Chamber and committees

Minister, there is some confusion over the status of local place plans, given the complexities surrounding NPF4. I believe that the original intention was that they would be incorporated in the new local development plans, but that now seems unlikely, given that many community groups are well advanced in preparing their local place plans, and we are not going to see the new local development plans in place for quite some time.

I think that communities would be disappointed if local place plans amounted to an item on a wish list rather than being material factors in planning applications, as previous locality plans have been. What will the Scottish Government do to balance that out in order to make sure that communities are very much involved and that local development plans match local place plans, so that they work together as they should?

Many communities have completed their local place plans. With respect, I note that there is no mechanism for such plans to be adopted and for what communities want to happen to be brought to fruition. If local development plans are not going to be in place until 2028, there is an imbalance when it comes to how long communities might need to wait for any measures to be adopted or for feedback or direction from the local authority.

That is the feedback that I am getting from community councils and local communities. Their local place plans are already well advanced, but there is no communication from local authorities or the Scottish Government about when they will be adopted or about what parts of the local place plans will be included in the local development plan. There seems to be a bit of an imbalance. I am trying to ascertain how you will balance that out and how communities will be heard. How long will they have to wait before local authorities adopt local place plans?

How long will communities have to wait for the journey to be concluded?

The committee has heard evidence that overly rigid interpretation of NPF4 is potentially stifling development. Developers have stressed the importance of planning departments being properly resourced, local authorities being supported to adopt new LDPs within a good timeframe, and the chief planner continuing to give guidance to ensure that the objectives of NPF4 and LDPs are considered pragmatically, but also in the round. Evelyn Tweed made an important point about reviewing NPF4 to ensure that it is practical and that it is right for areas across Scotland.

The committee has heard evidence that the application of 20-minute neighbourhoods to remote and rural areas could stifle development or drive developers away. How do we overcome that? How do we encourage development and remove red tape so that development can happen in areas across the country?

My final question is about brownfield sites, which you just referenced. We know that brownfield sites are associated with higher costs and that using them may involve remediation of contaminated land. NPF4 has a presumption of utilising brownfield sites. We need to make it more attractive for developers to better use the land. Is the Government considering any grants or additional mechanisms to make it more attractive for developers to use brownfield sites?

Good morning. Evelyn Tweed asked about the minimum target of 25,000 new homes. The Scottish Government has a target: it is 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. Minister, you said that roughly 20,000 homes are being built each year. That is certainly not enough to achieve that target by 2032. In order for the Government to achieve its housing targets, what additional measures can be brought forward through NPF4, if that is to be the tool for getting those homes built?

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?