Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will hand over to Andy Kinnaird to go through the detail. I received a submission on that from officials in the past few days. We are looking at what the scope of that could be, and we are about to take views on a number of questions to do with how it should be levied, the extent of it, what it could be used for and a number of other factors. That is imminent.

The issue of the provision of data, which we keep coming back to, is important. We need to understand what land is where in the system and why it is not moving through the system. We need to know whether that is because of a planning issue or whether there are other reasons that mean that land in relation to which planning permission has been granted is not moving through to be available for housing stock. I think that that is probably the key area. We need to understand the planning provision data and to ensure that, as the policies in NPF4 are rolled out, they are able to support rather than militate against housing development, where that is appropriate.

We have touched on some of the issues. As more guidance comes through and more engagement takes place with bodies that are involved in the planning process, we will get more clarity, which will enable us to address some of those issues and to flesh out in a bit more detail what the policies mean for delivery.

Yes—the 25 per cent provision is in place, and you are right to reflect on the record, notwithstanding the fact that there are challenges in housing stock provision. If we look at the record of the Scottish Government, compared with other parts of the UK, considerably more houses have been provided per head of population in Scotland over the past number of years.

The answer to your question about levers—be they macroeconomic levers around interest rates, the ultimate provision of capital investment, or borrowing powers to address the challenges of affordable housing stock, in particular—is that they are controlled by the UK Government, because those issues are reserved.

Thanks for that. That issue is being addressed, and the work on compulsory purchase orders—as well as looking at compulsory sales orders—is part of the mix to give councils the tools and capability to do that.

There are also funding issues. I do not want to talk for the housing minister, because he will be looking at that, but it is about understanding where best to focus investment. I suggest that a combination of new build and bringing houses back into use is required.

Yes—a group is meeting on that issue, which Roseanna Cunningham is co-chairing with Fiona Simpson. I will hand over to Fiona, and she can give you an update on where her group has got to.

There is always a balance to strike. The value of NPF4 is that it covers many different areas—32 policy areas or whatever it is—so it has to be overarching and consider all those factors, but the issue of proportionality is hugely important.

Planning authorities are seized by the issue. The level of information that they seek from applicants is very much driven by proportionality considerations. There will be fewer requirements for householders and small local developments than there will be for major housing or infrastructure developments. There is a recognition in the system that we need to get that balance right. As we do our work, it is important that the guidance that is produced takes that into account, too.

A lot of this is about dealing with different cases as they come forward, building up a body of evidence over time and recognising that proportionality should be leveraged in such a way that we do not create barriers for local communities that want to take forward their plans.

I do not want to go into specifics on individual cases, but it is fair to say that that is the intention. I mentioned the UK Climate Change Committee’s comments about NPF4 and the contribution that it makes to support and adaptation. As Andy Kinnaird has said, there are on-going discussions with the statutory bodies on fleshing out the guidance, the process that sits behind that in relation to specific applications finding their way through the system and the various ways that those can be considered at different levels in the system. That is certainly the intention. We recognise that there is work to be done as that beds in to make sure that it delivers the desired result.

You are right that significant amounts of money are available through those funds. Fiona Simpson will have the latest position on where we are with that.

Thanks for that data point. That is something that we need to do more work on. I have been working with officials on that, and I recognise the need for more data at all levels to understand what is in the system at various points. I know that, in your previous evidence session, Tony Cain and others referred to how much land was available, how much had been approved through the planning system, how much was being built on and how much was brownfield. There is a need for more of that in the work that is happening, and the guidelines on housing land audits will help make sure that everybody is working to the same set of definitions when pulling that data together.

NPF4 recognises that brownfield sites are preferable; indeed, it is one of the clear directions within it. Every such site will have its own specific challenges, depending on where it is and the history of the site—it might need to be decontaminated or the costs of development could be prohibitive—but the direction of travel is to bring as many as possible back into use. The stats that you have quoted indicate that that is happening to some extent, but more needs to be done.

I recognise the issue in my constituency, where a considerable amount of former housing land and other brownfield sites can be brought back into play. NPF4 provides the overarching policy; it is for local development plans and local planning authorities to figure out what bits of those sites should be brought back into use to suit their circumstances, and what processes would be required for that.

To summarise, then, I think that we need better data. NPF4 prioritises the use of brownfield sites. Some progress has been made on that, but it is down to local planning authorities and communities to bring forward what they think is needed to suit local circumstances.

I absolutely recognise that. You are right that in a small community, those numbers can be hugely important. I will hand over to Andy Kinnaird in a minute to go through some of the detail on that.

Clearly, rural revitalisation is one of the overarching principles in NPF4. We have already talked about the proportionality and flexibility in local areas having either local development plans or local community plans that recognise local factors and are able to support accordingly. That is understood within the framework, but, as it beds in, if such issues are raised, they need to be considered and addressed. I listened with interest to the witnesses that you had from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, who talked about the applicability of NPF4 locally. Andy, do you want to go into some of the details?