���˿���

Again, we will look at that on a case-by-case basis, but it is important to bear in mind that there is an established convention in the planning system with regard to the use of the word “should”. It has a particular meaning that is understood. I know that one of the issues that has been raised is the distinction between “should” and “must”, but I point out that “must” tends to be used when something has to be met in statute. For example, policy 32(c) states that

“proposals likely to have a significant effect on”

a

“European site ... must be subject to an ‘appropriate assessment’”

because that is a legal requirement. The distinction has to be made, but, as I have said, I am very much in listening mode, and I want to hear views on what the language should be—if you will pardon the expression.

When you read the “Housing to 2040” document, the references to and the connections with NPF4 are clear and explicit, whether they involve town centre living, community wealth building and so on. However, I have been reflecting on the comments that have been made about the connection between other policy documents and NPF4.

Irrespective of the comments that I made in my opening statement about the need to recognise the distinct nature of this document as part of the statutory development plan, I will reflect on how we can make the connections more explicit, perhaps by producing some supporting documents to help make clear to members of the Parliament and wider stakeholders and users of the planning system what those connections are. While recognising the unique nature of NPF4, I want to ensure that we make the links clearer and more explicit, so I am happy to consider how we could do that through additional guidance. The connections will also be reflected in the final delivery plan for NPF4, which is yet to be published and adopted.

We should recognise that the total allocation in the minimum all-tenure housing requirement is 200,000 homes over the next 10 years, or 20,000 a year. However, as I said earlier—and notwithstanding the fact that we will seek to refine the numbers ahead of the final draft—local authorities will, in developing their own local development plans, through the housing need and demand assessments in their local housing strategies and as a result of a robustly evidenced process, be able to increase those numbers.

On your point about transparency, we talked earlier about the need for engagement in local development plans—and, indeed, the input that local place plans can make, too—and that will play a very strong and central part in addressing the question of transparency. As I have stated, these are the minimum numbers, not aspirational targets. They are the starting point for authorities in developing local development plans and, where additional need is identified and evidenced, the numbers can be increased. It will be really helpful and important to do this in a collaborative way, as that will allow us to take advantage of, for example, local place plans and that kind of community engagement.

As has been recognised, when we think about planning for housing, we often think about the mailbags that ���˿��� get, and we know the kinds of issues that are raised. Setting those numbers out for the next 10 years is part of that process. By having that early engagement through the LDP, we can move away from some of the conflict that there often is around housing numbers and move towards talking about how we can develop great places. We need to remember that what makes a home does not just stop at the front door; it is about the community. That relates to the broader suite of policies that we were discussing earlier, such as 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Do Fiona Simpson and Andy Kinnaird want to come in on some of the process points around LDPs?

On intent, policy 19 (a) says:

“Local development plans should seek to ensure that an area’s full potential for electricity and heat from renewable sources is achieved. Opportunities for new development, extensions and repowering of existing renewable energy developments should be supported.”

That is categorical. However, having said that—I refer to points that Fiona Simpson made earlier—we, of course, want to hear detailed commentary and analysis of the language to ensure that we deliver on the policy intent. I am open to continued dialogue to achieve that ambition, which I think we all share.

That is a good question. I will give some background on how we got to the position that we are in. We developed our thinking through carrying out a lot of specific research on how planning policy could support strong and vibrant rural communities and economies in the coming years. We engaged extensively with rural interests, including the Scottish rural parliament, the Crofting Commission and rural heads of planning, and with a huge number of rural stakeholders through meetings and community roadshows.

Through the draft NPF4, we have sought to enable the rural development and diversification to which Mr McLennan refers, to strengthen the resilience of communities and to enable infrastructure in the areas that they need. However, to come back to the point about flexibility, although we have a policy on rural places in the NPF4, not every rural area is the same, so there has to be a national policy that is broad enough to recognise the requirements of different rural areas. The work on how to deliver that policy on the ground comes through the local development plan process and the engagement that takes place.

I will give some examples. Beyond a rural policy, we have draft policies on employment, new homes, and community facilities, services and shops that recognise rural needs. That includes diversification to support farm shops and local access to fresh produce. On sustainable transport, we recognise the need for private vehicles in rural areas, and we are supporting electric vehicle charging in such areas. In addition, our policies on aquaculture, digital connectivity, green energy, heat networks and facilities for a circular economy recognise the rural aspect.

There is also recognition of rural needs in our national developments, which apply to all of Scotland. Examples are national development 5 on circular economy materials management facilities, and national development 7 on islands hub for net zero, which recognises that particular environment.

One of our spatial principles is balanced development. That recognises the need, when thinking about our planning obligations across Scotland, to get the balance right. That means recognising concerns around sustainability and more pressured areas, as well as recognising where we need to support population retention and increase the population in other areas that are under pressure. Fiona Simpson might want to add some detail on that.

I will approach that question in three parts. First, you referred to the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which—as committee members will know—came from an independent review of the planning system. As members who were in Parliament in the previous session will remember, the 2019 act is perhaps one of the most scrutinised pieces of legislation that we have ever considered—indeed, it was one of the longest bill processes. I do not know whether it holds the record for the most amendments being lodged to a bill, but it must run close. As the convener highlighted, that process has informed how we have arrived at NPF4, and at the statutory requirements that NPF4 has been charged with delivering, under the six outcomes.

Secondly, the pre-consultation that led to the introduction of the draft NPF4 took roughly two years. There was originally a call for ideas, and in November 2020 we published a position statement, on which we also consulted. We signalled clearly that it was our intention to lay the draft NPF4 before Parliament for scrutiny in November 2021, and that is exactly what we did. Thirdly, it is set out in statute that we should consult for a period of up to 120 days, which is exactly what we are doing.

I want to convey the point that, looking at everything in the round—the deliberations on the 2019 act that helped to shape NPF4, the pre-consultation and the 120 days of public and parliamentary scrutiny, with a range of engagement activities taking place—I am very confident that we have had a strong and robust process of consultation and engagement, which is reflected in the excellent work that this and other parliamentary committees have undertaken on NPF4.

I absolutely recognise that concern. Indeed, I have made that point very clear in my engagement with stakeholders and in my responses to questions in Parliament on my statement back in November introducing the draft NPF4. Delivery is absolutely key. The visions and ambitions in NPF4 are one thing—we need to deliver on the ground.

Human and financial resources are, of course, inextricably linked. At the outset, I want to say that I respect the fact that local authorities are autonomous bodies and that it is for them to decide how they allocate their budgets, but I hope that we would all recognise the immense value of planning and planners. We have introduced regulations on fees, and I am working with stakeholders not just on the implementation of those regulations but on looking at full cost recovery in future. Full cost recovery might be a neat expression, but it is quite a complex area and delivering it in practice requires a lot of detailed work and consideration. I have committed to taking that work forward. That said, I am also very clear about the link between increased fees and performance, and that long-standing view will continue to be held.

As for resourcing, I recognise the numbers that the RTPI and others have highlighted, and we are working with the RTPI, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Heads of Planning Scotland and others on how we increase the number of people coming into the planning system. I will ask Fiona Simpson to give you information on some detailed work that we are doing at the moment.

However, there are two aspects to this. One thing that we could do to encourage more people into the planning system is to catalyse the opportunity that we have right now with all the real interest and excitement in planning and what it and NPF4 can achieve and to move the system itself away from conflict not just towards collaboration but towards a focus on great place making, which is what I think inspires people to get into planning in the first place. A shift in tone on what planning can deliver is an important part of the process.

I will bring in Fiona Simpson to detail an important piece of work that we are undertaking with partners at the moment.

On the latter point, as I mentioned earlier, we have an on-going review of developer contributions and we are taking forward that provision in the 2019 act. We will take a phased approach to that, because we are conscious that, at the moment, we are asking stakeholders to do a huge amount of work in connection to the national planning framework 4 and draft regulations and guidance on local development plans. However, it is absolutely something that we will take forward later in the parliamentary session, and the review that we are conducting just now will inform the shape of that.

An infrastructure-first approach is, ultimately, about achieving alignment between planning and infrastructure provision. Clearly, this is work that has come out of the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland and is informed by the hierarchy of sustainable investment in infrastructure, which involves planning for the future, maximising the useful life of existing assets and repurposing and co-locating activity. It is only after those possibilities have been exhausted that we start to think about replacing or creating new assets.

Although we have an explicit infrastructure-first policy—policy 8—it is also something that is embedded throughout the document, so to speak. We can see how policies around 20-minute neighbourhoods, for example, can complement an infrastructure-first approach, as they will involve development where there is existing infrastructure.

Fiona Simpson might want to add something.

It is an important issue and I am grateful to Homes for Scotland for all its constructive engagement and the evidence that it has provided to the committee. I look forward to continued engagement with Homes for Scotland and other stakeholders as we work towards finalising NPF4.

There is no getting away from the fact that housing numbers have been and remain one of the most contentious aspects of the planning system. We probably all have experience of that as representatives of our respective constituencies and regions. One of the things that we seek to do through the approach to housing in NPF4 is to get away from debates about numbers and processes and to focus on making great places. The minimum all-tenure housing land requirement is our response to a statutory requirement from the 2019 act. We have taken a constructive collaborative approach and have engaged extensively with local authorities to arrive at the numbers.

I draw attention to the language that has been chosen. “Minimum all-tenure housing land requirement” is perhaps not the neatest expression and I am not quite sure how we pronounce it as an acronym yet but I stress the first word: minimum. The numbers are not a cap or an aspirational target but the minimum that we expect to be in local development plans. If planning authorities, in preparing local development plans, are able through local knowledge and research to provide robust evidence of a need to increase the numbers, that can happen. LDPs will be prepared following the adoption of NPF4, so there will be an opportunity to use more up-to-date information as it becomes available. As we move towards adopting a final NPF4, we will review and refine the numbers. However, the requirement is a starting point for LDPs.

I realise that there are varying views on housing numbers. Some people will think that the numbers are too high, some will think that they are too low and other stakeholders will think that we have got it just right. The numbers represent the starting point. They are 10-year figures. We wanted to allow the focus to move to the delivery of great places. I think that we all share that ambition.

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

Again, we could dedicate an entire session to that question. I had the pleasure of visiting Govan—I think that it was in August—and seeing some of the outstanding work that is being done there, so I am not surprised by how impressed you were. That work is an example of what can be achieved.

NPF4 has a very big role to play, of course, but it is not going to deliver that change alone, and neither is the planning system. Within NPF4, in relation to shaping our future development, we have specific policies such as policy 24, on centres, and policy 25, on retail and the limiting of out-of-town development, which we know has had a big impact on occupancy rates in our town centres. We also have policy 26, on town centre first assessment, and policy 27, on town centre living. There is a suite of policies. Vacant and derelict land is also covered.

Beyond that, there is the work on permitted development rights that I mentioned earlier, the work on land assembly and CPO, and the work on masterplan consent areas. A huge amount is being done on the planning system and what we can do with it. Other work that I am taking forward through other aspects of my portfolio includes work in response to the review of the town centre action plan that was conducted by Professor Leigh Sparks. We are working at pace with COSLA to deliver an action plan in response to that.

You will also be aware of the forthcoming national strategy on economic transformation, following which we will publish a retail strategy, which has been developed with stakeholders.

We are seeking to pull a range of different levers to influence the amenities, services and range of opportunities that are available in our town centres and urban spaces. It will take a collaborative approach, and local government obviously has huge involvement as the lead agency in delivery. We provide support, including for example through the £325 million place-based investment programme and the £50 million vacant and derelict land programme, which has a role to play.

Fiona Simpson, do you want to foreground any particular points on the planning system within NPF4?