Chamber and committees

Some of the reporting on this matter could be misleading or lead to misunderstanding. Under the policy, drive-throughs should go ahead only if they are supported by the local development plan. As we will all recognise, that will sit beside support for a range of policy outcomes on, for example, local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods, our ambitions for reducing emissions and car travel and, of course, other out-of-town scenarios. I am conscious of the issues that have been raised, and I will engage with relevant stakeholders and seek to provide reassurance and clarity on the policy intent and what it will deliver.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee.

I very much welcome the opportunity to come back to afddress the committee on NPF4 again, now that we have our revised draft before the Parliament. I am delighted to be at this stage of the NPF4 journey. As you recognised, convener, getting to this point has taken a mammoth effort and commitment from many people, to all of whom I am exceptionally grateful. It has taken three years, three wide-ranging and wide-reaching public consultations, extensive stakeholder engagement and thorough parliamentary scrutiny, on which the committee led earlier this year.

I gave my commitment to listen carefully to what people were telling us about the earlier draft and to take the time needed to get NPF4 right, both in its intent and in its structure and specific wording. We reached the revised version by engaging with others. We listened, we learned and we changed the document where needed. I was delighted to hear the feedback that was presented to the committee last week, which overwhelmingly recognised the significant improvements in the clarity and focus of NPF4 and its policies. I have also been delighted by the substantial support from across society for the change of direction in how we plan Scotland’s places and communities. It is a rare thing for any planning strategy to unite so many different interests in the way in which NPF4 has.

Of course, that is not to say that we enjoy universal agreement on everything, nor could we ever expect that in planning. A planning document will inevitably generate a range of views. There will always be those who support and those who do not support any given planning policy. In the revised draft, we have made choices that are informed by all those views. In doing so, as the committee will recognise, it is not possible to please everyone. We are charting a new course for Scotland’s development, with climate, nature and a wellbeing economy central to our thoughts and decisions.

NPF4 is about less compromise and a clearer commitment to net zero. As Professor Cliff Hague noted here last week, we now do not have much choice about having that focus. We will therefore not shy away from the challenges that society faces, nor will we shy away from the difficult decisions that may need to be made.

NPF4 will ensure that Scotland has a truly plan-led system. There are different views on how far planning policies can and should go towards prescribing the outcome of a planning decision. That is, perhaps, because, too often, decisions have been made that compromise on the development plan. NPF4’s strong policies will provide more certainty and confidence for all of us, so that if proposals are supported by a sustainable locally driven plan that has been developed with communities, we can all have more confidence that they will be delivered on the ground.

Although NPF4 is now clear in its intentions, there will still be some flexibility at the local level, and each case will still be treated on its own merits. That is hard-wired into our planning system, which allows and, indeed, requires professional judgment and discretion to be applied.

I know that there are some concerns about implementation and how competing policies will be reconciled in specific cases. In every planning decision, there will always be planning policies that support the proposal and those that do not. That is why we always stress the importance of reading NPF4 as a whole. It is also why the planning system is operated by professionals whose job it is to apply professional judgment and provide sound advice to inform democratic decisions. I know that, if decisions are backed by strong planning policy that is clear in its intent, Scotland’s planning authorities will be up to the job. Indeed, the strong focus on well-functioning, healthy and high-quality places strongly featured across NPF4 is why people get into the planning profession in the first place.

We are nearing the end of the beginning for NPF4, and I am keen that we get on now and move to implementation. In a few weeks, I will ask Parliament to give its approval, and, should that be agreed, we will move swiftly to adoption and give NPF4 its new statutory status as Scotland’s development plan. I do not underestimate the scale of the work that lies ahead to deliver NPF4. That is where my officials and I are turning our focus. After several years of policy development and legislative change, we are ready to shift our attention fully to delivery. However, we cannot deliver NPF4 alone: it will take further wide-reaching cross-sector collaborative commitment. The Scottish Government will be a key actor in driving and supporting that implementation. Monitoring will also, of course, be vital. This is the first time that Scotland has had a standard set of national planning policies. It will take some time to establish whether the policies are being implemented as intended, where there is room for improvement and where there is a need for the detail to be adjusted. We will monitor that carefully while supporting the interpretation of policies. We will also work with everyone involved in planning to build skills and share experience, particularly, in the first instance, in the newer areas of policy, such as climate change, the nature crisis and community wealth building.

The committee is well aware of the resource pressures facing the planning system, our authorities and the wider public sector. I reiterate my commitment to progressing the work that we are doing with our partners through the high-level group on planning performance, with the planning profession and with our authorities, to raise a positive profile of planning and make progress on its effective resourcing.

We have made clear throughout our work on NPF4 exactly where our priorities lie for Scotland’s future development. Our task now and in the vote to come is to consider whether the NPF4 is doing enough to address the global climate emergency and nature crisis and doing it in a way that improves our places and builds a sustainable wellbeing economy. We cannot afford to miss the opportunity to make real and progressive change. I have welcomed and appreciated the committee’s support and hard work in its careful scrutiny of NPF4, and I look forward to your questions this morning in what, I am sure, will be an interesting and stimulating discussion.

There are provisions to make amendments to NPF4. That can take place at any time following the commencement of the relevant regulations. Clearly, careful consideration would have to be given to that, and it is not a step that would be taken lightly, but that provision is in the legislation for good reason. Of course, should it be necessary to do so, that will be taken forward through consultation and engagement and in a way that is evidence led. I do not know whether there is anything that you want to add about the process, Andy.

I stress that, although we are considering the NPF4 today, local development plans will have a very important role to play. NPF4 will allow for LDPs to be less characterised by written policy and more focused on spatial strategy. We will, of course, monitor implementation and how NPF4, ultimately, is delivering on the ground. There will be a continuous process of engagement and monitoring. That will be a learning process in itself because, as I said in my earlier remarks, we have never had a national statutory planning framework before.

We will engage ahead of the introduction of the LDP regulation and guidance. If NPF4 were in any way not delivering what we would want, of course, we would take action, but it is important to recognise the significant role that LDPs have in that.

Andy Kinnaird might want to come in to offer some views and information on what we are doing to work towards new-style LDPs and the guidance that we will provide. I know that stakeholders have expressed a concern about the transitional arrangements. I would be grateful if you can provide some information on that, Andy.

It is important to bear in mind that central to the housing policy is getting back to a plan-led system. That is absolutely essential for developing the kind of communities that we want and for ensuring consistency with our obligations and, indeed, the policies in the document that address the climate emergency and the nature crisis. As I said, I will engage closely with the house-building sector, and we will have a programme of monitoring that will involve regular engagement. As I also indicated in my opening remarks, as a Government and as a planning, architecture and regeneration division, we are moving from the phase of policy development and legislative change into delivery, and part of that will include a lot more engagement with planning authorities and wider stakeholders.

Yes, absolutely. I want to see as much engagement in the planning system as possible. I have been clear that this will be a collective endeavour, which will take time. However, I want to move the narrative from one of conflict to one of collaboration, which means genuine community empowerment and engagement in the planning process.

We already have tools at our disposal. Earlier this year, we introduced the regulations on local place plans, which can provide communities with a key opportunity to shape their places. I noted the comments made last week—it might have been Professor Hague who made them—in regard to how, when we seek engagement in the planning system, it is often in the negative context of wanting to stop a development. We have so much insight and knowledge in our communities, and we need to do more to harness that and feed it through our local place plans and other mechanisms to ensure that communities are much more engaged at an earlier stage and have the opportunities to bring their experience, their local insight and, most important, their ambitions for their communities to bear through local place plans and other measures such as local development plans. That can do planning overall a power of good, because it gets us much more into a space of talking about what we want to see rather than the developments that we do not want to see.

I apologise; may I ask you to repeat the question? I missed the first part of it.

I want to give reassurance, and I have sought to do that in the evidence that I have provided so far to the committee. As a Government, we are turning the focus away from policy development and legislative change and towards implementation. We are working constructively and collaboratively with stakeholders to ensure that the planning profession is supported and resourced. Notwithstanding our focus on delivery, we will also roll out the further provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which will help to support the delivery of NPF4, for example through the provision of masterplan consent areas.

We are also taking forward a phased permitted development rights review programme—again, that can help support delivery. Delivery is an absolute priority, and monitoring will be key in assessing how we are progressing in that regard. However, delivery will require collaboration, and I am absolutely committed to the closest engagement possible with stakeholders because, ultimately, planning is for everyone, and everyone has a role to play in planning and in making NPF4 a success.

As I indicated in response to questions on my statement in Parliament last year when I introduced the draft NPF4, the resourcing of our planning system is a priority for me. To realise the ambition and vision in NPF4, we need a properly resourced planning system. The actions that I have taken since then include increasing planning fees from April this year, which there is already some evidence to suggest is feeding through to additional positions in some planning departments.

We are working through the high-level group to support collective and collaborative work to address challenges around recruitment and retention. For example, the future planners project, which I was delighted that the Scottish Government was able to provide financial support to, has developed a report that has provided a series of recommendations on how we can recruit more people into the planning profession as well as retain people in the planning profession.

I should note that the challenges that Scotland faces around recruitment in our planning sector are not unique to Scotland—they are much wider challenges. However, I am clear that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to do all that it can to support our planning authority partners to ensure that we have a well-resourced planning system. We have taken action towards that through higher fees, and we continue to take action, through engagement and dialogue, towards a model of full cost recovery. That is an ambition, but it requires careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences.

To ensure that we have a sufficient workforce in our planning sector, we are taking action through the future planners project with our key partners to assist in making sure that we maximise the number of people coming into and staying in the profession.

My final point is to recognise that NPF4 provides an opportunity to inspire many more people to choose planning as a career. Planning is a wonderful career choice for any young person thinking about what they want to do in life. It provides an opportunity for people to make a huge and impactful difference not just to their own communities but to the country as a whole. Planners will be at the forefront of shaping our places and ensuring that we can meet our obligations to reach net zero by 2045.

On the issue of biodiversity, Cara Davidson may want to add something about the specific support provided there, particularly given the new policies that are coming online.

To an extent, that will happen naturally. About five authorities are in the process of completing their LDPs using the existing arrangements. We envisage that, within about five years, all planning authorities will have adopted the new-style LDP. However, the pace at which they do that will be determined by a number of factors: the age of existing LDPs; the particular impacts of new policies on their areas; and the capacity in their teams. We will, of course, engage closely with authorities to understand their plans, and the planning and environmental appeals division will similarly assist them in their business programming.

I recognise the point, but it should be recognised that it is not unusual for authorities to move at different paces, reflecting their particular circumstances.