���˿���

The key word there is “collaborative”. A collaborative process has got us to this point; we have put a collaborative process in place for the consultation that will take us to the final draft; and the delivery of all this will also involve a collaborative process. The reality is that delivery is dynamic—we cannot have a single, fixed and immutable document. I hope that that gives you a sense of how we will deliver NPF4 once it is adopted.

The key point is that it cannot be done to communities; it is essential to do it with communities. Working with local partners, such as development trusts, community councils and other community groups, local place plans, which have recently come on line through regulations, provide an excellent avenue for shaping local development plans and having those conversations.

I hope that gives a rounded view. I know that we are here to discuss NPF4 specifically, but we cannot see it in isolation when we consider how to tackle the challenges that are faced by our town and city centres.

I will pick up on the point about the language. It is the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement. That is an important distinction in planning. It is important to make the point that we are talking about housing land.

I recognise the points that Miles Briggs has raised, and I look forward to further dialogue and engagement with the renewables sector—I am very open to that—as we move towards the finalised version of NPF4. We all recognise the categorical importance of renewables in delivering our investment ahead of 2045. When we look at our suite of planning policies, it is important to bear in mind not just the specific policy on green energy—policy 19, from memory—but policy 2, on the climate emergency, which is also key. It is the second policy in the policy handbook. Policy 2 (a) says:

“When considering all development proposals significant weight should be given to the Global Climate Emergency.”

That is at the heart of NPF4. We recognise that the planning system must do all that it can to support us in our journey to net zero, and the role that renewables have to play is implicit, well understood and well recognised.

Perhaps Fiona Simpson would like to add some specifics on the policy.

That is a fair point. Fundamentally, NPF4 is integrated, because the hymn sheet that it is singing from is the same hymn sheet that the growth deals are singing from—that is, the range of policies that we already have in place. The national transport strategy, the “Housing to 2040” strategy and the land use strategy publications all predate NPF4, but there has been close collaboration across Government in the development of the proposals, and there is an iterative effect. Just as the infrastructure investment plan influenced NPF4, NPF4 will influence the next infrastructure investment plan. That has already taken place.

The need to demonstrate more clearly where those links are and to make them explicit has emerged from the committee’s deliberations during the past few weeks. I appreciate that some of the links can be more apparent if a person is immersed in this and sitting reading all the documents side by side. However, a person might be approaching NPF4 for the first time, and we want the document to be read by as many people as possible—planning is not just for planners, of course. I recognise the point about being able to help people to orient and see how it integrates into the wider policy landscape.

I suggested earlier that we could look at how we could publish an additional piece of guidance or reference on how NPF4 reflects the wider policy landscape and how that wider policy landscape influences things such as growth deals and what local authorities might seek to do with levelling up money. Fiona—do you want to add anything to that?

I think so. It is a discussion that I look forward to having.

Another point, which picks up on Mr Dey’s earlier line of questioning, is the importance of resourcing our planning authorities, which underlines why we have taken the action that we have taken on fees. We recognise the key role that planning authorities will play in realising our ambitions and obligations around delivering renewable energy.

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?

If the past two years have taught us anything, it is that the future is inherently uncertain. However, as we have said, this will be a live document, and I have no doubt that there will be rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of whether the aspirations in NPF4 are being delivered on.