Chamber and committees

I engaged with that organisation when I was on the back benches, so I am familiar with what it does. Planning Democracy has done some thorough work on specific projects, and I know that officials have met or will meet it, as a stakeholder, to talk about some of the issues. That plays into the broader NPF4 policy on the importance of biodiversity and tackling climate change as a central approach to planning. Perhaps Andy Kinnaird will provide a bit more detail on that.

This policy is highlighted in NPF4. We might go on to talk about this in a bit more detail—I hope that I am doing the details of this justice—but the process for allocating housing land has changed under NPF4. Before, it was all about having to hit a number, which encouraged people to bring forward other land that was not in the plan, and that has changed to a process in which other land will be released if you are using the land that is already in the plan—if that makes sense.

That is quite an important distinction, and it should drive developers and others to make use of the land that is in the plan. Clearly, a lot of that will be brownfield land, based on local development plans. The recent court case has reinforced that policy, although as I have said, the window for the appeal process is still open and we will see what transpires.

When we join all of that up, we can see that we are in a much better place than we were. We have a firm direction of travel as well as local flexibility that allows for local circumstances to be taken into account.

Andy, do you have anything to add?

I will ask officials to comment on that specific issue, but it is important to recognise that NPF4 is clear that the local place plans do not need to be all-singing, all-dancing documents; they can just be a statement of what the local community thinks is important to include in its local place. That can be fed in at different stages in the process, so there is quite a bit of flexibility to make the process more accessible. However, I absolutely recognise that different communities will have different levels of volunteer expertise available to put plans together, and that support with that is required.

We do not have the data, so the key is to get it. As we get the housing land audit guidance in place and get data back from planning authorities, we will be able to see where the land is sitting and for how long it has been sitting. That will give us a better perspective, so that we can understand what is in the pipeline, how long it has been there and perhaps what the reasons are for that.

That is absolutely true. As I said, my colleague, the housing minister, is working on a range of measures to address that, and the empty homes issue is part of that solution. You said that the number of empty houses is 3,000; I do not know the number right across the whole country.

Absolutely. On policy 22 on flooding, I am aware of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s input in specific cases and its general approach. The Government is engaging on the issue to ensure that things are in the right place. We want to ensure that our approach is proportionate in delivering what NPF4 is meant to deliver, as I said in response to your previous question, while not preventing innovation or development that should take place. We are working through that as part of the bedding-in process. Perhaps Andy Kinnaird will comment on that.

Without knowing the specifics of the case—there might be other factors involved—I refer back to what Andy Kinnaird said, which was that rural revitalisation is one of the overarching principles in the document. That is clearly a hugely important policy direction, in line with policy 17.

If we are finding ourselves in a situation where we are taking a step back from what happened before, it is important to flush that out through the engagement work with stakeholders in the planning community, to help us to understand whether we require more clarification or guidance on specific local issues. However, it is good that those issues have been raised, because they allow us to dig through and address whether the process is working as intended.

Absolutely.

The first thing to say is that the case is still potentially live, because the appeal period has not yet timed out, so we must bear that in mind. It is still early days and, as a Government, we will assess the possible implications of that ruling. It is fair to say that there will be applications that were not progressed or that were on hold as a consequence of the court case, so it may be that some of those will now start to move. I will provide some clarity with regard to how NPF4 and that approach are being taken forward in practice.

We would like to think that the ruling will ensure that the provision of land that is in the local development plans is taken forward, but it is probably too early to say and we need to get our heads around exactly what the implications are. Andy, do you want to provide more detail on that?

There are a couple of points about that. That is the budget that the Government is spending on the work that it is taking forward; it is not the budget for planners and planning resource in local authorities. As I said, we had that conversation, and that is not ring-fenced.

There is a focus on the digital delivery plan, which that budget contributes to. The work there is to take forward the new payment service as a first stage, and then further digital work on the back of that. There is a plan for what gets rolled out as part of that service.

We also have the national planning improvement champion in place. It is quite a tight team, but it is very focused on bringing other partners together. It is not a big organisation. It is very much about engaging with stakeholders and identifying opportunities for improvement, which I think is the most effective way to improve planning. The point is that there are clear steps in place to deliver on digital and on the improvement work across the whole system.