Seòmar agus comataidhean

The evidence report, which has to be produced, is the key to making sure that that engagement is appropriate for the local place and the local community; that might not be the same everywhere.

It is crucial that community involvement is front-loaded—that the community is involved at the earliest opportunity.

I ask Kristen Anderson to help me.

Good morning, everyone. The previous time that I attended a meeting of a committee with a similar remit was as convener of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee in session 4. I note that Mark Griffin was a member of that committee way back in 2011. When I was preparing for this morning’s meeting, I felt that it was a little bit soon after my appointment to be facing a double committee session. That said, it is good to be back.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity briefly to outline the Scottish Government’s approach to the new development planning provisions, which are contained in Scottish statutory instrument 2023/101 and the associated regulations on commencement, savings and transitional arrangements.

Scotland’s plan-led system of development is widely supported. As the committee will be aware from its consideration of national planning framework 4, the Scottish Government is strengthening development planning as part of its wider planning reform programme. That includes changes to what constitutes a development plan, the interplay between policies on NPF4 and local development plans, and the process of preparing LDPs with a greater focus on delivery. Together, those changes create opportunities for LDPs to refocus on delivering place-based outcomes.

The broad framework for new-style LDPs and their preparation is set out in the primary legislation—the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019—which made strategic changes to LDPs. The new regulations provide the detail for how the act’s requirements should be fulfilled. They were informed by extensive engagement with key stakeholders, with input from the cross-sectoral development planning working group. That led to public consultation on the main regulations and draft guidance, along with the consultation on the draft NPF4 and a separate one with targeted engagement on the definition of “Gypsies and Travellers”.

Overall, respondents were generally supportive of our proposed approach of producing carefully targeted regulations. More detail will be provided in the fuller associated guidance. I assure the committee that the regulations were finalised while taking into account comments raised through the public consultation. The policy note sets out details of the consultations, including the issues raised, and the regulations now reflect that feedback. Not all the suggestions put forward have been included in the regulations, but we will address the matters raised in them in the guidance.

The connection between the regulations and the guidance is key. We have sought to strike a balance between having a clear statutory framework and clear guidance to support all stakeholders in implementing the new system while giving planning authorities flexibility to implement the statutory procedures in the ways that best suit their places, communities and organisational priorities.

We also intend to identify and share best practice as the new system beds in. I would welcome the opportunity to come back to the committee to talk through the comprehensive guidance once it has been published, if the committee would be interested in that.

The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (Commencement No 12 and Saving and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2023 will commence the various provisions of the 2019 act that will be needed to support the envisaged new system of LDPs. We have also provided for savings and transitional arrangements for plans that started under the current system. From our discussions with stakeholders, we know that planning authorities are eager to get on with their new-style plans. The new regulations will provide a solid foundation for a consistent approach to plan making across the country.

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions, perhaps with a bit more support from my officials than is usual.

There are some good examples of partners aligning resources, notably staff and premises, and moving towards having a shared purpose so that they can achieve more collectively than they would when working separately. The important point about funding is that partners should use their collective resources in whatever way best enables them to deliver on local priorities, in line with their organisations’ roles and responsibilities.

I have heard the arguments that partners should allocate funds towards a pot of money that CPPs control. I am interested in learning more about the benefits and risks of that approach. That is one of the things that the committee has been looking at.

Recommendations are also coming out of the community planning improvement board, and I look forward to discussing those with the CPIB chair. I have not yet discussed them.

Community planning will continue to have an important role in supporting a range of priorities, such as Covid recovery, promoting population health and tackling health inequalities. However, as has been mentioned, there will increasingly be a role for community wealth building, particularly in relation to economic development in our communities. That work is being led by the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, so I will ask David Milne to comment on that and indulge your passion.

There is also an increasing role for climate action to support community-led place-based approaches. That is an exciting opportunity and, if we get that right, there will be huge benefits.

We are continuing our discussions with COSLA, the community planning improvement board and other partners to support improvements to community planning in the context of the new deal for local government and the local governance review.

David Milne, do you want to indulge the convener?

Obviously, there was extensive work at the start. The cross-sectoral development planning working group was involved from the outset—virtually before we even put pen to paper. Three sub-groups looked at procedures, evidence reports and the gate check, and the scope and content. Each of those produced outputs in February 2021, offering information on their ideas to support the development of the regulations.

The public consultation on the proposed LDP regulations and guidance ran for more than 14 weeks—between December 2021 and the end of March 2022—alongside the consultation on the draft NPF4, which allowed people to have a joined-up understanding. Eighty-seven responses were received from planning authorities, key agencies, and development, property and land management bodies.

Importantly, a separate consultation on the definition of “Gypsies and Travellers” ran between December 2022 and February 2023. That enabled targeted involvement of that community and offered an opportunity to explain the specific matters that were associated with the definition and the specific context in which it was used. There were four in-person consultation events with travelling community members, and 41 responses. That is probably a good example of best practice in how we engage with communities that, sometimes, appear to be more difficult to engage with when it comes to consultation.

You asked about the issues that were raised. Generally, there was broad agreement, I think, with the majority of the proposals. Overall, there seemed to be agreement that the regulations should be kept to a minimum, to support flexibility and the ability to address potential problems that might arise.

We were able to make some changes on a few areas in the draft regulations, but, on balance, many of the issues that were raised will be dealt with in the guidance rather than in the regulations, in accordance with the principle of keeping regulations to a minimum in order to ensure that the legal framework is clear. Most of the other points from the consultation were to do with the guidance, which can be updated in line with best practice.

I ask Kristen Anderson to fill in any bits that I may have missed.

The statutory guidance is clear in relation to third sector organisations and third sector interfaces. The third sector has an important role to play in community planning—not only at strategic level, around the board table, but in the engagement that we talked about earlier. Sometimes it will be a third sector organisation that can engage with the particular communities for which we are trying to make change, so it is really important that the third sector is part of the picture and is helping to build capacity, skills and confidence within communities, and supporting general community empowerment activity.

There are a lot of reasons why the third sector should be involved. I guess your question is about whether there is something in the current structures that is preventing that. I argue that that is not the case, because there are some really good examples in which the third sector has been able to be engaged. Examples that I have in front of me include Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Services co-chairing the CPP—it is not a statutory member, but is, however, co-chair; Engage Renfrewshire chairing the CPP Renfrewshire forum for empowering communities; and the strong involvement of Largo Communities Together as the anchor organisation in the Fife LOIP.

I do not think that that there are any structural issues. There are places where third sector involvement is not happening, and I think that there are strong arguments for why it should be happening. If the only reason to do it was to reach the communities that we are trying to support in relation to inequalities and deprivation, that would be reason enough.

David Milne wants to add something.

Most of the significant changes were brought in by the 2019 act rather than being brought in through these regulations, and that is why work is on-going.

NPF4 sits alongside LDPs, and the 2019 act sets out the requirement for planning authorities to take into account NPF4 when preparing their LDPs. It is a bit different from how it was in the past, when you would expect the national planning framework to virtually be replicated in local plans. However, that is no longer necessary because they sit alongside each other, which is a more sensible way of working.

You are right: the guidance is crucial. Andy, do we have an expectation for when it will be published?

The previous question was about examples since the 2015 act was passed, so I gave three examples. However, it is absolutely appropriate that we look at that. It is why the previous minister asked for a review, and why I welcome the work of the committee. The fact is that the more local engagement we have and the more communities are involved in decision making, the better will be the decisions that we will make. We absolutely recognise that, which is why I welcome the work that the committee is doing.