Chamber and committees

As I mentioned in my previous answer, I am happy to engage with and will engage with SSENT to understand its concerns in more detail. I recognise the point that you are making, Mr Kerr. I am very conscious of the significance of ancient woodlands and of the fact that they are an irreplaceable habitat.

I will make two points. The first is that we are at the end of a process, which it has taken some time to get to. I want to focus on bringing NPF4 to Parliament for a vote of approval and subsequently, in short order, its adoption by ministers. However, I am absolutely committed to the closest monitoring and engagement with stakeholders, going forward. In any policy development, no one wants any outcomes that are not consistent with the intent.

Through the monitoring and engagement that I have already indicated that I am committed to undertaking, we will look carefully at the policy, understand concerns and carefully monitor any impact that it has. The current position is that we will bring NPF4 back to Parliament for a vote of approval and, should Parliament agree to it, it will subsequently be adopted by ministers. There will be the closest engagement with all sectors, specifically on the points that you raised. As I said, I will meet SSENT shortly to discuss its concerns in more detail. My officials have already had engagement with it.

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.

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.

As set out in the legislation, when NPF4 is adopted, the development plan will consist of NPF4 and the local development plan, but NPF4 will take precedence over any existing LDP. Once new LDPs come online, that situation will change, as they will be a more up-to-date reflection of policy. After NPF4 is adopted, if there is a conflict between it and an existing LDP, NPF4 will prevail.

That is the key point. It is not solely public money that will deliver on NPF4—the private sector has a huge role to play. Even in the public sector, there is a mix between Scottish Government and local government funding. It is quite a complex funding landscape. We seek to present, on the public sector side, the money that is available through existing funding streams and how that aligns with the ambitions and principles of NPF4.

I will ask Carrie Thomson to come in, in a moment. We have taken an evidence-based approach, and I think that you will recognise that that is absolutely vital. The numbers that we arrived at are based on national and local data, but it is also important to recognise that the HNDA was a starting point in reaching the MATHLR figures, so there is also flexibility. It is important to remember that, as part of the new-style LDPs, there is also the opportunity for local evidence, through the evidence reports, to identify where there is additional need and demand. That flexibility is built in.

The HNDA guidance and the tool are kept under review, and they are regularly updated when updated household projections are released by National Records of Scotland. HNDA is well understood and well established, and I recognise that, at the session last week, Homes for Scotland offered to facilitate a workshop for the committee on HNDA. I am keen to maintain positive engagement with Homes for Scotland, so planning officials and those from the centre for housing market analysis will, of course, be happy to have discussions on the HNDA tool and other matters with Homes for Scotland.

Do you want to provide more detail, Carrie?

I recognise and welcome the comments from stakeholders, who have themselves welcomed the greater clarity on community wealth building in the NPF. Community wealth building is at different stages of implementation. You will be aware from your constituency, Mr Coffey, that, across Ayrshire—it started with North Ayrshire but now includes the whole region—we are seeing trailblazing work being done on community wealth building. I was delighted to be out and about in the area in the summer and to see some of the great work that has been going on there through place-based approaches to procurement.

Community wealth building is something that more and more local authorities will take up. As things stand, the Scottish Government has supported five pilot areas. There is the work that is taking place in Ayrshire, and other local authorities are taking forward, under their own steam, community wealth-building approaches. As a Government, we have a commitment to support all local authorities to develop their community wealth-building strategies. I will have more to say about that in the new year. We also have a commitment to introduce legislation to support community wealth building, on which we will consult ahead of its introduction. We have established a bill steering group in that space, as well. Again, I will have more to say about that in the new year.

Community wealth building is also referenced in our national strategy for economic transformation. Community wealth building will be a key practical tool for realising the ambitions around a wellbeing economy. It will be integral to rewiring how our local and regional economies operate so that they do so in a way that sees less wealth extraction and more wealth retained by communities. As the model is rolled out and more local authorities adopt it, we will see more local authorities with their own community wealth-building plans. As the policy references, that will have to be recognised in planning decisions.

First of all, I recognise that monitoring is absolutely vital. With this new approach, which follows on from the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, I am keen to have the closest possible engagement; indeed, I am very keen to hear the committee’s views and insights at the point of the framework’s adoption and as we move through the iterative process with the delivery programme. I want to make that crystal clear from the start.

We also need to recognise, as I think we all do, that the impact of planning can take time to feed through. Indeed, that is intrinsic to its very nature. Clearly, there are a number of different metrics that we could go through—and I will ask colleagues to touch on them in a moment—but I have to say that I was struck by Professor Hague’s comments at last week’s meeting. Although he recognised the importance of looking at how LDPs were shaping up and at planning appeal decisions, he said that there was also a need to discuss collectively and report on the real, tangible and measurable impacts that the NPF4 was having, particularly with regard to community engagement and ensuring that people felt involved. A very important rule not just for the delivery programme itself but for the impact of NPF4 on the ground is that we show these things in a clear and accessible way.

There are other strands of work where monitoring can play a role. I should point out that we are working towards recruiting the national planning improvement co-ordinator, a role that has been created through the 2019 act, and work is also being carried out the new planning performance framework reports that will replace the current voluntary regime. All of those can play a particular role in this respect, too.

Fiona, do you have any comments to make?