Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, we need to recognise that this is not just a Scottish issue; it is an issue across the whole UK. The workshop last week was interesting because it covered a wide range of different things and it was good to have different people with different perspectives coming to the table. One thing that came out of the workshop was the question, how do you get young people in school interested in planning? How do you make that an exciting career option for young people so that they grow up and say, “I want to be a planner”? We need to address that and highlight the fact that in that role, you are dealing with issues that are hugely important to individuals, to communities and to society. It is a varied career dealing with a range of different policy aspects and it will be a fulfilling career as a consequence of that.

As well as making it more attractive for people to come into the process, we also need to look at how to make provision for people with experience in adjacent sectors to move into planning mid-career; they might find that an interesting career transition later in life.

On the education side, you are right about the capacity that is there. That is an issue. Some of the education providers, including the University of Glasgow, are looking at what they can do to help put in provision to help train more planners.

Yes. Clearly, there are hugely important imperatives around the climate impact of peat. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar gave statistics about how much peat it has—it is an awful lot. That is clearly a factor, but that is where the value of the local development plans comes into play—they can take those factors into account and understand how they work in a local context.

I think that the ruling reinforced the application of the policy. I do not think that we have any plans to review it, but watching the data and getting better data to watch are hugely important parts of what we need to do across a whole range of what is in the pipeline. Andy, do you want to comment further on that?

As has been said, the MATHLR figures are based on an assessment that is increased by 25 to 30 per cent to give the final numbers, and those are then seen as a minimum for delivery. The expectation is that local authorities are delivering in excess of what is in the MATHLR figures.

That will be part of the consideration that we give it in the round, but I do not see anything else.

That is absolutely true, and that is a basic principle with regard to customer service. In the public as well as in the private sector, it is very important to tell customers what is going on. It makes people feel much more comfortable and understanding of the situation. The work that the national planning improvement champion is taking forward in the framework for evaluation of how different local authority planning departments are performing is a key part of that. That is not only with regard to what they are delivering, but how they engage with customers—that is a big part of that work.

The situation is more complicated than that because there are shortages in the private sector as well and the different sectors are looking over their shoulders at each other, because they are worried about the others stealing their people. The fact that we had everybody in the room together at the event last week highlighted the need for people to work more closely together on some of that stuff.

If planners in different parts of the process are duplicating work, there might be an opportunity to get an understanding of that across the whole system in order to streamline the process. By comparing notes, people might be able to take us to a more effective place. That is one part of the solution, but there are clearly a number of other legs to that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, committee.

It is good to be back, if on the other side of the table. I welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the committee on national planning framework 4, and I look forward to discussing it with you.

As you know, I have only very recently taken on responsibility for planning. However, as Minister for Public Finance, I understand the significant contribution that planning can make to the key priorities of the new First Minister, and I am very much looking forward to my new role. Planning can be challenging, but that is also what makes it so interesting and so important to us all.

National planning framework 4 is now the cornerstone of our new planning system. It sets out a clear and ambitious future for all stakeholders to work collectively to deliver. It gives clear support for good-quality development in the right locations when that is needed. It is more than a high-level vision; the plan is backed up by national planning policies and national developments. We are committed to making NPF4 work in practice. It is not just a plan or an aspiration but a firm commitment to delivering positive change.

NPF4 has been in place for a little over a year, and it is helpful that the committee is now taking stock of where we have got to. A lot has happened over the past year. In the autumn, we published the second iteration of a delivery programme for NPF4, which includes a wide range of actions that we have already delivered and continue to take forward as the Government and in partnership with others.

This is the first national planning framework to have statutory development plan status. That makes it very influential in the planning process, but it is designed to work with local development plans, which ensure that local circumstances are taken into account.

Planning authorities are now beginning to prepare new local development plans, which will be instrumental in taking forward NPF4 in different parts of the country in a way that responds to their unique challenges and opportunities.

Planning authorities and developers have been working hard to take NPF4 forward, and it is good to hear that communities are also very interested in it. However, implementation will take time, and we are working together to understand how the policies should be applied in practice. The planning profession recognises the scale of the challenges and opportunities that are in front of us.

Throughout the past year, we have worked closely with stakeholders to identify areas in which there has been debate about how the policies should be applied in practice. That includes policies on housing, rural housing and flooding.

Climate change and biodiversity have been an important focus for guidance and good practice. There will always be different and, often, opposing views on development proposals as well as planning policies. Policies might appear to pull in different directions, but planning is all about taking into account all relevant considerations and weighing them up to make sound decisions.

A number of those giving evidence have indicated that it is still early days for NPF4. There is no doubt that it has been a significant change to the operation of the planning system in Scotland, and, of course, development timescales mean that it takes considerable time to see the impact of planning policies on the ground. However, it is clear that change is happening, and those changes will help to ensure that our long-term spatial vision is realised.

This committee played an important role in shaping NPF4—you put a lot of work into it, and your approach was open, positive and inclusive—and, of course, the Parliament as a whole was responsible for approving it.

Over the past year, NPF4 has helped to promote a more positive approach to planning, with planners proactively planning our places rather than just acting as reactive regulators. I hope that that positivity and can-do attitude will continue over the coming year, as we put in place further tools and work together to deliver economic growth and support a just transition to net zero.

I will bring in Andy Kinnaird in a minute, but I will first make a couple of points. In policy 16(f), there are exceptions that allow unallocated land to be brought into the process for local proposals, or depending on the size—I think that it is fewer than 50 units in the case of social housing. There is also a provision, which gets to the heart of the case that we have been talking about, for land to be brought into use when the existing land that is allocated has been developed. There are ways of working through this that will prevent a bottleneck in the provision of land.

Andy Kinnaird might want to give a bit more detail.