Chamber and committees

A fair bit of work is already taking place to develop the fiscal framework. Part of that work involves looking at all the areas of ring fencing and direction and at where there are opportunities to relax that.

The starting point is that, going forward, we should not have ring fencing. About 7 per cent of council funding is currently ring fenced. However, in the spirit of partnership, it is fair to recognise that, even when funds are not ring fenced, there is often a degree of direction. If you speak to senior council officials, they will tell you that, even when there is no ring fencing, the reporting is sometimes overly burdensome. If we can find mechanisms that give us assurance on outcomes, we can remove some of the unnecessary bureaucracy. That is a work in progress, but a significant amount of progress has been made, and we hope to have made some progress for this year’s budget.

Such matters have to be taken forward in collaboration with our partners. It would be absolutely wrong, and against the spirit of the Verity house agreement, for the Government to say that we will change the funding formula unilaterally. Any changes in that regard must be made in partnership.

By giving local authorities more flexibility in how they use their budgets, I hope that many of them will choose to use that flexibility to tackle poverty. That is one of the three outcomes that we have agreed, so it absolutely should be a consideration. I know that my local authority—Dundee City Council—took the decision to fund many anti-poverty measures beyond the statutory requirements because of the city’s particular circumstances. If we give local authorities more flexibility, they will be able to make the choices that work for their areas. That is the principle of subsidiarity. Such decisions can be made at the correct level, and we can respect the democratic mandate that our local government colleagues have in their own right.

Ellen Leaver might be able to say a little bit more about the work on the fiscal framework.

The new deal in the Verity house agreement is between local government and the Scottish Government, so those are all factors that we need to be alert to as we move forward.

Well, the agreement is between the Scottish Government and local government.

Work is taking place on the overall issue, but you are probably jumping three steps ahead of things. Clearly, though, that will be part of the work that will need to take place. Equally, we will need to look at how we might resolve the issue of accountability with regard to matters that are the responsibility of Scottish Government ministers. We will do that in the spirit of partnership enshrined in the Verity house agreement, and I hope that that will help us to take things forward in a way that works for everyone.

The evidence report is important in ensuring robust and evidence-led plan making. It should provide a summary of what the evidence means for plan making. The aim is to front-load that work.

Sorry, what were you asking about the process?

A big concern would be that, if we had laid out in the regulations minimum requirements for evidence and consultation, that could be seen as the bar or as a tick-box exercise. Our approach is about having a system that can adapt. The guidance will be crucial to that. If we set such minimum requirements, there is a danger that people would aim for those, tick the box and move on to the next thing.

I hope that folk who engage will see it in that way. Crucially, because so much will be in the guidance, it will be easier for us to adapt it. The guidance will be a living document—it will not be edition 1 followed by edition 2—so it will support everyone to engage in the way that we expect.

Good morning, everyone. The previous time that I attended a meeting of a committee with a similar remit was as convener of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee in session 4. I note that Mark Griffin was a member of that committee way back in 2011. When I was preparing for this morning’s meeting, I felt that it was a little bit soon after my appointment to be facing a double committee session. That said, it is good to be back.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity briefly to outline the Scottish Government’s approach to the new development planning provisions, which are contained in Scottish statutory instrument 2023/101 and the associated regulations on commencement, savings and transitional arrangements.

Scotland’s plan-led system of development is widely supported. As the committee will be aware from its consideration of national planning framework 4, the Scottish Government is strengthening development planning as part of its wider planning reform programme. That includes changes to what constitutes a development plan, the interplay between policies on NPF4 and local development plans, and the process of preparing LDPs with a greater focus on delivery. Together, those changes create opportunities for LDPs to refocus on delivering place-based outcomes.

The broad framework for new-style LDPs and their preparation is set out in the primary legislation—the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019—which made strategic changes to LDPs. The new regulations provide the detail for how the act’s requirements should be fulfilled. They were informed by extensive engagement with key stakeholders, with input from the cross-sectoral development planning working group. That led to public consultation on the main regulations and draft guidance, along with the consultation on the draft NPF4 and a separate one with targeted engagement on the definition of “Gypsies and Travellers”.

Overall, respondents were generally supportive of our proposed approach of producing carefully targeted regulations. More detail will be provided in the fuller associated guidance. I assure the committee that the regulations were finalised while taking into account comments raised through the public consultation. The policy note sets out details of the consultations, including the issues raised, and the regulations now reflect that feedback. Not all the suggestions put forward have been included in the regulations, but we will address the matters raised in them in the guidance.

The connection between the regulations and the guidance is key. We have sought to strike a balance between having a clear statutory framework and clear guidance to support all stakeholders in implementing the new system while giving planning authorities flexibility to implement the statutory procedures in the ways that best suit their places, communities and organisational priorities.

We also intend to identify and share best practice as the new system beds in. I would welcome the opportunity to come back to the committee to talk through the comprehensive guidance once it has been published, if the committee would be interested in that.

The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (Commencement No 12 and Saving and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2023 will commence the various provisions of the 2019 act that will be needed to support the envisaged new system of LDPs. We have also provided for savings and transitional arrangements for plans that started under the current system. From our discussions with stakeholders, we know that planning authorities are eager to get on with their new-style plans. The new regulations will provide a solid foundation for a consistent approach to plan making across the country.

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions, perhaps with a bit more support from my officials than is usual.

There are some good examples of partners aligning resources, notably staff and premises, and moving towards having a shared purpose so that they can achieve more collectively than they would when working separately. The important point about funding is that partners should use their collective resources in whatever way best enables them to deliver on local priorities, in line with their organisations’ roles and responsibilities.

I have heard the arguments that partners should allocate funds towards a pot of money that CPPs control. I am interested in learning more about the benefits and risks of that approach. That is one of the things that the committee has been looking at.

Recommendations are also coming out of the community planning improvement board, and I look forward to discussing those with the CPIB chair. I have not yet discussed them.

So it will be soon.