Chamber and committees

That is a good question. I will give some background on how we got to the position that we are in. We developed our thinking through carrying out a lot of specific research on how planning policy could support strong and vibrant rural communities and economies in the coming years. We engaged extensively with rural interests, including the Scottish rural parliament, the Crofting Commission and rural heads of planning, and with a huge number of rural stakeholders through meetings and community roadshows.

Through the draft NPF4, we have sought to enable the rural development and diversification to which Mr McLennan refers, to strengthen the resilience of communities and to enable infrastructure in the areas that they need. However, to come back to the point about flexibility, although we have a policy on rural places in the NPF4, not every rural area is the same, so there has to be a national policy that is broad enough to recognise the requirements of different rural areas. The work on how to deliver that policy on the ground comes through the local development plan process and the engagement that takes place.

I will give some examples. Beyond a rural policy, we have draft policies on employment, new homes, and community facilities, services and shops that recognise rural needs. That includes diversification to support farm shops and local access to fresh produce. On sustainable transport, we recognise the need for private vehicles in rural areas, and we are supporting electric vehicle charging in such areas. In addition, our policies on aquaculture, digital connectivity, green energy, heat networks and facilities for a circular economy recognise the rural aspect.

There is also recognition of rural needs in our national developments, which apply to all of Scotland. Examples are national development 5 on circular economy materials management facilities, and national development 7 on islands hub for net zero, which recognises that particular environment.

One of our spatial principles is balanced development. That recognises the need, when thinking about our planning obligations across Scotland, to get the balance right. That means recognising concerns around sustainability and more pressured areas, as well as recognising where we need to support population retention and increase the population in other areas that are under pressure. Fiona Simpson might want to add some detail on that.

I will approach that question in three parts. First, you referred to the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which—as committee members will know—came from an independent review of the planning system. As members who were in Parliament in the previous session will remember, the 2019 act is perhaps one of the most scrutinised pieces of legislation that we have ever considered—indeed, it was one of the longest bill processes. I do not know whether it holds the record for the most amendments being lodged to a bill, but it must run close. As the convener highlighted, that process has informed how we have arrived at NPF4, and at the statutory requirements that NPF4 has been charged with delivering, under the six outcomes.

Secondly, the pre-consultation that led to the introduction of the draft NPF4 took roughly two years. There was originally a call for ideas, and in November 2020 we published a position statement, on which we also consulted. We signalled clearly that it was our intention to lay the draft NPF4 before Parliament for scrutiny in November 2021, and that is exactly what we did. Thirdly, it is set out in statute that we should consult for a period of up to 120 days, which is exactly what we are doing.

I want to convey the point that, looking at everything in the round—the deliberations on the 2019 act that helped to shape NPF4, the pre-consultation and the 120 days of public and parliamentary scrutiny, with a range of engagement activities taking place—I am very confident that we have had a strong and robust process of consultation and engagement, which is reflected in the excellent work that this and other parliamentary committees have undertaken on NPF4.

I absolutely recognise that concern. Indeed, I have made that point very clear in my engagement with stakeholders and in my responses to questions in Parliament on my statement back in November introducing the draft NPF4. Delivery is absolutely key. The visions and ambitions in NPF4 are one thing—we need to deliver on the ground.

Human and financial resources are, of course, inextricably linked. At the outset, I want to say that I respect the fact that local authorities are autonomous bodies and that it is for them to decide how they allocate their budgets, but I hope that we would all recognise the immense value of planning and planners. We have introduced regulations on fees, and I am working with stakeholders not just on the implementation of those regulations but on looking at full cost recovery in future. Full cost recovery might be a neat expression, but it is quite a complex area and delivering it in practice requires a lot of detailed work and consideration. I have committed to taking that work forward. That said, I am also very clear about the link between increased fees and performance, and that long-standing view will continue to be held.

As for resourcing, I recognise the numbers that the RTPI and others have highlighted, and we are working with the RTPI, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Heads of Planning Scotland and others on how we increase the number of people coming into the planning system. I will ask Fiona Simpson to give you information on some detailed work that we are doing at the moment.

However, there are two aspects to this. One thing that we could do to encourage more people into the planning system is to catalyse the opportunity that we have right now with all the real interest and excitement in planning and what it and NPF4 can achieve and to move the system itself away from conflict not just towards collaboration but towards a focus on great place making, which is what I think inspires people to get into planning in the first place. A shift in tone on what planning can deliver is an important part of the process.

I will bring in Fiona Simpson to detail an important piece of work that we are undertaking with partners at the moment.

On the latter point, as I mentioned earlier, we have an on-going review of developer contributions and we are taking forward that provision in the 2019 act. We will take a phased approach to that, because we are conscious that, at the moment, we are asking stakeholders to do a huge amount of work in connection to the national planning framework 4 and draft regulations and guidance on local development plans. However, it is absolutely something that we will take forward later in the parliamentary session, and the review that we are conducting just now will inform the shape of that.

An infrastructure-first approach is, ultimately, about achieving alignment between planning and infrastructure provision. Clearly, this is work that has come out of the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland and is informed by the hierarchy of sustainable investment in infrastructure, which involves planning for the future, maximising the useful life of existing assets and repurposing and co-locating activity. It is only after those possibilities have been exhausted that we start to think about replacing or creating new assets.

Although we have an explicit infrastructure-first policy—policy 8—it is also something that is embedded throughout the document, so to speak. We can see how policies around 20-minute neighbourhoods, for example, can complement an infrastructure-first approach, as they will involve development where there is existing infrastructure.

Fiona Simpson might want to add something.

It is an important issue and I am grateful to Homes for Scotland for all its constructive engagement and the evidence that it has provided to the committee. I look forward to continued engagement with Homes for Scotland and other stakeholders as we work towards finalising NPF4.

There is no getting away from the fact that housing numbers have been and remain one of the most contentious aspects of the planning system. We probably all have experience of that as representatives of our respective constituencies and regions. One of the things that we seek to do through the approach to housing in NPF4 is to get away from debates about numbers and processes and to focus on making great places. The minimum all-tenure housing land requirement is our response to a statutory requirement from the 2019 act. We have taken a constructive collaborative approach and have engaged extensively with local authorities to arrive at the numbers.

I draw attention to the language that has been chosen. “Minimum all-tenure housing land requirement” is perhaps not the neatest expression and I am not quite sure how we pronounce it as an acronym yet but I stress the first word: minimum. The numbers are not a cap or an aspirational target but the minimum that we expect to be in local development plans. If planning authorities, in preparing local development plans, are able through local knowledge and research to provide robust evidence of a need to increase the numbers, that can happen. LDPs will be prepared following the adoption of NPF4, so there will be an opportunity to use more up-to-date information as it becomes available. As we move towards adopting a final NPF4, we will review and refine the numbers. However, the requirement is a starting point for LDPs.

I realise that there are varying views on housing numbers. Some people will think that the numbers are too high, some will think that they are too low and other stakeholders will think that we have got it just right. The numbers represent the starting point. They are 10-year figures. We wanted to allow the focus to move to the delivery of great places. I think that we all share that ambition.

I do not know whether Fiona Simpson wants to add anything to that.

Again, we could dedicate an entire session to that question. I had the pleasure of visiting Govan—I think that it was in August—and seeing some of the outstanding work that is being done there, so I am not surprised by how impressed you were. That work is an example of what can be achieved.

NPF4 has a very big role to play, of course, but it is not going to deliver that change alone, and neither is the planning system. Within NPF4, in relation to shaping our future development, we have specific policies such as policy 24, on centres, and policy 25, on retail and the limiting of out-of-town development, which we know has had a big impact on occupancy rates in our town centres. We also have policy 26, on town centre first assessment, and policy 27, on town centre living. There is a suite of policies. Vacant and derelict land is also covered.

Beyond that, there is the work on permitted development rights that I mentioned earlier, the work on land assembly and CPO, and the work on masterplan consent areas. A huge amount is being done on the planning system and what we can do with it. Other work that I am taking forward through other aspects of my portfolio includes work in response to the review of the town centre action plan that was conducted by Professor Leigh Sparks. We are working at pace with COSLA to deliver an action plan in response to that.

You will also be aware of the forthcoming national strategy on economic transformation, following which we will publish a retail strategy, which has been developed with stakeholders.

We are seeking to pull a range of different levers to influence the amenities, services and range of opportunities that are available in our town centres and urban spaces. It will take a collaborative approach, and local government obviously has huge involvement as the lead agency in delivery. We provide support, including for example through the £325 million place-based investment programme and the £50 million vacant and derelict land programme, which has a role to play.

Fiona Simpson, do you want to foreground any particular points on the planning system within NPF4?

If the past two years have taught us anything, it is that the future is inherently uncertain. However, as we have said, this will be a live document, and I have no doubt that there will be rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of whether the aspirations in NPF4 are being delivered on.

The thinking is that when we publish the final NPF4 draft, we will set out how it will be delivered. It is a legitimate question—why not publish a delivery plan at the outset? I was conscious that I did not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation, engagement and scrutiny. The other aspect is that when we publish a delivery plan, as I referenced in my opening statement, it will not be a capital investment plan. It will be a development plan. A lot of the ways that it will be delivered from a public sector side are already illustrated in other strategies. Mr McLennan made reference to “Housing to 2040”, which is one example.

The important thing to remember is that it is not just the public sector that is delivering this. It is a partnership approach between national Government and local government, and the private sector also has a huge role to play in its delivery. Planning works as a facilitator and an enabler. We are working with the Scottish Futures Trust on that.

Following the publication of the final NPF4, we want to get to a position where we can deliver a delivery plan—a bit of a clumsy phrase—that will highlight and bring together the various streams of funding that are available to support realising the vision and ambition that is in NPF4. However, I note that a lot of those funding streams are already online. I made reference to things such as the place-based investment programme, vacant and derelict land and our commitments on resourcing for “Housing to 2040”. A lot of that is already live.

On the points that were made about how NPF4 relates to other strategy documents, the delivery plan will help to answer that by bringing together and highlighting the different vehicles that will be deployed to realise what is in NPF4.

Have I missed any points that Fiona would like to pick up on?

That is a very good question, and it comes from someone who has had much experience of bringing forward legislation and documents.

I am heartened by the discussions that we have had not just today but in general, because, notwithstanding some areas of contention, what we are really talking about now is fine tuning and making the document the best that it can possibly be. I am not picking up from the committee or from wider stakeholders that there are fundamental disagreements over the direction of travel.

We have an opportunity to work intensely and at pace, and we can bring forward a finalised NPF4 for Parliament to vote on and for ministers to adopt by the summer recess. That reflects the collaborative work that has been undertaken over the past two years. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Kevin Stewart, for the work that he undertook on NPF4 when he was the minister with responsibility for planning.

We are in a very good place. The important thing is that we need to get this right. Quality cannot be sacrificed for speed, because this is going to be a hugely important document. It will define our spatial strategy up until 2045, and that is my priority. We are in a very good place and there is intense work and continued engagement as we work towards the end of the public consultation phase, on 31 March. I am confident that we can have a finalised NPF4 for Parliament to consider before the summer.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, committee.

I echo the convener’s thanks to everyone who has, to date, contributed to the process of getting the draft NPF4 to where it is, and I thank all those who are participating in the vital scrutiny work that is under way, and which will continue as we move towards the close of the public consultation at the end of next month.

I am very pleased to be here to talk about what will be an important document for shaping the future of the Scotland that we want to live in. I said when we laid the draft NPF4 last November that it signalled a turning point for planning. We are facing some major challenges across our communities and as a global society; we need to stand up to them.

In the draft NPF4, we advocate a change of direction in how we plan our places, through putting climate and nature, a wellbeing economy and Covid recovery at the heart of the new planning system. We know how much planning matters to people, and we understand the really important and positive role that it can have in facilitating the development of good-quality places that help our communities to thrive. However, strong leadership will be needed in order for planning to fulfil its potential and negotiate that turning point.

NPF4 will need to be approved by the Scottish Parliament and adopted by the Scottish Government. That can give it real strength of purpose. I want us to work together to share the vision for Scotland on its journey to net zero by 2045, and to make NPF4 the very best that it can be.

I am conscious that the committee has heard a lot of interesting and quite detailed evidence from a range of witnesses over recent weeks, and in its earlier call for views, so I would like to take a few moments to share some general thoughts, in advance of the committee’s questions.

The committee has already heard from the chief planner about the wealth of engagement that has helped us to develop NPF4 to this point. We have done that using a genuinely collaborative approach. We have welcomed the considered input from many people, and we are continuing that collaboration in how we engage on the draft framework.

I am heartened that much of the feedback gives broad support for the direction that we have proposed for NPF4—the need to focus on climate and nature and on Covid recovery, and to think differently about our places.

We are hearing requests that we revisit the drafting and get the detail right, including calls for much more precise definitions and specific wording to be added. We need to ensure that NPF4 provides a sound and reliable basis for decision making, so I will listen to what people are saying and what they are offering as drafting suggestions, and I will work with my officials to ensure that we get it right.

I believe that we should have confidence in our planning system and in planners to apply their skills and expertise and to do the right thing in the long-term public interest. Choices and decisions that are made in planning are often not straightforward, and they are certainly not a tick-box exercise. Planning policies need to be read in the round; planning involves weighing up many matters and reaching balanced and reasoned judgments. That is what planners are good at, and their skills are needed now more than ever.

Some questions have been raised about the national spatial strategy, including the boundaries and priorities in the five action areas. The draft NPF4 acknowledges that

“Each part of Scotland can make a unique contribution to building a better future.”

That is about the big picture and a vision of our country as a whole, although we have to bear it in mind that spatial issues do not neatly follow administrative boundaries.

We have worked collaboratively with planning authorities to understand regional priorities, particularly through their work on indicative regional spatial strategies. Ideally, we want to foster a shared vision that people can easily relate to, and to understand the priorities in the different parts of Scotland. We can look again at the action areas and at the relationship between the national spatial strategy and the policy handbook in order to further consider and clarify their respective roles in decision making.

There have been requests that there be, throughout the NPF, explicit name checking of, and cross-referencing to, other policy documents, but it is important to bear it in mind that the NPF is a long-term strategy that will have a statutory role in decision making, so we must be careful not to cross-refer to a range of documents that might not have the same lifespan, thereby causing policies to become outdated. That risks causing confusion and uncertainty. I can assure the committee that we are strongly aligned with other policies and strategies—for example, the strategic transport projects review 2, “Housing to 2040”, place-based approaches and our land-use strategy, to name but a few.

We will continue to collaborate on the drafting of NPF4, while bearing in mind the fact that views may vary on points of detail. We will also think about where additional guidance can help to deliver the intentions in NPF4. Some of that is already in progress: for example, the guidance for preparing local development plans—on which we are also consulting—and for biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions assessments.

Some stakeholders have been calling for a capital plan, as the committee has heard. NPF4 is not a spending document, nor does it need to be. It will be delivered by a broad range of partners, public and private, so delivery will need to align with wider plans and programmes, rather than itself being a single programme for capital investment. When it is finalised, NPF4 will come together with STPR2 to guide the next infrastructure investment plan. The Scottish Futures Trust is working with us to develop a shared delivery programme for the final version of NPF4. The delivery programme needs to be agile and to be built up over time, rather than being a fixed and static document.

I know that there have been concerns about resources in planning services. I recognise those concerns, so I have been working with the high-level group on planning performance on how we can position and empower planning services to confidently lead the change that is needed for our places.

The committee will be aware that, earlier this month, I laid regulations that substantially increase planning application fees, thereby increasing the funding that will go to planning authorities. That will happen from April.

However, fees tell only part of the story. There is real value in good-quality planning. Compelling and inspirational plans can help to deliver on so many public objectives for which it is worth joining up funding streams and in which it is worth investing. Understanding the value that planning adds makes it a service that is worth supporting.

I will bring my initial comments to as close by stressing that I find this an exciting and crucial time for planning in Scotland. We face challenges, but we also have a great opportunity to reinvent our view of what planning does and to transform how we see communities, our environment and the places that we call home. I look forward to the questions that will follow and the interesting discussion that we will have today as we work collaboratively to shape a robust finalised NPF4.