Chamber and committees

Conceptually, the plan is for the hub to be able to leverage resources to address and unblock specific issues. The hub contains a range of elements, and it is important to recognise that they are trying to solve different problems in different sectors.

On housing, as we talked about, we have to identify stalled sites where there are specific blockages. We then need to get the right people around the table to unblock those and move them forward. Before there was a hub, everyone would be talking from their own script about why they were doing what they were doing in their part of the process, but the hubs hook all that together. Having them has added value, as they bring everyone around the table to identify how, as a collective, they can help to unblock some of the stalled sites. The housing planning hub has been quite significant, and we will continue to roll that work out to more sites.

In hydrogen, in the areas where we are rolling out the hub, we want to get ahead of the curve and understand the issues that will be pertinent to that technology as it comes into play. That technology is new to everybody, and smaller local authorities will find it more difficult to access the technical information and expertise to do that. We therefore want to address some of the issues with it up front, so that we are not learning as those applications start to come through because we will have done a lot of the learning previously. We want to identify the specialist technical resource that can support those planning applications. We are doing similar work on renewable energy. The concept has been very well received, and the execution of it has landed well, so we will continue to develop it.

On the point about how that will be resourced, we are in a learning phase just now, and we are making a difference. As we go into the next parliamentary term, we will assess that in the round and talk to stakeholders so that we can understand whether we need more investment in specific activities that the hub is carrying out in order to make a material difference.

SEPA’s remit is not in my ministerial portfolio—it is elsewhere—but if you want to communicate with me on the specifics of the case, we can look at SEPA’s assessment and the technical data that it used to make it.

It is not my portfolio and I am not aware of that specific fund but, if funds are available—from whatever source—that can help to support communities, I would encourage local authorities to access them to invest in place plans or other activities.

More broadly, we have done quite a bit of work to review and understand the work that the UK Government is doing. A number of categories are not relevant in a Scottish context, because we have already taken steps to address them, or because they do not apply. We have already done some things in Scotland, such as the improvements that we have made through NPF4 and other activities. We are looking at other things that are being done down south to see whether there is anything that we can learn from them. We are very open to taking that forward.

I do not know whether anyone is aware of the specific fund that the convener mentioned?

No, I do not think that we need to change NPF4.

We have just had a conversation on biodiversity and environmental aspects. There is a wide range of policies in NPF4 and, as I have indicated, there is no hierarchy, so it depends on the situation, the proposal and the local circumstances. The planning authority will take a view as to whether it will grant planning permission and what conditions it will put on that. The housing emergency is obviously a factor in those decisions.

The chief planner and I have written to planning authorities to highlight that there is a housing emergency across the country and, in many local authorities, that is a consideration. Given the stage that we are at, however, it is all about delivery. It is about taking the existing policy, which went through the Parliament, and the guidelines that sit around about it—the letters from myself and the chief planner to clarify any aspects—and delivering the system.

I will let officials talk to the specifics on ancient woodlands but, in general, the policies are clear in national planning framework 4, which covers all the aspects that would be considered by a planning authority. The guidance supplements NPF4 for specific issues that come up, which the authority then applies. The guidance is there for planning professionals and the planning authorities to use when they make their determinations.

Cara, is there anything to say on ancient woodlands?

The 110,000 homes target is over a 10-year period, so that is only part of the picture. That target covers just affordable homes, not all homes, and it averages out at 11,000 a year. As I said, about 20,000 homes are getting built at the moment. The housing needs demand assessment and the MATHLR process, which builds on that assessment, led to the number of 197,000 over a 10-year period.

As I have indicated, NPF4 is not a blockage to that happening. Significantly more houses are being given planning permission each year than are being built, and a significant number of houses that have already been given planning permission are not being built. We accept that there are other challenges. A lot of our work on stalled sites and our proactive work with the sector and others is to address those challenges, but that is not because NPF4 is stopping planning permission being given for houses.

I have said that it is a high-level estimate, and that is on the record. I have said that before.

The requirement is to have the new plans in place by May 2028. We are watching that closely, to assess whether there is a risk of authorities not meeting the deadline, and we will work with them to address that as necessary.

There are a few things in that. You are saying that communities that have local place plans may want help for them to be reflected in the local development plans. Andy Kinnaird has indicated that that is a requirement and that that will need to happen.

If your question is about communities that have local place plans that they want the current system to take into account, Andy can talk to the specifics of how that works.

Anything that we can do to make that work more easily visible is to be encouraged. We will certainly reflect on and consider how we can do that. As I said, it is a dynamic process, and guidance is issued in response to challenges that present themselves or requests for further information or clarification. That process will continue. There is on-going work to review historical guidance and see how much of it is no longer relevant and can be taken down, which would help to simplify what is online and how it is presented. It makes sense for that to be done.

As an exercise, I went on to the internet this morning and typed in “Scottish Government planning guidance”. I was quickly taken to the Government webpage, where one or two pages lay out the overview with all the links to everything that you might ever want to see in guidance. I think that it is all there, but we will seek to make it as easily accessible as possible.