���˿���

The key point is that it cannot be done to communities; it is essential to do it with communities. Working with local partners, such as development trusts, community councils and other community groups, local place plans, which have recently come on line through regulations, provide an excellent avenue for shaping local development plans and having those conversations.

I hope that gives a rounded view. I know that we are here to discuss NPF4 specifically, but we cannot see it in isolation when we consider how to tackle the challenges that are faced by our town and city centres.

I will pick up on the point about the language. It is the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement. That is an important distinction in planning. It is important to make the point that we are talking about housing land.

I recognise the points that Miles Briggs has raised, and I look forward to further dialogue and engagement with the renewables sector—I am very open to that—as we move towards the finalised version of NPF4. We all recognise the categorical importance of renewables in delivering our investment ahead of 2045. When we look at our suite of planning policies, it is important to bear in mind not just the specific policy on green energy—policy 19, from memory—but policy 2, on the climate emergency, which is also key. It is the second policy in the policy handbook. Policy 2 (a) says:

“When considering all development proposals significant weight should be given to the Global Climate Emergency.”

That is at the heart of NPF4. We recognise that the planning system must do all that it can to support us in our journey to net zero, and the role that renewables have to play is implicit, well understood and well recognised.

Perhaps Fiona Simpson would like to add some specifics on the policy.

That is a fair point. Fundamentally, NPF4 is integrated, because the hymn sheet that it is singing from is the same hymn sheet that the growth deals are singing from—that is, the range of policies that we already have in place. The national transport strategy, the “Housing to 2040” strategy and the land use strategy publications all predate NPF4, but there has been close collaboration across Government in the development of the proposals, and there is an iterative effect. Just as the infrastructure investment plan influenced NPF4, NPF4 will influence the next infrastructure investment plan. That has already taken place.

The need to demonstrate more clearly where those links are and to make them explicit has emerged from the committee’s deliberations during the past few weeks. I appreciate that some of the links can be more apparent if a person is immersed in this and sitting reading all the documents side by side. However, a person might be approaching NPF4 for the first time, and we want the document to be read by as many people as possible—planning is not just for planners, of course. I recognise the point about being able to help people to orient and see how it integrates into the wider policy landscape.

I suggested earlier that we could look at how we could publish an additional piece of guidance or reference on how NPF4 reflects the wider policy landscape and how that wider policy landscape influences things such as growth deals and what local authorities might seek to do with levelling up money. Fiona—do you want to add anything to that?

I think so. It is a discussion that I look forward to having.

Another point, which picks up on Mr Dey’s earlier line of questioning, is the importance of resourcing our planning authorities, which underlines why we have taken the action that we have taken on fees. We recognise the key role that planning authorities will play in realising our ambitions and obligations around delivering renewable energy.

That is an excellent question; I am sure that we could dedicate the entire session to discussing 20-minute neighbourhoods. One question that is often raised is how the concept of the 20-minute neighbourhood, which we immediately think of as being applicable to a densely populated urban environment, is applicable to a rural environment. Ms Gallacher raises another important question regarding what we do with our existing infrastructure.

First, we have to be aware that there are limits to what planning can do. Planning often has a strong focus on new development, in particular when we are setting out a spatial strategy to 2045. However, I highlight policy 30 on vacant and derelict land, which involves taking a brownfield-first approach and spatial principle (d), on conserving and recycling assets, which is one of the principles that inform the approach of our spatial strategy.

We have a specific suite of policies around centres, including the policy on town centre first assessment and policy 27 on town centre living. Policy 31 on rural places also captures the concept of the 20-minute neighbourhood. However, it is also important to look at the broader suite of measures that we are taking forward beyond NPF4, as part of planning reform. I referred earlier to the phase 2 review of permitted development rights, which creates another opportunity to simplify the planning system and to expedite some of the modifications and retrofits to which Ms Gallacher referred.

I also refer to my earlier answer to the convener regarding land assembly and compulsory purchase, and the forthcoming implementation of masterplan consent areas, to exemplify the range of levers that we will have at our disposal to help communities move towards, and adapt to, being 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Planning has a role to play in 20-minute neighbourhoods, but our approach in that regard is not limited to planning. The committee will be aware of the importance that STPR2 gives to 20-minute neighbourhoods and the infrastructure that is required.

I do not know whether Fiona Simpson wants to add to that.

You make an important point. I refer back to what I said earlier: I recognise the autonomy of local authorities to take their own decisions. Rightly and properly, those are decisions for elected members to take.

I am seeking to do what I can to support the resourcing of the planning system through fees. In the longer term, we are working towards full cost recovery. In the meantime, we are doing the short, sharp piece of work on future planners that Helen Wood outlined. We have taken action to deliver on the requirement in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 for a national planning improvement co-ordinator, which will be implemented in tandem with the process of increasing fees.

Ultimately, it is a matter for local authorities, but I hope that we can all agree on the vital contribution that planners can make. We are looking at creating more resilient and thriving communities as we recover from Covid. Planners, as part of the economic development infrastructure in local government, have a huge role to play in enabling us to meet our ambitions for 2045; the challenging ambition of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030; and our ambitions for housing in 2040. Ultimately, however, it will be for local authorities to determine how best to allocate their resources, and I respect that.

I believe that NPF4 supports that. We may come on to discuss later in the meeting the question of how prescriptive or flexible certain policy language should be and the need for that flexibility so that local authorities can apply the policy to their circumstances.

As well as our approach to planning policy, we will be undertaking additional work during this parliamentary session on land assembly, compulsory purchase and compulsory sales orders. There are also provisions in the infrastructure levy in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. We will consider those as part of a broader review of planning obligations. We are undertaking a range of activity beyond what we are doing with NPF4 that can help to support those ambitions.

Fiona Simpson may want to add more.

On that focus on delivery, we will shortly undertake the second phase of the permitted development rights review, which I know will be of interest to the committee. We will also take forward work later in the year to implement the legislation on masterplan consent areas, which is another important lever for local authorities in delivering the ambitions in NPF4.

That is a really important question. The obligations placed on NPF4 by the 2019 act make improving equality and eliminating discrimination a requirement. Policy 4, on human rights and equality, is one of the six universal policies through which the whole of NPF4 must be understood.

Notwithstanding that, I recognise your point. I recently had an excellent and informative discussion with Engender, and we will reflect on that before we put forward the final draft of NPF4. The framework has to be for everyone.

Notwithstanding our obligations under the equalities legislation and the obligations placed on NPF4 by the 2019 planning act and by policy 4, it is important that we always recognise that a person’s definition of “accessible” or “safe” or of what might constitute a 20-minute neighbourhood will be predicated on their own personal circumstances. Planning professionals recognise that instinctively when they apply the principles, and I am conscious of the ask to make that more explicit within NPF4. I gave an undertaking to Engender—and I give an undertaking to the committee—to do that as we move towards the final draft.

Fiona Simpson may want to add to that.

My door is always open for engagement. I will engage this evening on NPF4 with the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on sport, and a member has invited me to an event in their region. If any members wish to hold in their constituencies or regions additional consultation events on the draft NPF4, my officials and I are more than happy to support that, when it is possible.

I want the maximum possible engagement—that is very important. I want to seize the opportunity to transform views on the planning system. We have strong ambitions for further community engagement, which will be reflected through the new local development plan process and through our local place plans. A team effort is needed from all of us in Parliament to engage as many people as possible. I am happy to support and facilitate that in any way I can.