���˿���

There are some good examples of partners aligning resources, notably staff and premises, and moving towards having a shared purpose so that they can achieve more collectively than they would when working separately. The important point about funding is that partners should use their collective resources in whatever way best enables them to deliver on local priorities, in line with their organisations’ roles and responsibilities.

I have heard the arguments that partners should allocate funds towards a pot of money that CPPs control. I am interested in learning more about the benefits and risks of that approach. That is one of the things that the committee has been looking at.

Recommendations are also coming out of the community planning improvement board, and I look forward to discussing those with the CPIB chair. I have not yet discussed them.

Community planning will continue to have an important role in supporting a range of priorities, such as Covid recovery, promoting population health and tackling health inequalities. However, as has been mentioned, there will increasingly be a role for community wealth building, particularly in relation to economic development in our communities. That work is being led by the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, so I will ask David Milne to comment on that and indulge your passion.

There is also an increasing role for climate action to support community-led place-based approaches. That is an exciting opportunity and, if we get that right, there will be huge benefits.

We are continuing our discussions with COSLA, the community planning improvement board and other partners to support improvements to community planning in the context of the new deal for local government and the local governance review.

David Milne, do you want to indulge the convener?

Obviously, there was extensive work at the start. The cross-sectoral development planning working group was involved from the outset—virtually before we even put pen to paper. Three sub-groups looked at procedures, evidence reports and the gate check, and the scope and content. Each of those produced outputs in February 2021, offering information on their ideas to support the development of the regulations.

The public consultation on the proposed LDP regulations and guidance ran for more than 14 weeks—between December 2021 and the end of March 2022—alongside the consultation on the draft NPF4, which allowed people to have a joined-up understanding. Eighty-seven responses were received from planning authorities, key agencies, and development, property and land management bodies.

Importantly, a separate consultation on the definition of “Gypsies and Travellers” ran between December 2022 and February 2023. That enabled targeted involvement of that community and offered an opportunity to explain the specific matters that were associated with the definition and the specific context in which it was used. There were four in-person consultation events with travelling community members, and 41 responses. That is probably a good example of best practice in how we engage with communities that, sometimes, appear to be more difficult to engage with when it comes to consultation.

You asked about the issues that were raised. Generally, there was broad agreement, I think, with the majority of the proposals. Overall, there seemed to be agreement that the regulations should be kept to a minimum, to support flexibility and the ability to address potential problems that might arise.

We were able to make some changes on a few areas in the draft regulations, but, on balance, many of the issues that were raised will be dealt with in the guidance rather than in the regulations, in accordance with the principle of keeping regulations to a minimum in order to ensure that the legal framework is clear. Most of the other points from the consultation were to do with the guidance, which can be updated in line with best practice.

I ask Kristen Anderson to fill in any bits that I may have missed.

The statutory guidance is clear in relation to third sector organisations and third sector interfaces. The third sector has an important role to play in community planning—not only at strategic level, around the board table, but in the engagement that we talked about earlier. Sometimes it will be a third sector organisation that can engage with the particular communities for which we are trying to make change, so it is really important that the third sector is part of the picture and is helping to build capacity, skills and confidence within communities, and supporting general community empowerment activity.

There are a lot of reasons why the third sector should be involved. I guess your question is about whether there is something in the current structures that is preventing that. I argue that that is not the case, because there are some really good examples in which the third sector has been able to be engaged. Examples that I have in front of me include Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Services co-chairing the CPP—it is not a statutory member, but is, however, co-chair; Engage Renfrewshire chairing the CPP Renfrewshire forum for empowering communities; and the strong involvement of Largo Communities Together as the anchor organisation in the Fife LOIP.

I do not think that that there are any structural issues. There are places where third sector involvement is not happening, and I think that there are strong arguments for why it should be happening. If the only reason to do it was to reach the communities that we are trying to support in relation to inequalities and deprivation, that would be reason enough.

David Milne wants to add something.

Most of the significant changes were brought in by the 2019 act rather than being brought in through these regulations, and that is why work is on-going.

NPF4 sits alongside LDPs, and the 2019 act sets out the requirement for planning authorities to take into account NPF4 when preparing their LDPs. It is a bit different from how it was in the past, when you would expect the national planning framework to virtually be replicated in local plans. However, that is no longer necessary because they sit alongside each other, which is a more sensible way of working.

You are right: the guidance is crucial. Andy, do we have an expectation for when it will be published?

The previous question was about examples since the 2015 act was passed, so I gave three examples. However, it is absolutely appropriate that we look at that. It is why the previous minister asked for a review, and why I welcome the work of the committee. The fact is that the more local engagement we have and the more communities are involved in decision making, the better will be the decisions that we will make. We absolutely recognise that, which is why I welcome the work that the committee is doing.

Kristen?

The “gate check” is what we term the assessment of the evidence report. Obviously, that is a new process. It will provide an independent assessment of whether the planning authority has sufficient information for the preparation of an LDP. The gate check will be carried out by a person who has been appointed by the Scottish ministers—usually, a reporter from the planning and environmental appeals division. It is a new and independent process.

I ask Kristen Anderson to add a little more about it.

I am sure that somebody from East Ayrshire has heard your comment and that an invite to chat with them will be on its way to you.