Chamber and committees

How would you respond, minister, to the concerns of Living Rent that the current process of self-assessment against the charter’s indicators is not suited to delivering the charter’s outcomes and that a more robust and accountable regulatory approach might be needed?

You said that you “strongly expect” that the additional sums that will be generated by the increase in fees will go into planning resources, but does that not highlight a potential problem here? If, with the best of intentions, we move to a system of full cost recovery, what guarantee do we have that the income that will be generated from that will be directed to the purpose to which you hope it will be directed, so that NPF4 can be delivered? I recognise that you are working on a collaborative basis with COSLA but, from what I can see—unless I am wrong—there is nothing that says that, if a system of full cost recovery comes in, the income that is generated could not be directed to other council activities, which would leave the planning system underresourced, despite your best efforts.

Do you accept that the use of words such as “should” can create ambiguity that might be unhelpful with regard to what you are trying to achieve and planners want to support?

Minister, I think the convener’s point is that the committee might draw some conclusions about where NPF4 has got to. In the timetable that you are working to, is there any scope for the Government to write to the committee giving a summary of the changes that have been made to NPF4, and, if the committee so wanted, would it be possible for us to have a session with you? You are trying to achieve parliamentary approval and have talked about co-operation rather than conflict. If the committee were to conclude that substantial changes had been taken on board, such an approach might facilitate what you are looking for. Would the timetable allow an opportunity for what the convener is seeking?

Twice already, minister, you have given us comfort in relation to the issues that were raised with the committee around some of the language in the document, and have shown willingness to revisit some of that language so that it is more precise and prescriptive where it needs to be. You have also talked about the need to ensure that local authorities have the right flexibility where they need it and that the language reflects that wriggle room.

In practice, how do your officials intend to explore with planners what needs to be changed and what needs to be left as is? Is that work already under way?

Thank you for that. I think that that answers the question.

My second question is on the resource, both financial and human, for dealing with the undoubted increase in demand that NPF4 will place on planning authorities. We have heard about councils making resource cuts to planning departments in excess of 40 per cent since 2009, and in some instances that has left departments struggling to cope with present demand, let alone the additional demands that will come with the ambitions that are—rightly—in NPF4. We will come on to the financial aspect in a moment, but the fact is that you cannot suddenly magic up hundreds of additional planners. Do you recognise as legitimate the concern that has been expressed? If so, where is the Government in its consideration of how it might be addressed?

Parliament and its committees are very good at calling on the Government to listen to the views of stakeholders and of Parliament, which is as it should be. I am heartened by what I have heard today about the on-going work that is part of the process. You have talked about engagement on equalities issues and about the work that has gone on and that is still to be done on the delivery plan. You have committed to further engagement with the committee. We have also heard about a great deal of work that is going on with multiple stakeholders. Given all the laudable effort that is still going on to get this right, is the timetable for bringing a completed NPF4 to Parliament for confirmation by the summer realistic?

Just to be absolutely clear, and for the record, is the plea that, in that context, the word “may” should be replaced by “shall” or “must” in every instance in the draft, or are witnesses suggesting that there may be some areas in which retaining that vagueness would be welcome?

My question is for Pam Ewen. The written evidence from HOPS suggested that delivering on the ambitions of NPF4 would require a significant culture change. Can you expand on that? Might that culture change extend to councils’ attitude towards planning? There was a reference a few moments ago to budgets having been cut by 43 per cent. Such a budget cut would be well in excess of any change in the budget settlement that the Scottish Government gives to councils. Should there be an attitudinal change in councils about the significance of the planning service?

My second question is about some of the submissions that the committee has received in which concern has been raised about the wording of national planning policies on issues such as 20-minute neighbourhoods, community wealth building, carbon emissions and human rights. The assertion is that the wording is insufficiently clear for decision-making purposes. Do the witnesses agree with that? Is it more about the language that is used or is it the substance of what is being said that is the problem?