Chamber and committees

That is a fair point. I very much value that suggestion and the ideas that have been put forward. I assure Dr Allan that we will give them full consideration as we work towards producing a finalised NPF4.

As you will be aware, the spatial strategy is underpinned by six principles, one of which is the conserving and recycling of assets. That is reflected through policy 30, which is on vacant and derelict land. This speaks to our clear aspirations around climate change and a circular economy. We do not want to release the embedded carbon that is already there. We want to make use of existing assets.

That has huge applicability in a range of contexts. We will all be able to think of examples in densely populated urban environments where there are underutilised assets that can perhaps be brought back to life. A range of work goes on to support that through our place-based investment programme and asset transfers via the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, so that is already under way. NPF4 helps to strengthen that position and it is very clear and explicit. The policies around looking for brownfield land first are also relevant here.

Two other aspects of the spatial principles that complement that approach are compact growth and local living. Taking those things together holistically, we are aiming to encourage more growth and reuse of existing assets. That is applicable to rural environments, but I think that we all recognise that it has applicability to densely populated urban environments as well.

I do not know whether Fiona Simpson wants to comment.

I am happy to take that. Thank you, Ms Burgess. I look forward to discussing the issues with the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, which you convene, in due course.

Your point is important. The first thing that I would say is that this is a draft NPF. We are in a consultation process and we are incredibly grateful for the interest being taken by the committees and the Parliament more widely, and indeed, by all the individuals and groups who want to participate and share their views. That is part of the process.

On how we got to this position, I do not want to go over the ground that we covered earlier, but I am clear that the process has been collaborative and we have had a lot of consultation on specific policy areas while working in partnership with communities on the input that led to the spatial strategy and the specific action areas that have been developed. We will take into account any feedback that we receive via the consultation and the Parliament, and that will be fed into and reflected in the NPF4 that we bring back to the Parliament for final approval.

Again, I do not want to repeat myself, but I want to make a key point about the balance between giving a clear steer and flexibility. That is also important. Planning authorities will still have that vital role in relation to local development plans but, crucially, also local place plans, regulations on which have now come into force. That will give local communities more of a say in shaping their LDPs.

It is important to bear it in mind that there is still the means to achieve the specificity that is required in localised situations. That is not just for LDPs; it has also been enhanced through local place plans. We are seeking to articulate here the broad vision at a very high level, so even within a spatial strategy for a particular area, it will not necessarily be universally applicable to every single community within that area. We also want to see partnership working at a regional level beyond the work with LDPs and local communities.

Fiona Simpson might want to add to that.

Correct me if I am wrong, convener, but I think that you expressed a view about sharing the burden of a just transition. That is reflected within NPF4. I recognise the point you make about renewable electricity generation. There is also offshore wind, including the recent very welcome announcements in Scotland. If we look, for example, at the key role of the north-east in a just transition, it is a centre of expertise and it is reflected in the industrial green transition zone, which runs down the north-east all the way to Grangemouth. That is another key example of how more organised urban areas will have a major part to play in our move towards net zero.

There is also—and this is perhaps beyond the scope of our discussions today—the huge contribution that will have to be made by urban areas, particularly in the central belt, towards heat in buildings, which will be a significant ask of the population in moving towards a just transition. We all have slightly different and nuanced roles to play in our move towards a just transition, I think that it is clear that there is no part of Scotland that will not have to share in the responsibility of realising our ambitions for 2030 and 2045.

I echo the points that the cabinet secretary made. The national development planning policy is not a top-down policy stipulating specific developments that will or will not happen. Ultimately, it is for local planning authorities to make determinations in the first instance and, when appropriate, to use relevant assessment criteria that is required in considering any application.

Is there anything that Fiona Simpson wants to add?

Let me give a quick example. We talked about 20-minute neighbourhoods and a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres. Clearly, more will be expected of the central belt and it will be expected to be delivered at pace. Whereas, if we look at, for example, northern innovation and the action plan within the spatial strategy, there is a recognition of the increased need for private car use in those areas, so I think that the sharing of that burden is reflected throughout NPF4.

Dr Allan raises an important matter. We have to look at what planning is about. It is about the regulation and consenting process for development. It is certainly challenging for the planning system to respond at pace. In the medium and longer terms, as the cabinet secretary and I touched on in our responses to Ms Wishart, we can look at how we promote the types of development that, on the one hand, reduce fuel poverty and energy consumption and, on the other, promote jobs, prosperity and security of employment, which can help to alleviate some of the drivers of fuel poverty.

I do not want to repeat myself, but we have done work on permitted development rights to make it easier for people to ensure that their homes are as energy efficient as possible. It is clearly more challenging for the planning system to pull levers at short notice.

Would Fiona Simpson like to expand on my response?

I echo that point. We have the forthcoming publication of the national strategy for economic transformation, and that will be published ahead of the finalised version of NPF4 coming before Parliament. Clearly, what emerges from that work will be reflected within the finalised NPF4. I would also say that the heart of NPF4 in terms of response to climate change, the climate emergency and the nature crisis is a move towards the creation of a genuine wellbeing economy. That is why community wealth is embedded at the heart of our six overarching principles that relate to sustainability. Creating a prosperous economy that works for everybody is at the heart of this document and it is a spatial expression of all of the Government’s policies, including the Government’s economic policy, and will reflect NSET once it has been published.

I am conscious of time, so I will be brief. We will take into account all responses that we have received through public consultation and that parliamentary committees have received, in writing and orally. We will reflect on those and we will seek to make judgments and seek to incorporate where we think that there are points that we can improve. We will feed that back through our consultation response and into the final NPF4. Our aspiration is to be able to lay the finalised NPF4 before Parliament prior to summer recess for adoption. This work is taking place at the same time as the consultation on the LDP regulations.

I want to be clear to the committee and give a commitment that we very much value all of the engagement. There is still a substantial amount of engagement to take place—I am conscious that your consideration will be on-going. I am heartened to see the amount of community engagement that has started to take place. That is something that, in my ministerial capacity, I am looking forward to engaging in. At this point, we are very much in listening mode and welcome this opportunity to articulate what our thinking has been in preparing the draft NPF4.

We are extremely grateful for all of the contributions that people have made to get to this process and are making now to share their views. I give the undertaking that we will take all of that into account and be clear and transparent about how we arrive at the final decisions that we put before Parliament in relation to NPF4. It is, of course, a matter for Parliament to decide whether or not to approve NPF4, so that it can be formally adopted by ministers.

Fiona Simpson might want to add some more on the process.

Fiona Simpson might want to give a bit of context on how NPF4 relates to some of the other work that is going on in Government around housing, for example.

Dr Allan’s question is important and it speaks to why there is flexibility in NPF4. I am conscious that some of the feedback in other committee sessions has perhaps been that certain stakeholders are looking for a more prescriptive approach, but a balance is required. We need to avoid being overly prescriptive while having flexibility so that planning authorities can take local circumstances fully into account in designing their local development plans.