as part of a series of other amendments lodged by other colleagues on that committee, and we had to wait for the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee before we were able to hear the debate surrounding it.

I fully support the amendment, but I have to question the process, given that it was not considered as part of the homelessness prevention work that was undertaken by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. That is more of a reflective comment than anything else, but I am glad that we are here now and are able to discuss it—although it has been a very long time coming, and the direction that the Parliament has taken has not been good for stakeholders’ morale, as they have had to wait for so long before we have been able to discuss the amendment today.

My comments relate to a wider issue; they are on the letter that we received from Mary McIntosh. She is from my area, and she was present during the evidence sessions regarding this matter. If we approve the revised statement today, does that mean that we will have to send her a response? My concern is that she has a bee in her bonnet about this issue.

Hazel, will you touch on local place plans in the round?