���˿���

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.

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.

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.