���˿���

The term “community wealth building” may be new to some people, but the concept underlying it is not. Certainly, the key components are all well understood strands of work, many of which have had long-standing support from the Scottish Government and local authorities. Many of the key components are well established in Scotland, whether they are around sustainable procurement, supporting local businesses or localising supply chains, the retention of local assets and seeing more local assets in community ownership, promoting fair work and progressive recruitment practices, or, indeed, promoting more progressive models of ownership, be they co-operatives, employee-owned businesses or social enterprises.

Community wealth building brings a strategic lens to those individual strands in such a way that we can effect quite significant and radical change in how our local and regional economies operate. I am heartened to see the interest to date in community wealth building from across the political spectrum and, indeed, among stakeholders. I have had very positive engagement on community wealth building with, for example, the Federation of Small Businesses, and I look forward to more constructive engagement.

This is something that has real potential. It will not be an overnight fix: there are no magic bullets here to address all the challenges that our local and regional economies face. However, community wealth building has something of a track record in other areas: it is already delivering on the ground in Ayr, and, as more and more communities throughout Scotland adopt it, we will see the benefits of it. Spatial planning can have a key role in delivering community wealth building, which is why I am delighted that we have the policy in NPF4. Although I cannot say for certain that this is the case, one contributor has suggested that it may be the first planning policy in the world to have within it a specific community wealth-building policy. That is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to advancing the community wealth-building agenda. I hope very much to have the opportunity to discuss that in more detail with the committee in due course.

I think that it is happening. I go back to the point by Professor Hague that I referenced earlier: we do not have a choice. We can say that it is a social imperative, an economic imperative or, indeed, an environmental imperative, but we do not have a choice. Climate change is happening. Yes, we have to mitigate, but we have to adapt as well. I think that we could all say that if we do not do that, the consequences will be incalculable.

We have put the climate emergency and the nature crisis right at the heart of NPF4. Policy number 1 runs through the entire vision of the document, but such considerations are not unique to Government. Every business and every local authority is having similar discussions. What NPF4 does is provide a clear direction in our planning system as to the action that has to be taken. Planning is uniquely placed to help us to address the climate emergency because of the power that it has to direct, in a coherent, considered and rational way, the types of development that we need to see to meet these strategic challenges.

Further, given the timescales within which planning operates, there is no overnight fix or quick cure. This will take sustained work. That is why we have set out a vision to 2045 in NPF4.

I highlight last week’s evidence from Scottish Renewables, which recognised the significance of our renewable energy policy in NPF4; indeed, it is at the forefront of thinking in a European context. It also recognised that protections for wild land already exist and are retained—and, in that respect, I would highlight as an example the percentage of wild land that we find in our national parks or national scenic areas.

I also point out that it is important to read NPF4 as a whole. Ultimately, decisions have to be considered on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the development plan—including the local development plan—and the individual decision maker has to take all of those factors into consideration.

Do you want to add anything, Cara?

The answer to your first question lies in your second question. As I said in my opening remarks, we have arrived at this point through an extended period of work—there have been more than three years of work to get to this point—and the intention now is that the NPF4 draft, as revised, which is before the committee for consideration today, will be brought to Parliament for a vote. Under the legislation, a parliamentary vote is required before ministers can adopt. We will bring the revised version to Parliament for a vote, so there is no scope at this juncture for changes or amendments. To do so would be to effectively reopen the process and delay getting on with the work of implementing and delivering NPF4.

With regard to your second question, engagement, collaboration and partnership working are absolutely essential to the delivery of NPF4, so we have set out in the first iteration of our delivery programme how we will work with partners to help to achieve that. Of course, the delivery programme will be reviewed after six months, and I am grateful to those who have already offered comments about what changes they would like to see and what additions they would like to see in the delivery programme. We will engage on that, and, of course, as I referenced in my opening remarks, through our monitoring process we will be able to learn how the policies are delivering on the ground. We will begin to see how that impacts on the development of new local development plans, and it is through that process that we will then be able to evaluate the impact that NPF4 is having.

There is provision in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 to amend NPF4. We will introduce those regulations next year, but, clearly, any changes to NPF4 would have to be evidenced and carefully considered. The priority and the focus now is on the adoption of NPF4, subject to Parliament’s agreement, and then its implementation and delivery, which will be done in a genuine spirit of collaboration and partnership working.

First of all, I encourage all aspiring planners outwith Scotland or in other parts of the UK to come to Scotland to work in planning and help us deliver this really significant framework.

As we will all recognise, there will be no quick fix to this challenge. There are high-level things that we can do to raise the profile of planning and make it as attractive a career choice as possible. Again, I make it clear: planning has so much potential to deliver so much good, and it represents an excellent career choice for anyone.

As for the practical work that we are doing in that respect, there are, as I have already mentioned, issues with resourcing. In some planning authorities, fees have translated to additional posts, and there has been work to bring in full cost recovery. I would caveat that by making it clear that there are complexities in that respect, and we do not want any unintended consequences, but that commitment is being taken forward.

There is also the future planners project, which earlier this year published a report containing a number of thoughtful suggestions for actions that we can take to increase the number of people coming into the profession. Fiona, do you want to say anything about that?

That comes back to the pivot in our focus that I have talked about. As we move to implementing and delivering NPF4, the Government can have more active engagement in that.

No. As I have said, these are pressures that emerge through our internal monitoring, and it is those forecast pressures that we have sought to reduce.

The savings that have been specifically identified as being reallocated have been included in the ABR. Savings currently identified as pressure reductions might translate into savings that will emerge in the SBR.

Is that from Scottish rural development programme funding?

It is a revised forecast, specifically within that line.