Seòmar agus comataidhean

Ms Wishart, you raise a really important point. Planning is ultimately concerned with development and it has to be able to identify the particular class of development that one is seeking. On specific issues around fuel poverty in relation to planning, we have already done work on permitted development rights around retrofitting and energy efficiency. We have a phased programme of reviewing PD rights and we can continue to take that into consideration.

More broadly, NPF4 is seeking to increase prosperity in Scotland but also to look at some of the specific national developments in, for example, strategic renewable energy generation and transmission infrastructure, pumped hydro storage, and industrial green transition zones.

Those national developments are particularly about promoting not just prosperity, but energy security. NPF4 can specifically contribute towards issues around fuel poverty by supporting more prosperous economies, increasing the number of people in employment and using national developments to provide that strategic underpinning for continuity and security of energy supply.

Ms Wishart has asked an excellent question that gets to the heart of planning, which is about how we balance competing areas: industrialisation, jobs, prosperity, and protecting and conserving the natural environment that we value. Planners wrestle with such questions every day.

I could attempt to answer the question, but I am conscious that we are joined by the chief planner for the Scottish Government. It would be helpful to get a planner’s perspective on how planners balance those issues and how that is reflected in the national planning framework.

That is a really important question. The draft NPF4 is a high-level document and subsidiarity applies, so there will be local development plans that can give effect to that in particular localities. There are also the local place plans that we have introduced, which allow individual neighbourhoods and communities within planning authorities’ areas to shape their local development plans.

With regard to what is stated about 20-minute neighbourhoods, I note that flexibility is built in, which is reflected in how the policy is defined, but also in the spatial strategy. The action areas, which include north and west coastal innovation and northern revitalisation, recognise that the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods has a different application in areas with dispersed populations compared with places with dense populations.

For example, we will look to encourage 20-minute neighbourhoods in built-up urban areas by seeking to repopulate our town centres, and some measures are included on that. However, in local areas, that will require more nuance. That could involve establishing hubs and promoting active travel networks, but also recognising the need for cars. That can be supported through, for example, electric vehicle charging infrastructure. There is recognition that 20-minute neighbourhoods will have to be applied in a different manner in, say, South Uist, compared with how they will be applied in Shawlands in Glasgow.

Fiona Simpson might want to expand on the points that I have made and provide some more clarity.

We already have a suite of guidance and processes in place in the planning system. Of course, we will reflect on and refresh that as required. On the specific technical point, I ask Fiona Simpson to come in.

There are two aspects. First, our spatial strategy recognises the tremendous economic opportunities that are provided by our coastal communities and also the particular challenges that they face and their particular vulnerability to climate change. Within the policies, policy 35 is a specific policy on coasts. I draw the committee’s attention to policy 35(b), which states:

“Development proposals that require a coastal location should be supported in areas of developed shoreline where the proposal does not result in the need for further coastal protection measures and does not increase the risk to people of coastal flooding or coastal erosion and is anticipated to be supportable in the long term.”

Policy 35(c) states that:

“Development proposals in undeveloped coastal areas should only be supported if the proposal is necessary to support the blue economy, net zero emissions or if it would contribute to the economic regeneration or wellbeing of communities whose livelihood depend on marine or coastal activities.”

That particular tension that Ms Adam articulated is reflected with the spatial strategy but also very specifically in policy 35 on coasts. Fiona Simpson, is there anything that you want to add?

That has ultimately come about through a collaborative process, as outlined earlier. As I said, we are open to suggestions about how things can be refined or changed. That is part of the consultation process and engagement. This is a draft document, and we are ultimately in a process of engagement and collaboration that has led us to the draft spatial strategy within NPF4. We are keen to hear views on how it can be refined and, if there are areas that you are suggesting are inconsistent or will not realise the aspirations, that can be reflected on and potentially acted upon through the process of finalising the framework.

Fiona Simpson might want to add something specific about particular action areas within the spatial plan and how they were formed.

I stress that at the heart of this is a place-based approach, and a place-based approach is holistic when it takes everything into account. We are not dividing Scotland up neatly. Clearly, some of the action areas that might be applicable to remote communities might also be applicable to urban communities, while there will obviously be completely distinct areas that do not have the same relevance to others. Although we have identified five action areas in the NPF, again, it is important to look at it holistically and see the complementarity that exists between the different regions and areas.

The strategy also recognises the aspirations for a net zero aviation zone by 2040.

My final point relates to the centrality and importance of the local planning authority and of local communities having the opportunity to feed into the development of local place plans, because, ultimately, it will be for local communities to shape the direction of travel for their area.

I am happy for Harry to respond to your question.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee to answer questions about the instrument, which relates to land registration. As the committee will appreciate, the keeper of the registers of Scotland plays a vital role in the Scottish economy by safeguarding property rights through the registration of documents in the land register and the register of sasines.

In response to the necessary closure of Registers of Scotland’s offices due to the Covid pandemic, the emergency coronavirus acts provided a basis for applications to be submitted to ROS digitally, thereby ensuring that the property market could continue to operate during the period of public health restrictions. That method of submission has proved to be enormously popular, and there has been strong stakeholder support for its retention, so the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced yesterday and will be published today, will look to provide a continuing basis for applications to be submitted to ROS digitally.

The regulations before the committee complement the bill by making digital submission the default method of submission to ROS, subject to exceptions. In addition, the regulations open up the register of deeds in the books of council and session to electronic documents for the first time.

The regulations also make technical amendments to the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 to clarify and make additional provision on issues that have come to light through the increased use of electronic documents and signatures over the past two years.

The regulations give effect to proposals that were set out in the digital submission consultation that Registers of Scotland held on our behalf, which set out plans for how digital submission could be placed on a permanent statutory footing for several of the keeper’s registers, and how that represented a positive step on the road to fully digital registration.

The reaction to that consultation was overwhelmingly positive, with customers and stakeholders showing strong support for the proposals. There is a clear expectation within the conveyancing profession that digital submission should become the standard method of submitting applications to ROS.

As the convener mentioned, I am joined by Harry Murray from Registers of Scotland and Graham Fisher from the Scottish Government legal directorate. Along with my officials, I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.