Chamber and committees

The statutory guidance is clear in relation to third sector organisations and third sector interfaces. The third sector has an important role to play in community planning—not only at strategic level, around the board table, but in the engagement that we talked about earlier. Sometimes it will be a third sector organisation that can engage with the particular communities for which we are trying to make change, so it is really important that the third sector is part of the picture and is helping to build capacity, skills and confidence within communities, and supporting general community empowerment activity.

There are a lot of reasons why the third sector should be involved. I guess your question is about whether there is something in the current structures that is preventing that. I argue that that is not the case, because there are some really good examples in which the third sector has been able to be engaged. Examples that I have in front of me include Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Services co-chairing the CPP—it is not a statutory member, but is, however, co-chair; Engage Renfrewshire chairing the CPP Renfrewshire forum for empowering communities; and the strong involvement of Largo Communities Together as the anchor organisation in the Fife LOIP.

I do not think that that there are any structural issues. There are places where third sector involvement is not happening, and I think that there are strong arguments for why it should be happening. If the only reason to do it was to reach the communities that we are trying to support in relation to inequalities and deprivation, that would be reason enough.

David Milne wants to add something.

Most of the significant changes were brought in by the 2019 act rather than being brought in through these regulations, and that is why work is on-going.

NPF4 sits alongside LDPs, and the 2019 act sets out the requirement for planning authorities to take into account NPF4 when preparing their LDPs. It is a bit different from how it was in the past, when you would expect the national planning framework to virtually be replicated in local plans. However, that is no longer necessary because they sit alongside each other, which is a more sensible way of working.

You are right: the guidance is crucial. Andy, do we have an expectation for when it will be published?

The previous question was about examples since the 2015 act was passed, so I gave three examples. However, it is absolutely appropriate that we look at that. It is why the previous minister asked for a review, and why I welcome the work of the committee. The fact is that the more local engagement we have and the more communities are involved in decision making, the better will be the decisions that we will make. We absolutely recognise that, which is why I welcome the work that the committee is doing.

Yes. I agree with the comment about leaving silos, logos and egos at the door. That is a good slogan for most partnership working.

There are good examples of shared leadership. It is becoming more widespread as the systems embed. We are seeing really good examples across the country, some of which the committee has heard about. That improves the relationships, which makes a difference when something particularly unusual happens. Through Covid, the shared leadership model allowed for a response at the local level, and a wider sense of respect, which probably would not have been possible if those connections had not already been made. Very often, there was no need for formal CPP meetings in order to have a Covid response, because the connections had already been made.

The premise of your question about leaving silos, logos and egos at the door is absolutely right. We need to look at the best examples that exist in order to take forward that approach. The CPIB’s 2021 “Community Planning: Progress and Potential” report highlighted that there was

“widespread support and commitment to community planning”

and that it continued

“to be seen as an important vehicle to co-ordinate multiagency work”.

People need to take the next step and recognise that that work needs to be taken forward through shared local leadership. The CPIB has done a fair bit of work to help to guide how the system might be improved.

Do you have anything further to add, David?

Obviously, engagement with business is important for community planning. Businesses are part of our local communities—that is our starting point—so they can and should play a role in community planning and in improving outcomes for local communities.

The business community is involved in supporting fair work and making connections with employability schemes, for example, so there is definitely a role for it. There are some really good examples of where that has been taken forward.

Good work has been done by Team North Ayrshire, which was developed to address North Ayrshire’s job density figure of 0.5—that is, one job for every two people of working age—by providing local businesses with tailored support to help them to develop and grow. Businesses are given a single point of contact, through which they can access all the support that is available to them through the council and other economic and development regeneration partners. That approach provides tailor-made support that reflects the specific needs of business. An external evaluation that was conducted in 2018 showed that TNA delivers £19 million in additional wages, £39.5 million in gross value added and 580 jobs. That shows that, if we get it right, there is a real plus to having business involved.

Another example is the partnership working that has been done in the Outer Hebrides, which is a very different area. A recent best-value audit report found that the council there has worked closely with local economic partners, including Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Business Gateway, Skills Development Scotland and Stornoway Port Authority. As part of that work, teams have been co-located in the council’s main office and savings have been made.

Those are two very different examples of how engagement with business is benefiting community planning. I do not know whether David Milne has anything further to add.

Kristen?

The “gate check” is what we term the assessment of the evidence report. Obviously, that is a new process. It will provide an independent assessment of whether the planning authority has sufficient information for the preparation of an LDP. The gate check will be carried out by a person who has been appointed by the Scottish ministers—usually, a reporter from the planning and environmental appeals division. It is a new and independent process.

I ask Kristen Anderson to add a little more about it.

I am sure that somebody from East Ayrshire has heard your comment and that an invite to chat with them will be on its way to you.

The evidence report, which has to be produced, is the key to making sure that that engagement is appropriate for the local place and the local community; that might not be the same everywhere.