Chamber and committees

I understand what the minister is outlining, but is he not concerned that there is no mechanism for fixing underdelivery in the land pipeline, and that NPF4 should have taken that forward? Will he commit to outlining how that will be monitored, because we need those homes.

Without wanting this to sound like an Oscar awards speech, I start by thanking the clerks of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for their help and support during the passage of NPF4 through Parliament, as well as the hundreds of individuals, charities, interested parties and organisations that have provided incredibly helpful briefings and input in trying to improve NPF4. It has been a pleasure—I am sure that the minister agrees—to engage with all those people, who have a passion for our planning system and really want to contribute to the conversation on how to improve it.

From the outset, we, on these benches, have engaged constructively, and I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has made many changes. I specifically put on record my thanks to the minister for the positive approach to discussions that he has had, which has been—sadly—a refreshing change from how the Parliament sometimes operates. Indeed, in recent years, we have seen limited outreach from Scottish Government ministers following the Bute house agreement and the formation of a Scottish National Party-Green majority Government. I hope that we see a change in that situation after this new year. I put on record my thanks to the minister for how he has conducted himself during the passage of NPF4.

We all recognise the importance of tackling both the climate emergency and the nature crisis through our planning system. However, from the outset, I have called for the housing emergency to be central to the development of the new NPF4 if we are truly to ensure that Scotland’s housing needs are met in the future. As Homes for Scotland says in its briefing, it

“remains disappointed that the housing crisis is not specifically mentioned”

and is

“concerned over the seeming lack of ambition”

in NPF4

“to address it.”

It is most likely that housing—whether private or social—will be delivered in spite of NPF4 rather than because of it, with underwhelming minimum all-tenure housing land requirements doing little to drive forward the number of new homes that Scotland requires.

To date, we have seen a lack of transitional guidance, which risks causing considerable unnecessary delay to applications that are already in the planning system and to decisions on those applications.

The fact is that the SNP-Green Government has failed to address Scotland’s housing crisis, which is making it harder for people to get on the property ladder and get the homes that they need. The Scottish Government’s latest housing statistics, for example, reveal that housing completions across all tenures in Scotland are still below pre-Covid levels.

Why does putting the housing crisis in NPF4 matter? Today, there are 28,000 homeless households across Scotland—32,592 adults and 14,372 children are registered homeless. I hoped that NPF4 could help to address that situation and could ensure that our focus is not just on the climate and nature emergency, but also on the housing crisis. I do not think that we have achieved that, which is disappointing.

I absolutely agree with that point. A key aspect that needs to be addressed is that, given the additional costs faced by small-scale builders, many of which might not survive any coming recession, we need to look at the potential for more small-scale investments to be supported. I would like there to be a rural homes delivery agency to drive forward progress on the targets in the way that Fergus Ewing mentioned.

NPF4 has the potential to help to drive sustainable growth and deliver new jobs in key sectors, especially in the renewables sector, where we have seen a shift, which I welcome. However, I am concerned that the housing sector could be impacted negatively by NPF4, as Fergus Ewing indicated. I have outlined to the minister on a number of occasions my concern about future land supply. There is still no mechanism in NPF4 for fixing a land pipeline that is underdelivering if longer-term sites cannot be found to fill the gap. It is unclear how an underdelivering pipeline can or will allow further land to be found in the event that there are no deliverable brownfield sites.

I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I have made in relation to Edinburgh, but there is real concern that most development sites that we have in NPF4 and in local plans in Edinburgh are currently being used by viable businesses such as car dealerships. There are such businesses throughout the Seafield part of the city, which I represent. The sites in that area are allocated for housing, but there is no future development plan showing where those businesses are meant to go in order to allow those houses to be realised. Ministers must look at how that will be delivered.

Planning policy should be clear, concise and written in such a way as to not allow or result in misinterpretation. I hope that the minister has taken on board the key concerns that businesses have outlined in that respect. There continue to be concerns over a number of specific policy areas, including the inclusion of policy 27(d), which is unnecessarily restrictive and puts at risk future job creation. Although I welcome the comments that the minister made in committee about working to make sure that that policy is not misinterpreted, the guidance will need to provide clarity and must be sufficiently specific in order not to result in unintended consequences.

I agree with what Mark Griffin is saying about the numbers of homes, but the types of homes are also critically important. A freedom of information request by the Scottish Conservatives has shown that there are 24,000 disabled people on housing waiting lists. That is up from 9,700 in 2017. The types of houses need to change, and we have not really seen that in NPF4.

During his time as cabinet secretary with responsibility for rural affairs, Mr Ewing will have been aware of the need for new entrants to enter the sector, often to replace older farmers who leave farming. I feel that that issue has been missed in the national planning framework. Does he support calls for the Government to do more work on that?

That is helpful. That issue has been raised with me and probably with other members. Many councillors feel that they cannot have those conversations and are concerned that, even after the revisions, there may be complaints if they try to engage with members of the public.

That is helpful. I have not seen those cards. Could you share them with the committee?

That is helpful. It would be helpful for our oversight role if you could provide us with updates about when plans are being implemented.

What lessons has the commission learned during the Covid-19 pandemic? How have you changed your ways of working?

Thank you.