Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. It is good to have clarity about the process that we are all involved in.

I will move on. I have a few questions about the fact that a lot of this will be delivered at local level. Numerous stakeholders have voiced strong support for the Scottish Government’s intention, which is briefly outlined in policy 1, to move to a plan-led system. However, many go further and advocate for a public plan-led system, in which local authorities would have considerably more agency to shape their local communities and to manage land use more proactively. Do the minister and his officials believe that the draft NPF4 supports local authorities to do that? Will the minister commit to taking on board that ambitious but important objective, as voiced by stakeholders?

My next question is connected to that point. The way in which we use land is becoming increasingly complex, with growing needs and competing pressures. It seems to me that we are at a critical point in national planning, where we need to ensure that land is used for the right purpose. Not all land is the same—we have peatland, farmland, land that is appropriate for housing and so on. However, throughout this process, I have been struck by how limited our overall understanding is of land use in Scotland.

What work will the minister undertake to improve current land use mapping on a national scale to support those who work on spatial strategies, national developments and policies in the national planning framework? Although we are inviting planning authorities to take forward some of the work, we are also talking about things such as nature networks, where collaboration needs to happen.

I call Miles Briggs.

I notice that we are at time, but I would be grateful if you would stay with us for a little bit longer. I have a couple more questions that I am keen to ask, and the discussion has been useful for the committee.

My first question is on priorities. Several witnesses have asked for clarity on how developers and decision makers should balance or prioritise the four priorities that are set out in the national spatial strategy, the six spatial principles, and the development priorities that are set out in the five action areas and individual national planning policies. We took oral evidence from Christina Gaiger from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, who argued:

“the document covers a huge amount of ground, and because not everything can sit in one place, we need a hierarchy ... there needs to be some sort of primacy amongst these policies to help people understand where the priorities themselves lie.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 25 January 2022; c 11.]

Do you intend to take forward the idea of a hierarchy?

Thank you, minister. It is heartening to have heard your comments, which picked up on a number of issues that have come up for the committee.

I have a number of questions, so I will start, then open up the session to colleagues. My first few questions are about the NPF4 process. I understand that it arises from planning legislation, but NPF2 and NPF3, before they were introduced in Parliament, were subject to considerably more public scrutiny than the draft NPF4. Why was a similar approach not taken to NPF4?

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2022 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are in silent mode, and that all notifications are turned off during the meeting.

We have two items on our agenda, both of which relate to the fourth national planning framework. First, we will hold our final evidence session in the inquiry with the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth, Tom Arthur, then we will go into private session to consider the issues that have been raised in evidence.

Mr Arthur is joined by Scottish Government officials. Fiona Simpson is the chief planner, Andy Kinnaird is the head of planning transformation and Helen Wood, who is joining us online, is the head of planning performance. I would be grateful if Mr Arthur could, in order to allow our broadcasting team to activate her microphone, make it clear when he wishes to bring in Ms Wood to respond to specific questions. I welcome Mr Arthur and his officials to the meeting.

I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this session. Before I invite the minister to make opening remarks, I place on the record the committee’s thanks to everyone who has helped to inform this important piece of work. In particular, I thank SURF—Scotland’s Regeneration Forum, the Built Environment Forum Scotland, Rural Housing Scotland, Scottish Rural Action, Voluntary Health Scotland, Scotland’s Towns Partnership and the Scottish Youth Parliament, all of which provided invaluable input to our scrutiny. I know that members particularly enjoyed the visits and online workshops, which really helped us to understand the ways in which planning impacts on communities and the importance of getting the planning framework right. I thank everyone who has assisted our work on the topic.

Before I open up to questions from the committee, I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you, Meghan.

Thank you for that response. We look forward to that.

I thank you and your officials for your evidence today, and I want to let you know that the committee expects to publish its report on the draft national planning framework in April.

We will have a short break before we reconvene in private for item 2. As that was the only public item on our agenda, I now close the public part of the meeting.

It is exciting that so many people across Scotland from so many sectors are engaging with the process. The committee and I share your view that the approach has the potential to transform planning.

I think that Fiona Simpson used the word “proposal”. Once the document moves from a draft to a proposal, and once you have taken on board all the perspectives—I appreciate that you are doing all that listening—that might change some of the language, which will involve thinking through the detail. After that, when will the committee and other stakeholders have an opportunity to review and scrutinise that and give feedback?

Thank you for that clarity.