Chamber and committees

I will direct this to Pete Ritchie and then to Anna Taylor, and I will put my questions together for the sake of time. Pete Ritchie began to touch on this, but I would like to ask the panel’s views on the role of public authorities in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. What should they be doing around procurement, health, supply chain resilience, food education and community empowerment and, in your view, to what extent does the bill enable or encourage them to do that? My other question is similar but is about the private sector. It certainly needs to be part of the solution, so in what ways can businesses play a leading role in transforming our food systems?

My questions are on the theme of participation, oversight and accountability. Before I ask them, I thank Claire White for her contribution on the supermarkets opening in Shetland. I drove by one of them on my way to Northmavine, and I then learned of the devastating impact of its opening on the local community shop. You have opened my eyes to the connection between planning and the need for participation at a local level.

I will direct my questions to John Davidson and Karen Galloway, in the interests of time. I have a little preamble, but I will keep it short. Last week, Professor Mary Brennan said that many workers in primary food production are not food secure themselves, which is clearly incompatible with any vision of a good food nation and shows the importance of involving workers and the whole food sector in policy design. Does the bill go far enough to ensure sufficient participation for the food sector in food policy design? How should that be facilitated? We have been talking around the edges of that issue.

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2022 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent and that all notifications are turned off during the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is evidence on the draft of the fourth national planning framework. This is the second of five evidence sessions that the committee will hold on NPF4. The focus of today’s session is on planning, and we will hear from two panels. On 1 February, we will explore issues around housing, and on 8 February, we will look at local government issues. The committee will hear from the minister on 22 February.

I welcome the first panel to the meeting. Robbie Calvert is policy, practice and research officer at the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland; Clare Symonds is founder and chair of Planning Democracy; Ailsa Macfarlane is director of Built Environment Forum Scotland; Barbara Cummins is vice chair of Planning Aid for Scotland; and Christina Gaiger is president of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. Thank you very much for joining us today.

We will move straight to questions. If the witnesses wish to respond or to contribute to the discussion, they should put an R in the chat box to?indicate that, please. We tend to have the practice that whoever asks the question directs it to someone to initiate the discussion. However, do not feel that that means that you cannot come in if the question is not directed at you. Put an R in the chat function, and the clerks or I will pick that up.

The draft national planning framework represents a significant shift in national planning policy, with a new focus on issues of place, liveability, wellbeing and emissions reduction. Is the Scottish planning system set up to deliver such outcomes, or are changes needed? If so, what changes would you like to see? I direct that question initially to Robbie Calvert and then to Ailsa Macfarlane.

That is a brilliant point to bring up. I have definitely been grappling with retrofit lately myself.

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am grappling with planning policy having to try to catch up with our new understanding of peatland, for example. Projects on peatland received planning consent perhaps a few years ago, when we did not really understand how peatland can help us with our carbon emissions if we look after it well. We need to consider whether we need to call a halt on projects that are going ahead and reconsider what we are doing.

I thank the witnesses for spending time with us this morning—we have gone into the afternoon. The evidence has been very useful. I wish that we had time to hear all your one-hour lectures on the various topics that you know so much about. In the coming years, we might see you again for other evidence sessions.

Thank you, that is great. I can see that Clare Symonds wants to come in, then I will let Robbie Calvert back in.

Do you have any more questions, Miles?

In that case, we will move to questions from Mark Griffin.

Thank you for that response and for giving us the term “tactical urbanism”; that is brilliant.

That was insightful. You have filled in some parts of the puzzle for me.

You talk about planning departments being pressed. Some of that comes from the right of recourse to appeals. Why do we have an appeal system? Developers can have a planning application refused but then take it to appeal. You are saying that constantly having to deal with that puts pressure on planning departments