���˿���

That will be part of the consideration that we give it in the round, but I do not see anything else.

That is absolutely true, and that is a basic principle with regard to customer service. In the public as well as in the private sector, it is very important to tell customers what is going on. It makes people feel much more comfortable and understanding of the situation. The work that the national planning improvement champion is taking forward in the framework for evaluation of how different local authority planning departments are performing is a key part of that. That is not only with regard to what they are delivering, but how they engage with customers—that is a big part of that work.

The situation is more complicated than that because there are shortages in the private sector as well and the different sectors are looking over their shoulders at each other, because they are worried about the others stealing their people. The fact that we had everybody in the room together at the event last week highlighted the need for people to work more closely together on some of that stuff.

If planners in different parts of the process are duplicating work, there might be an opportunity to get an understanding of that across the whole system in order to streamline the process. By comparing notes, people might be able to take us to a more effective place. That is one part of the solution, but there are clearly a number of other legs to that.

Thank you very much.

I would like to mention the recognition that NPF4 has gained. It won the planning to address climate change award at the United Kingdom-level planning awards last summer, and the UK Climate Change Committee stated in its 2023 report “Progress in adapting to climate change” that NPF4 is a significant step forward in delivering adaptation. It has also won a number of other awards at UK level. We are delighted about that. It is recognised in many ways as being groundbreaking in its approach.

Clearly, as we recognise, it is early days for NPF4, but it has been very well accepted by the planning community. As we know, significant work is happening to line up local development plans with the approach in NPF4. Obviously, we will not go into the details of the recent court case, but that has helped to clarify some aspects of that. The fact that we have won that case, pending appeal, gives us confidence that NPF4 is pointing in the right direction in terms of what it needs to deliver.

On the issues that need to be focused on, the team has a thorough and impressive delivery plan that it is working through, which is rated using the red, amber and green system. That has been very effective in giving an overview of which aspects require focus. Clearly, quite a bit of work is happening on local development plans. There are a number of areas—for example, the masterplan consent areas, further work on compulsory purchase orders and work on the infrastructure levy—that are in the pipeline and are being considered.

As the planning community and, indeed, local communities become more familiar with NPF4, we expect there to be more community-level engagement, which would be very encouraging.

Absolutely.

This policy is highlighted in NPF4. We might go on to talk about this in a bit more detail—I hope that I am doing the details of this justice—but the process for allocating housing land has changed under NPF4. Before, it was all about having to hit a number, which encouraged people to bring forward other land that was not in the plan, and that has changed to a process in which other land will be released if you are using the land that is already in the plan—if that makes sense.

That is quite an important distinction, and it should drive developers and others to make use of the land that is in the plan. Clearly, a lot of that will be brownfield land, based on local development plans. The recent court case has reinforced that policy, although as I have said, the window for the appeal process is still open and we will see what transpires.

When we join all of that up, we can see that we are in a much better place than we were. We have a firm direction of travel as well as local flexibility that allows for local circumstances to be taken into account.

Andy, do you have anything to add?

I will ask officials to comment on that specific issue, but it is important to recognise that NPF4 is clear that the local place plans do not need to be all-singing, all-dancing documents; they can just be a statement of what the local community thinks is important to include in its local place. That can be fed in at different stages in the process, so there is quite a bit of flexibility to make the process more accessible. However, I absolutely recognise that different communities will have different levels of volunteer expertise available to put plans together, and that support with that is required.

We do not have the data, so the key is to get it. As we get the housing land audit guidance in place and get data back from planning authorities, we will be able to see where the land is sitting and for how long it has been sitting. That will give us a better perspective, so that we can understand what is in the pipeline, how long it has been there and perhaps what the reasons are for that.

That is absolutely true. As I said, my colleague, the housing minister, is working on a range of measures to address that, and the empty homes issue is part of that solution. You said that the number of empty houses is 3,000; I do not know the number right across the whole country.