���˿���

You will appreciate this, Mr Halcro Johnston, given the region that you represent, but I am always conscious of just attaching the “rural” label to an area and thinking that it catches everything, without recognising the diversity among rural communities. One area of particular relevance is community ownership, which is very well established in many rural communities. I would also say that a lot of community wealth building has already taken place. In conversations that I have had with rural communities, they have said, “We’ve been doing this stuff for ages. You city dwellers are just catching up.” That is very encouraging; it recognises that the approach is well established in those communities and that community-owned assets are incredibly important.

Clearly, local authorities and enterprise agencies have roles to play in working with communities, but there are questions that we at the national level have to ask. What frameworks do we have in place? Are our policies flexible and adaptable enough to meet particular circumstances? Are our funding streams available and applicable? Those are the things that we are continually seeking to engage on and understand. After all, communities are dynamic; needs and challenges change and opportunities will arise. My job as a minister is to ensure that the support that we put in place nationally is not static but is responsive to that.

Given the detail of your question, I hope that you will be content for us to get back to the committee in writing on that point, so that I can provide a more detailed response.

That is an excellent question. I think that town centres can perhaps be an even more vital resource in rural communities; indeed, in many cases, they provide lifeline products and services.

Ultimately, the funding that we provide to support town centres, which has been narrated throughout this session, is available to all local authorities, including rural authorities. In the draft national planning framework 4, specific policies are proposed that would be applicable to rural communities. There is therefore recognition of their situation.

However, fundamentally, the issues that we see in more densely populated areas such as the central belt are still relevant to rural communities, in the sense that we want to increase the density of population in our town centres. There is always the risk of urban edges and sprawl, which limits that compact growth. Greater population density can more realistically sustain town centres.

I will ask David Cowan to speak about the work and process of the review and how, in developing the response, we ensured that rural voices were heard and that specific rural concerns were captured.

I am conscious of the time, and this is a huge issue. You are absolutely correct to recognise that all of us have a mutual interest in this area.

The first thing that I would say is that we should recognise culture for its intrinsic value and acknowledge that it is to be enjoyed in and of itself—I do not even feel comfortable using “culture” as a catch-all label for all the diverse fields that it covers, but let us use it just now as shorthand. Yes, it can certainly help to draw people into town centres, stimulate conversation, promote further investment and attract more businesses to an area, but we must first recognise that the contribution of artists across any medium should be valued in and of itself. That is a positive thing that our town centres can offer.

Culture is hugely important to the discussion that we are having. It adds to the experiential point that I made earlier, because it takes us beyond the idea of town centres as just being somewhere functional where you go to get your messages, to get your hair cut or to go to the pub. Because of synergies, town centres are greater than the sum of their parts. Culture can involve utilising the existing assets in the built environment. For example, in Galashiels, we are providing support to the Energise Galashiels Trust, the local development trust, which is running the town and tapestry project—I think that that is what it is called; I will correct the record if it is not. There are QR codes on buildings in the town, so people can hold up their phone’s camera and get a history of the architecture, which helps them to get a deeper understanding of their built environment.

Another thing that is happening in Galashiels is the commissioning of murals. Anyone who walks around Glasgow will see that as well. It enhances the environment in which people live and helps to give them a sense of place and identity, which is important for town centres.

Although out-of-town retail plays a hugely important part in our economy in providing employment and services, town centres and city centres can provide a sense of identity, place, history, heritage and “where Ah’m fae”. That is an X factor, of which culture is an important part. It can manifest itself in a range of ways, from something as simple as encouraging people to look up and learn the history of their environment, through a mural on the wall to a significant investment, such as the great tapestry of Scotland, to draw people from outwith the community. The ways in which it is applicable are multifarious and as diverse as culture is.

Those are important points, and I discussed those matters with Professor Sparks earlier this week. As it has scrutinised the matters in detail, the committee will be aware that there is consistency across the range of strategies. Fundamentally, we want to take a place-based approach that includes partnership working and collaboration. At the heart of the review of town centres, and the principle we have adopted, is that town centres are for everyone, but everyone has a role to play in making their towns and town centres a success.

Partnership working is apparent across the range of strategies, but—this came up during scrutiny of NPF4 and the draft NPF4—perhaps there is a need to be more explicit and to communicate more clearly where the links are to allow ease of use and so that stakeholders can have confidence and understanding that there is a joined-up approach. In my response to the Parliament’s scrutiny of the draft NPF4, I reflected on how we can make those links clearer through the delivery plan for NPF4. During my discussions with Professor Sparks and Scotland’s Towns Partnership we considered whether there are products, or lines of narrative in communications, that can be developed to make the links more explicit.

The points that the convener has made are important, and I am reflecting on them. It is implicit that there are connections between the strategies. The links between collaboration on a place-based approach and the importance of community wealth building are apparent in the retail strategy, draft NPF4, “Housing to 2040” and the town centre action plan 2. However, I take the point that perhaps there is a need to make the links more explicit and clearer, so I am determined to do that.

As I said, we will consider what we can do. One concern would be that, if we were to start factoring in information on rental agreements, leases and the cost of buildings, we would get into the territory of commercially sensitive information. That is particularly the case when we look at the other two methodologies of valuation: the receipts and expenditure method and the contractor’s basis method. That issue also touches on, for example, how rateable value is calculated for hotels, restaurants and pubs, because turnover is an input into that process.

We must consider these matters carefully. However, the Government is committed to providing as much information and transparency as possible, so that users of the non-domestic rates system have the greatest understanding of how RVs are calculated.

RV is derived from net annual value, which is derived from a reflection of what would be a property’s yearly rental income on the open market. Ultimately, the rental market will be determined by market forces. By dint of how the methodology works, the prevailing national and local economic conditions will feed into how that is considered and, consequently, the RV. Therefore, it is factored into the process.

That shows the importance of having revaluation on a three-yearly cycle, with a tone date of one year, to ensure that, when the revaluation comes into effect, it is as up to date as it possibly can be. That, of course, is a reform that we introduced ahead of schedule.

I touched on a number of aspects in my opening remarks. One is the need to ensure that we recognise commercial sensitivity issues, which is why there is a focus on the use of a comparative methodology as opposed to a receipts and expenditure or constructor’s basis method.

Another aspect that I touched on is the practicality of delivery, in recognition of assessors’ workloads. We have a revaluation from 1 April 2023 and a one-year tone date to which assessors are working. For the first time, assessors are being required to produce a draft valuation notice for 30 November this year.

Taking all that into account, and through engagement and in collaboration with assessors, we settled on the 32 property classes that are included in the draft order.

We have set out what we intend to do for the revaluation in 2023. The next revaluation is scheduled for 2026, so we will continue to look at ways in which we can expand the amount of information that is provided ahead of the 2026 revaluation. The Parliament will of course be fully notified of and included in that process.

I reiterate the point that, ultimately, this comes from the agreement that was reached with the Barclay implementation appeals sub-group, which considered a wide range of options. That goes back to the point about commercial sensitivity.

Another aspect is what the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation said in its response to the consultation, in which it recognised that addresses provide a sufficient level of information for ratepayers and professional representatives to do their own research.