³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

To preface a more general point, I note that, specific to NPF4, we have six universal policies under sustainable places. We previously discussed policy 2, on the climate emergency, and the significant weight that should be given to it. That runs throughout.

More generally, there is a job, which is best done by local planners, in balancing competing priorities. Ultimately, planning is about mediating space and creating places, which is a job that planners have to do. They have to balance competing priorities, which involves a judgment call. It could be argued that planning is as much an art as it is a science. We cannot have planning by algorithm. We cannot automate the planning process or take out all the human agency or decision making that is involved in it. Planners will continue to have the role of judging and balancing competing priorities on the basis of local knowledge.

Having said that, I recognise the points that have been made about the language and whether that should be made more detailed in order to avoid unintended consequences or to ensure that the policy intent is fully delivered.

The document must be read in the round. It is holistic. I know that there is a huge amount in it, but planning is broad and touches on almost every aspect of our lives. That is, unfortunately, unavoidable. It is why we depend on the expertise and skill of our planning professionals.

Fiona Simpson may want to add to that.

At the heart of that, you are posing a set of profound questions, Mr Coffey. Local authorities have at their disposal powers to make amenity notices. A huge number of factors are at play. Planning is a lever but is not one that we can just pull to produce an immediate response—it takes time. That is why we have to focus on town centre and city centre living. For example, when we get people back into an area, we increase demand, which incentivises economic activity, which can incentivise uptake in the occupancy of units. Several different factors will influence that. However, local living is key.

We are also trying to focus development back on to our town centres using a brownfield-first approach. As we discussed earlier, there are other levers to consider such as permitted developments, use classes and reforming compulsory purchase—we will take that forward later in the parliamentary session. They all have roles to play.

At the heart of regenerating our town centres is town centre living. We are already seeing proposals for that in different localities across the country and on different scales. There are particular policies in NPF4 that can seek to stimulate more people going into town centres and persuade against development outwith town centres and on the edge of towns, but it will need a long-term approach. No lever that we can pull will have an immediate effect. A place-based approach must involve engagement with local communities.

That is why I am consciously not trying to suggest that there is some grand plan and that a minister can come in from on high, implement that and solve all the problems of a particular local community. There is a job in supporting and providing the framework within planning, providing resourcing, and providing the tools for planning authorities where they require them, whether that is in updated CPO powers, PD rights or masterplan consent areas, for example.

The key thing is to get more people living in our town centres and empowering those communities. Local place plans have a huge opportunity as vehicles for doing that.

Fiona Simpson might want to add to that.

The detail that the cabinet secretary has conveyed about engagement specific to rural issues reflects the broader approach that has been taken to developing the draft NPF4.

The draft framework is the culmination of quite a long journey, going all the way back to the independent review of the planning system that was commissioned at the tail end of 2015, which reported throughout, and the work that led up to the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which has clearly informed the design, structure and layout of NPF4 in its new, enhanced status.

We have of course had an engagement process. There was a call for ideas, followed by two rounds of extensive consultation and engagement. We published a position statement in November 2020 and we consulted on that. There has been extensive stakeholder engagement through that process.

I will provide some numbers. We have had nearly 350 written responses, 180 people participated in our roadshow workshops and we spoke to around 100 people at our drop-in sessions across the country. There was strong support throughout for a bold and radical NPF4.

I think that the process has gone beyond engagement to almost genuine co-production. I think that that is reflected in the response that we have seen to NPF4 so far. Notwithstanding particular points around some of the detail, I think that there is a growing and strengthening consensus about the direction of travel on NPF4. I believe that that emanates directly from how the draft NPF4 was brought into existence, which was through extensive consultation and engagement.

Convener, I can give you some more details about the on-going parliamentary consultation. The cabinet secretary rightly highlighted that 120 days is double the time that was previously in place. That timeframe is set out in statute, in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which was agreed by the Parliament.

Of course, a public consultation is running in parallel until 31 March, and we are supporting communities to engage with that. I can provide some details. There is a community grant scheme, which makes available grants of up to £250 to community groups to help them to engage. There are open invitation events over February and into March to give stakeholders the opportunity to discuss NPF4 and encourage participation in the formal consultation.

There are nine events in total, with one on each of the four policy themes and one for each of the five action areas. There is an equalities round-table discussion in March. The Royal Town Planning Institute is hosting round-table discussions on business energy development and house building during February and March. The Scottish Youth Parliament is holding a workshop at its next gathering in March. We are working with Police Scotland to support children and young people’s perspectives. Furthermore, there are discussions with community groups and online resources.

A huge amount of activity is taking place in parallel with the parliamentary scrutiny, to ensure that everyone who wants to contribute has an opportunity to do so. I reiterate that I very much want to encourage as much engagement as possible in the NPF4 process.

That is a fair point. I very much value that suggestion and the ideas that have been put forward. I assure Dr Allan that we will give them full consideration as we work towards producing a finalised NPF4.

As you will be aware, the spatial strategy is underpinned by six principles, one of which is the conserving and recycling of assets. That is reflected through policy 30, which is on vacant and derelict land. This speaks to our clear aspirations around climate change and a circular economy. We do not want to release the embedded carbon that is already there. We want to make use of existing assets.

That has huge applicability in a range of contexts. We will all be able to think of examples in densely populated urban environments where there are underutilised assets that can perhaps be brought back to life. A range of work goes on to support that through our place-based investment programme and asset transfers via the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, so that is already under way. NPF4 helps to strengthen that position and it is very clear and explicit. The policies around looking for brownfield land first are also relevant here.

Two other aspects of the spatial principles that complement that approach are compact growth and local living. Taking those things together holistically, we are aiming to encourage more growth and reuse of existing assets. That is applicable to rural environments, but I think that we all recognise that it has applicability to densely populated urban environments as well.

I do not know whether Fiona Simpson wants to comment.

I am happy to take that. Thank you, Ms Burgess. I look forward to discussing the issues with the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, which you convene, in due course.

Your point is important. The first thing that I would say is that this is a draft NPF. We are in a consultation process and we are incredibly grateful for the interest being taken by the committees and the Parliament more widely, and indeed, by all the individuals and groups who want to participate and share their views. That is part of the process.

On how we got to this position, I do not want to go over the ground that we covered earlier, but I am clear that the process has been collaborative and we have had a lot of consultation on specific policy areas while working in partnership with communities on the input that led to the spatial strategy and the specific action areas that have been developed. We will take into account any feedback that we receive via the consultation and the Parliament, and that will be fed into and reflected in the NPF4 that we bring back to the Parliament for final approval.

Again, I do not want to repeat myself, but I want to make a key point about the balance between giving a clear steer and flexibility. That is also important. Planning authorities will still have that vital role in relation to local development plans but, crucially, also local place plans, regulations on which have now come into force. That will give local communities more of a say in shaping their LDPs.

It is important to bear it in mind that there is still the means to achieve the specificity that is required in localised situations. That is not just for LDPs; it has also been enhanced through local place plans. We are seeking to articulate here the broad vision at a very high level, so even within a spatial strategy for a particular area, it will not necessarily be universally applicable to every single community within that area. We also want to see partnership working at a regional level beyond the work with LDPs and local communities.

Fiona Simpson might want to add to that.

Correct me if I am wrong, convener, but I think that you expressed a view about sharing the burden of a just transition. That is reflected within NPF4. I recognise the point you make about renewable electricity generation. There is also offshore wind, including the recent very welcome announcements in Scotland. If we look, for example, at the key role of the north-east in a just transition, it is a centre of expertise and it is reflected in the industrial green transition zone, which runs down the north-east all the way to Grangemouth. That is another key example of how more organised urban areas will have a major part to play in our move towards net zero.

There is also—and this is perhaps beyond the scope of our discussions today—the huge contribution that will have to be made by urban areas, particularly in the central belt, towards heat in buildings, which will be a significant ask of the population in moving towards a just transition. We all have slightly different and nuanced roles to play in our move towards a just transition, I think that it is clear that there is no part of Scotland that will not have to share in the responsibility of realising our ambitions for 2030 and 2045.

I echo the points that the cabinet secretary made. The national development planning policy is not a top-down policy stipulating specific developments that will or will not happen. Ultimately, it is for local planning authorities to make determinations in the first instance and, when appropriate, to use relevant assessment criteria that is required in considering any application.

Is there anything that Fiona Simpson wants to add?

Let me give a quick example. We talked about 20-minute neighbourhoods and a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres. Clearly, more will be expected of the central belt and it will be expected to be delivered at pace. Whereas, if we look at, for example, northern innovation and the action plan within the spatial strategy, there is a recognition of the increased need for private car use in those areas, so I think that the sharing of that burden is reflected throughout NPF4.

Dr Allan raises an important matter. We have to look at what planning is about. It is about the regulation and consenting process for development. It is certainly challenging for the planning system to respond at pace. In the medium and longer terms, as the cabinet secretary and I touched on in our responses to Ms Wishart, we can look at how we promote the types of development that, on the one hand, reduce fuel poverty and energy consumption and, on the other, promote jobs, prosperity and security of employment, which can help to alleviate some of the drivers of fuel poverty.

I do not want to repeat myself, but we have done work on permitted development rights to make it easier for people to ensure that their homes are as energy efficient as possible. It is clearly more challenging for the planning system to pull levers at short notice.

Would Fiona Simpson like to expand on my response?