 Good morning and welcome to the sixth meeting of the local government housing and planning committee in 2022. I would ask all members and witnesses to ensure their mobile phones are on silent and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting. We have two items on our agenda today, both of which relate to the 4th national planning framework. First, we will hold our final evidence session of this inquiry with Tom Arthur, the Minister for Public Finance, finance, planning and community wealth, before we go into private session to consider the issues raised in evidence. Mr Arthur is joined today by Scottish Government officials Fiona Simpson, who is the chief planner, Andy Canard, head of planning transformation and Helen Wood, who is the head of planning performance, who joins us online. I would be grateful if Mr Arthur could make clear if he wishes to bring Ms Woods in to respond to a specific question to allow our broadcasting team to activate her microphone when that needs to occur. I welcome Mr Arthur and his officials to the meeting and tend to allow up to 90 minutes for this session and will invite the minister to make any opening remark shortly. Before I do so, I want to place on record the committee's thanks to everyone who has helped to inform this important piece of work. In particular, I want to thank Surf Scotland Regeneration Forum, Built Environment Forum Scotland, Rural Housing Scotland, Scottish Rural Action, Voluntary Health Scotland, Scotland's Town Partnership and the Scottish Youth Parliament, all of whom provided invaluable input into our scrutiny. I know that members particularly enjoyed the visits and online workshops that really helped us to understand ways in which planning impacts on communities and the importance of getting the planning framework right. Thanks to everyone who has assisted in this topic. Before I open up to questions from the committee, I now invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. I would like to begin by echoing your thanks to everyone who has contributed today in the process of getting draft NPF4 to where it is. Indeed, all those who are participating in the vital scrutiny work that is under way will continue as we move towards the close of the public consultation at the end of next month. I am very pleased to be here and to be talking about what is going to be such an important document for shaping the future of Scotland that we want to live in. When we laid the draft NPF4 last November, I said that it would signal a turning point for planning. We are facing up to some major challenges across our communities and as a global society, and we need to stand up to those challenges. In the draft NPF4 we advocate a change of direction in how we plan our places, putting climate and nature, a wellbeing economy and Covid recovery at the heart of the new planning system. We know how much planning matters to people. We understand the really important and positive role it can have in facilitating the quality places that help our communities to thrive. However, for planning to fulfil its potential and negotiate that turning point, it is going to take strong leadership. NPF4 will need to be both approved by the Scottish Parliament and adopted by the Scottish Government. That can give it real strength of purpose. I really want us to work together to share a vision of Scotland on its journey to net zero by 2045 and to make NPF4 the very best it can be. I am conscious that the committee has heard a lot of interesting and quite detailed evidence from a range of witnesses over recent weeks and also from its earlier call for views. If I may convener, I'd like to take a few moments to share some general thoughts in advance of the committee's questions. You have already heard from the chief planner about the wealth of engagement that has helped us to develop NPF4 to this point. We have done that with a genuinely collaborative approach and have welcomed the considered input from many, and we are continuing that collaboration in how we engage on this draft framework. I am heartened that much of the feedback gives broad support for the direction that we have proposed for NPF4 of the need to focus on climate and nature and on recovery and of thinking differently about our places. We are also hearing some requests to revisit the drafting and get the detail right, including some calls for much more precise definitions and specific wording to be added. We need to make sure that NPF4 provides a sound and reliable basis for decision making. I will listen to what people are saying and offering as drafting suggestions, and I will work with my officials to make sure that we get it right. I believe that we should have confidence in our planning system and have confidence in planners to apply their skills and expertise and do the right thing in the long-term public interest. Choices and decisions that are made in planning are often not straightforward, certainly not a tick box exercise. Planning policies need to be read in the round, so planning involves weighing up so many matters and reaching a balanced and reasoned judgment. That is what planners are good at, and their skills are needed now more than ever. Some questions have been raised about the national spatial strategy, including the boundaries and the priorities in the five action areas. The draft NPF4 acknowledges that each part of Scotland can make a unique contribution to building a better future. That is about the big picture and a vision of our country as a whole, although we have to bear in mind that spatial issues do not neatly follow administrative boundaries. We work collaboratively with planning authorities to understand regional priorities, particularly through their work on indicative regional spatial strategies. Ideally, we want to foster a shared vision that people can easily relate to, to understand priorities in different parts of Scotland. We can look again at the action areas and also at the relationship between the national spatial strategy and the policy handbook to further consider and clarify their respective roles in decision making. There have also been some requests for explicit name checking and cross-referencing to other policy documents throughout the NPF, but it is important to bear in mind that this is a long-term strategy with a statutory role in decision making, and we have to be careful not to cross-refer to a range of documents that may not have the same lifespan and so cause the policies to become dated. This risks causing confusion and uncertainty, but I can assure you that we are strongly aligned with other policies and strategies. For example, the strategic transport projects review 2, housing to 2040, place-based approaches and our land use strategy to name a few. We will continue to collaborate on the drafting of NPF 4, while bearing in mind, views may vary on detailed points. We will also think about where additional guidance can help to deliver the NPF 4 intent. Some of that is already in progress. For example, the guidance for preparing local development plans, on which we are also consulting just now, and also on biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions assessments. Some stakeholders have been calling for a capital plan, as the committee has heard. NPF 4 is not a spending document, nor does it need to be. It will be delivered by a broad range of partners, public and private. Delivery will need to align with wider plans and programmes, rather than itself being a single programme for capital investment. When finalised, NPF 4 will come together with STPR 2 to guide the next infrastructure investment plan. The Scottish Futures Trust is working with us just now to help to develop a shared delivery programme for the final version of NPF 4. The delivery programme needs to be agile, built up over time, rather than a fixed static document. I know that there have been concerns about resources within planning services. I recognise those, and I have been working with the high-level group on planning performance on how we can position and empower planning services to confidently lead the change indeed for our places. The committee will be aware that earlier this month I laid regulations that substantially increase planning application fees and increases funding going into planning authorities. That will happen from this April, but fees tell only part of the story. There is a very real value of good quality planning, how compelling and inspirational plans help to deliver on so many public objectives that are worth joining up funding streams and investing in. Understanding the value added by planning makes it a service worth supporting. I will bring my initial comments to a close just by stressing that I really do think this a very exciting and crucial time for planning in Scotland. We are facing challenges, but we also have this great opportunity to reinvent our view of what planning does and transform how we see communities, our environment and the places that we call home. I look forward to the questions that are going to follow and the interests and discussion that we have today as we work together collaboratively to shape our robust, finalised NPF4. Thank you very much minister. It is very heartening to hear your comments and picking up on a number of the issues that have come up before the committee. I have a number of questions that I am going to start and then I will open it up to colleagues. The first few are about process. I want to get a bit of an understanding around the NPF4 process and understand that it does arise out of the planning act, but NPF2 and NPF3, before they were introduced in Parliament, were subject to considerably more public scrutiny than the draft NPF4. I would like to hear why a similar approach was not taken to the NPF4. If I can approach that question in three parts, you made reference to the planning act. As committee members will be familiar with, the planning act came out of an independent review of the planning system. For those who were in Parliament in the last session, they will remember that the planning act was perhaps one of the most scrutinised pieces of legislation that we have ever considered in this Parliament. Indeed, it was one of the longest running. I do not know if it holds the record for the most amendments tabled for any piece of legislation, but it must run close. That process has informed, as you rightly highlighted, how we have arrived at NPF4, indeed for the statutory requirements that NPF4 has been charged with delivering on the six outcomes. The second point to make is a pre-consultation that has led up to the draft NPF4 being introduced. That was a process that took about two years. There was an original call for ideas, and in November of 2020, we published a position statement, which we again consulted on. We signalled very clearly that it was our intention to lay draft NPF4 before Parliament for scrutiny in November 2021, and that, of course, is exactly what we did. It is in statute that we should consult for a period up to 120 days, which is exactly what we are doing. The point that I would like to convey is that I think that if we look at it in the round through the deliberations in the planning act, which have helped to shape NPF4, the pre-consultation and 120 days of public and parliamentary scrutiny and a range of engagement activities are taking place, I am very confident that we have had a strong and robust process of consultation and engagement. That is reflected in the excellent work that this and other parliamentary committees have undertaken in relation to NPF4. Thank you for that. My sense of this process, and of being new in Parliament, but my sense of this process is that we are considering a draft whereas other scrutiny takes place once the Government has done its consultation work. I am asking the next question on behalf of the committee, but also stakeholders that are quite concerned around the process. What I would love to hear from you is an outline of the next steps of the process after your consultation closes at the end of March. At what point the Scottish Parliament will be able to engage in the scrutiny of the revisions of the NPF4? Can you give the committee assurance that there will be time for this revision? As an example, when a secondary legislation is introduced, it is given 40 days for scrutiny. Of course, with regards to having to conform with standing orders, what will we do with any secondary legislation? We have a continued process of engagement, while we have the public consultation and the work that Parliament is undertaking. There is a range of community-based engagement that is taking place as well, and I would be happy to bring in a few more assumptions if the committee would like to hear more detail on that community engagement. Our aim and our ambition is to bring back a finalised NPF4 for Parliament to consider prior to summer recess. However, where the NPF4 differs from previous NPFs is that it requires the approval of Parliament before the NPF can be adopted by ministers, as required by the act. Ultimately, the NPF will only be adopted if Parliament approves. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, that is very important, because it provides added strength. That is particularly important, given that, unlike previous NPFs, that will be part of the statutory development plan. Perhaps, if your permission can be given, I will ask Fiona Simpson to outline some of the extensive community engagement work that we are undertaking at the moment to support the consultation and consideration of draft NPFs. We are going through the process of engagement alongside the parliamentary scrutiny, and that is quite different from the NPF3 in which we laid a proposed national planning framework and there was not the same level of engagement. You could say that the scrutiny is happening at an earlier stage, but that provides an opportunity to bring together Parliament's views with community and wider stakeholder views. There is a whole range of different measures and steps that we are taking to involve people. I think that we have outlined those to the committee before, but just to summarise, there is a community grant scheme where we are offering grants to communities to help them in the engagement process. There are open invitation events that we are running and we are trying to design the process to make sure that a range of different interests can be involved. There are inequalities around table happening and various round tables focusing on different sectors led by the Royal Town Planning Institute. There is Scottish Youth Parliament engagement, Play Scotland or undertaking work and I could go on, but I will not. Suffice to say that there is a whole range of different measures that we are taking to make sure that that consultation is really thorough and is a very open opportunity. When we conclude that, we will bring all of the views together and commission an independent analysis of all the views that we receive and bring those together with the findings from the Parliament. I would just add and make convener as well as that my door is always open for engagement. I am going to be engaging with the cross-party group in sport this evening on NPF4 and indeed I have received an invitation from a member for an event in their region and if any members wish to engage you know hold additional consultation events with their constituents and their constituencies or regions on draft NPF4, I and my officials are more than happy to support where possible. I want the maximum possible engagement that we can have in that. I think that it is very important and I really want to seize this opportunity to transform views on the planning system because we have got a really strong ambitions about further community engagement. I will be reflected through the new LDP process but also through our local place plans and I really think that it is a team effort from all of us in Parliament to really get as many people as engaged as possible so happy to support and facilitate that in any way that I can. Thanks very much for that. I think that I am still not quite hearing it so it is really very very exciting that so many people across Scotland from so many sectors are engaging with this and I think that I and the committee share in your views that this is the potential for transforming planning in Scotland but I am still not hearing that clearly once you get I think maybe Fiona used the word proposal once we move from a draft to an actual proposal and you've taken on board all of the perspectives and you know I hear that you're you know doing all that listening once that's brought in and those changes are made maybe some of the language and all that kind of you know detail that's thought through when is the opportunity for the committee and other stakeholders to have a look at that review it scrutinise it and give feedback well as I said our aim what we wish to do is to bring back a finalised version for parliament to consider but the point I would come back to is it's ultimately up to parliament to decide whether to accept or to reject the npa4 and I'm working to get to position in the spirit of moving planning from conflict to collaboration that we work and we get things right upstream front load it in one of position it when we bring back forward that npa4 it strikes that balance between the views that we've had both in the consultation prior to the draft and in the consultation scrutiny that the draft itself has received but ultimately it'll be for parliament to decide whether or not to adopt the npa4 that's introduced its finalised form. Thank you very much for that clarity I leave my colleague Graham Day would like to come in on a supplementary. Yes thank you convener and just to back up the point that you're making I think the point that convener's pushing here minister is that there would be perhaps an opportunity for the committee to draw some conclusions around where npa4 had arrived at ultimately I'm just wondering is there any scope in the timetable that you're working to that would allow the government perhaps to even write back to the committee with a summary of the changes that have been made to npa4 and if at all possible and if the committee wanted to have a session with yourself because looking at what you're trying to achieve here about the parliament to prove the issue you talked about co-operation rather than conflict if the committee was to conclude that there have been very substantial changes taken on board it would perhaps facilitate what you're looking for I'm just wondering if the timetable on any of you would allow an opportunity along the lines that convener's seeking? Well I think that's an important point I respect it is entirely for the committee to determine how it wishes to proceed with scrutiny but of course I'm happy to appear before this committee at any point in any time with regards to npa4. We have the consultation closes on the 31st of March I appreciate parliament just waiting to be wrapping up over the next couple of weeks on the draft so prior to obviously having a final vote there will be a window of opportunity for further discussion I think just in terms of reflecting upon how the consultation and scrutiny feeds in to the finalised version maybe just ask Fiona to come in there particularly around some of the statutory requirements to be able to demonstrate how we have listened and engaged. Yeah in the 2019 act and Andy Cunair might want to come on on this as well in the 2019 act there's a requirement for us to lay alongside the finalised draft national planning framework for approval to lay a document that sets out how the representations have been taken into account so that process is transparent. I'd also add if there's very substantial or significant changes ministers will have to take a view on how substantial those are to make sure that any requirements for additional consultation are met at that stage as well so it really depends on the scale of the change and the significance of the change involved. That's absolutely right. Okay. I think we've only pointed out that at this stage the general feedback has been very positive about the direction of travel. A lot of the interest has been around the detail of language so but clearly we still have to await the conclusion of the public consultation so it would perhaps be as implicit in what Fiona said premature to suggest what level of engagement will be required once we publish the final draft but of course as I say I want me to receive the maximum buy-in and for everyone to feel that they have an opportunity to contribute in comments so again I would just reiterate my point that I've been more than happy to appear before the committee prior to a final vote in Parliament. Thank you very much for that and it's good to get clarity on the process that we're all involved in. I'm going to move on. I've got a few more questions and this is moving on to you know the fact that a lot of this is going to be delivered at a local level. Numerous stakeholders have voiced strong support for the Scottish Government's intention of moving to a plan-led system outlined briefly in policy 1 however many also go further and advocate for a public plan-led system in which local authorities have considerably more agency to shape their local communities and manage land use more proactively so I'm keen to hear whether the minister and his officials believe that the draft NPF4 supports local authorities to do that and whether they commit to taking on board that ambitious but important objective voiced by stakeholders. Yes, I fully believe that NPF4 does. I know one of the questions will perhaps come on to later in the session is about how prescriptive, contrary to how flexible certain policy language has to be and the need for that flexibility so local authorities can apply it specific to their circumstances but as well as the approach that we're taking through planning policy there is additional work that we're going to be undertaking in this parliamentary session around land assembly and compulsory purchase looking at CSOs. We also have the provisions in the infrastructure levy contained within the planning act which will be considered as part of a broader view in planning obligations so as a range of activity we are taking beyond just what we're doing with NPF4 that can help to support those ambitions. I don't know if there's anything further perhaps if anyone would want to add. I would just add that the local development plan will play a crucial role in the changes that we're making to local development plans through the regulations and guidance as well as moving those from a five-year to a 10-year review cycle will play a really important role in providing that corporately supported plan for a place that can be supported by a strong delivery programme and all of that is around collaboration within the planning system and we're really keen to make sure planners can't deliver everything on their own but they can be a facilitator that brings together people to work together to support delivery in a place. More broadly just on that focus on delivery we will shortly be undertaking our second phase of the permitted development rights review which will be of interest to the committee and we'll be taking forward work later in the year to implement the legislation on master plan consent areas again and our important lever for local authorities in delivering the ambitions within NPF4. The way we use land is becoming increasingly complex. We're growing needs and competing pressures and it seems to me that we're at a critical point in national planning where we need to ensure that land is being used for the right purpose. Not all land is the same. We've got peatland, we've got farmland, land appropriate for housing, so on and so forth. However, throughout this process I've been struck at how limited our overall understanding of land use in Scotland is and I'd like to ask the minister what work he will undertake to improve current land use mapping on a national scale to support those working in the spatial strategies, the national developments and the policies within the national planning framework. Given that we're inviting planning authorities to take forward some of this work but we're also talking about things like nature networks where collaboration needs to happen. I think that the key word is collaboration. Almost a lot of what you've raised in your community is captured by the land use strategy and as you'll be familiar with, there's a great deal of alignment. Indeed, the land use strategy makes much reference to what was the emerging draft NPF for when it was published. Perhaps I'll bring in for you to talk some more about the links between land use strategy and what we're doing in NPF 4. Obviously, when we were preparing the national planning framework it was an evidence-based approach and that meant bringing together a wide range of spatial datasets to inform our analysis of the different issues that we had to address. Many of those issues are wider than planning and relate to the land use strategy. We set out on our website a whole range of different datasets that we've used and there is a data atlas that we produced that brings together a really quite a complex landscape of map data to try and overlay those and provide an understanding of that. We've touched on how that can inform analysis to inform spatial planning through some data insights as well that we published. I would say that it's work in progress to bring all that information together. As part of our digital programme, we have been looking at that and we'll continue to look at that and think about how to present national planning framework and local development plans on a platform that is linked to those datasets. It's a complex process so it will take a while to do that. Thank you for that response. It's good to know that the work is happening and I totally understand that it's complex but it does seem like it's something that we really absolutely need to do. At this point, I'd like to bring in Graham Day with a couple of questions. Thanks, convener. I think that we've twice already given us some comfort in terms of the issues that were raised with the committee around some of the use of language in the document and your willingness to revisit some of that language to be a bit more precise, a bit more prescriptive where it needs to be. You've also talked about the need to ensure that local authorities have the right flexibility where they need that and that the language has to reflect that wriggle room if you like for them. I wonder how, briefly in practice, your officials intend to explore with the planners what needs to be changed and what needs to be left as is. Is that work already under way? Yes, as you'll appreciate, we are following very closely all of the evidence that the committee has received and we are considering clearly there will be instances where there is language which perhaps there is a shared set of views about what it's trying to achieve. The disagreement comes with whether it is most effective to achieve that. Of course, there will be other critiques that are offered perhaps where there is a disagreement on the substance of the policy. There is a qualitative difference between those two types of commentary. I am open to hearing both. Fundamentally, where we are at at the moment is that there is a shared ambition of what we want NPAF4 to achieve. What I am particularly interested in, not with standing wider views, is that specialist technical commentary on whether or not there is a view that the language is achieving its policy intent. That is something that we are looking at carefully, and that will be fed in through the scrutiny process that committees are undertaking, but also through the public consultation. The other point that we make is that when we are considering policies, we have to see this in the round. There are 35 policies, 18 national development, six special principles. It has to be written around holistically. There is no one policy, so to speak, that you can necessarily fully understand without relation to all the other policies. Of course, we have six universal policies under sustainable places at the opening of the policy handbook, which are a lens through which all the other policies have to be read, in particular policy 2 on the importance of the climate emergency. I need to go and look at it holistically, but I very much want to hear that detailed commentary on language to make sure that we get it right. As I say, we are very keen to listen and we will of course consider in detail all of the submissions that we receive through the public consultation and the engagement process. Will you accept that abusive words like should can sometimes create ambiguity that is unhelpful to what you are trying to achieve and the planners want to support? There is a point. Again, case by case basis we will look, but it is important to be in mind that it should, if there is an established convention of using the word should within the planning system, have a particular meaning and is understood. I know that one of the issues that has been raised is the distinction between should and must, but must tends to be used. Normally, when there is a statutory complyment for something that has to be met in statute, for example, policies to see states that proposes likely to have a significant effect on the European side must be subject to an appropriate assessment, because that is a legal requirement. That is an important distinction that has to be made. However, as I say very much in listening mode, I want to hear views on what the language should be, if you can pardon that expression. Thank you for that answer to the question. My second question is about resource, financial and human, to deal with the undoubted increased demand that NPF-4 will place on planning authorities. We have heard that there have been resource cuts to planning departments from councils of an excess of 40 per cent since 2009, which has left them, in some instances, struggling to cope with the present demands that are there for planning departments, not alone the additional demands that will come with the right ambitions of NPF-4. If you recognise that this is a legitimate concern that is being expressed, how you would intend to address this will come on to the financial aspect in a moment, but you cannot suddenly magic up hundreds of additional planners. First of all, do you recognise the concerns that have been raised and where the Government is considering how that can be addressed? Absolutely. I have been very clear on that point in my engagement with stakeholders. I have been responding to questions in Parliament when I made a statement introducing draft NPF-4 in November. Delivery is absolutely key. It is one thing to have the vision and ambition of NPF-4 that we need to deliver on the ground. The two aspects of human resource and the financial resource are, of course, an extricultly linked. The point that I want to make at the outset is that I respect local authorities as autonomous bodies. It is for them to make decisions about how they allocate their budgets, but I would hope that we would all recognise the immense value of planning and planners that it brings. We have, of course, laid the regulations on fees. I am working with stakeholders, not just in terms of implementation of that, but looking towards full cost recovery in the future. However, full cost recovery is quite a complex area. It is a neat expression, but to deliver it in practice requires a lot of detailed working consideration. That is something that I have committed to take forward. I am also very clear that there has to be a link between increased fees and performance. That is a long-standing view and it is something that will continue. I recognise the numbers that RTPI and others have raised. We are working with RTPI, with COSLAW, with POPs and others, on how we can increase the number of people coming into the planning system. There are two aspects of that. I am going to ask Fiona Simpson to come in just a moment to give some information and a bit of detailed work that we are doing at the moment. However, one thing that we can do to encourage more people into the planning system is by taking this, catalyzing this opportunity that we have right now, of real interest and excitement around planning and what it can achieve and what NPF4 can achieve, by getting the planning system moving away from conflict, not just to collaboration, but to be focused on great placemaking. That inspires people to get into planning in the first place. That shift in tone around what planning can deliver is an important part, but I will bring Fiona Simpson in just to detail an important piece of work that we are undertaking at the moment with partners. I can suggest that Helen Wood, the head of planning performance, will come in here. That is right. As others have mentioned, there is points during the evidence that you have been taking. The resourcing of the planning system is absolutely to delivering all the ambitions that the NPF sets out. We are conscious that it is not just about the fees that come into authorities through planning application fees, although we are, as the minister has mentioned, looking to increase those fees, and that will come into our head from the beginning of April. That will bring in additional resources, which we strongly expect will be facilitating some increase in resources within the planning services across Scotland. However, we are aware that research that we have shared in the publication of last year on skills in planning has highlighted that there is a big issue, a big challenge for the system in terms of making sure that there are the planners to undertake all of the roles, both in development management and in plan making and delivery. It has identified that there are around 700 new entrants into the profession that are going to be required over the coming 10 to 15 years. We are clearly supporting all the actions that have been identified in that piece of work. One of those is supporting the RTPI and the heads of planning who have initiated a piece of work and are undertaking that at the moment on future planners, which is really focusing on what actions are being undertaken at the moment, trying to attract people into the profession, to raise awareness of the profession and to retain people within those vital roles. That is a quite short, sharp piece of work that we are delighted to be able to support and which is going to explore the options not just within planning but within other key professions where there has been a need to look at promoting the opportunities in the sector and attracting people into long-term roles. That piece of work will be reporting some initial findings to the high-level group, which is jointly chaired by the minister and by COSLA, which really focuses on planning performance and a standing element of that or standing item on the agenda is resourcing of the system. We take that very seriously that we need to be thinking very actively now and getting actions in place to ensure that that future plan of planners is in place. Ms Wood, you said that you strongly expect that the additional sums generated by the fees increase would go to planning resource, but is that not perhaps highlight a potential problem here? If we move on to full-cost recovery with the best of intentions, what is the guarantee that the income generated from that will be directed to the purpose that you hope it will be in order to deliver on NPF4? I recognise that you have gone forward on a collaborative basis with COSLA, but there is nothing from what I can see here unless you tell me that I am wrong that says that full-cost recovery could come in, but the income that is generated could be directed to other council activities and therefore still weaves the planning system under resource, despite your best efforts. You make an important point, Mr Day. I referred back to Mellor in March where I recognise the autonomy of local authorities to take their own decisions and those are rightly and properly for elected members. We are doing what I am to do, what I can to support the resource of the planning system through fees and working towards in the longer term full-cost recovery. We are taking forward that short, stark piece of work that Helen Wood outlined with regard to the future planners project. We are taking forward action to deliver on and implement the planning act requirement for the national improvement co-ordinator, which will happen in tandem with the process of increasing fees. Ultimately, it is a matter for local authorities, but what I would hope that we could all agree on is the vital contribution that planners can make. If we are looking around creating more resilient and thriving communities as we go forward and recover from Covid and indeed in seeking to meet our ambitions, both 2045 but also a challenge on the ambitions of a 75% reduction by 2030, our ambitions around housing to 2040, then planners as part of that economic development infrastructure within local government have a huge role to play. Ultimately, I respect it, it will be for local authorities to determine how best to allocate their resources. I would like to touch on 20-minute neighbourhoods, as it is a topic that has been discussed through various different panel sessions and also whilst gathering evidence from various focus groups. The committee has heard that the draft MPF4 pays insufficient attention to existing places and buildings and the adaptation of which will be essential to meeting climate change targets and policy goals such as community building and, indeed, the 20-minute neighbourhoods. I would like to ask how that might be tackled in the final version of MPF4. It is an excellent question. In 20-minute neighbourhoods, I am sure, as a subject, that we could probably dedicate the entire session to discussing. Often, one of the questions that was raised is how is a 20-minute neighbourhood, which perhaps we immediately think that it has been applicable to a densely populated urban environment? How is that applicable to a rural environment? The question that Ms Gallagher has raised is an important one. What do we do with our existing infrastructure now? The first thing that I have to say is that we have to be aware that there are limits to what planning can do. Planning often is a very strong focus on new development, particularly when we are setting out a spatial strategy to 2045. There are policies contained within there, for example, policy 30 around vacant and derelict land, taking a brownfield first approach. If we look at our spatial principles, I believe it is spatial principle DIV, memory serves me correctly, around conserving and recycling assets, it informs the approach of the spatial strategy. There is also, I think, is important beyond the policies. We obviously have a specific suite of policies around centres and town centre first assessment and town centre living in the way 20-minute neighbourhood is captured within policy 31 on rural places. We are also looking at broader suite of measures that we are taking forward beyond NPFO as part of planning reform. I made reference earlier to the phase 2 review of permitted development rights. That, again, creates an opportunity to simplify the planning system and to expedite some of the modifications and retrofits that Ms Gallagher made reference to. I also refer back to the convener earlier on in the session on land assembly compulsory purchase and the forthcoming implementation of the master plan consent areas as examples of the range of levers that will have it or disposal to help existing communities to move and adapt towards being 20-minute neighbourhoods. Of course, 20-minute neighbourhoods, as planning has a role to play in 20-minute neighbourhoods, but it is not just limited to planning as well. Be aware of the importance given to 20-minute neighbourhoods and the infrastructure that is required within SDPR 2. I do not know if there is anything that you would want to add to that Fiona? No, I think just to say that it has been a really interesting debate around 20-minute neighbourhoods and the policy and the preamble to the policy talks a little bit about retrofitting facilities to existing areas. However, it is something that we can look at because what we are hearing from the consultation and through the parliamentary consideration is that there are lots of different settings, lots of different challenges, where 20-minute neighbourhoods are all about responding to different places in the context of those places. We can tease that out a bit more in the policy and look further at it. With the answer that you gave the minister, just to confirm that you believe that 20-minute neighbourhoods are practical and they will be able to be fully implemented in all settings across Scotland and no community would be left behind in that instance? Yes, it is important to recognise the flexibility within that concept. A 20-minute neighbourhood will be applied in a different way in a densely populated built-up urban area, when it would perhaps be in a more sparsely populated rural area, and it will take different approaches. Fundamentally, it ties in with a lot of other policies. For example, policies 8 around infrastructure first is about ensuring that people have quick and reliable access to the services and facilities that they require. We can have a concept of what 20-minute neighbourhoods look like in our mind and think of their own particular environments, but it is also important to think of them more as a lens in which we look at planning, as a way of thinking. Again, back to the point earlier about the need for flexibility, it will have different applications in different areas. It will be for planning authorities through the LDP process to determine how best that concept applies to their particular area. One of the important opportunities is that it will not just be top-down with the need for increased consultation in the new LDP process and local place plans as well. There will be that opportunity for local communities to feed in and shape what their vision of the 20-minute neighbourhood is for their locality. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I really appreciate you acknowledging that that approach is going to be a different approach. I would like to bring in Paul McLean with questions. Thank you, convener, and I refer everyone to my register of interests. I'm still a seven councillor on Eastland Council. Minister, thank you for that. A couple of questions I've got. One of them is about development in the countryside. I've heard from some reviews that we had in terms that the act currently acts possibly as a barrier to innovative development in the countryside, which is obviously necessary for rural diversification and maintaining rural communities. I've also spoken to Scottish agritourism on this matter, and they are keen to double the value of the sector to a billion pounds. What comments have you got about how NPF4 can facilitate such development? It's a good question. Maybe if I give some background about how we got to the position that we were in, we developed that thinking through a lot of specific research on how planning policy can support strong and vibrant rural communities and economies in the coming years. We engaged extensively with rural interests, including the Scottish Rural Parliament, Croft and Commission, rural heads of planning, and a huge number of rural stakeholders through meetings and community roadshows. What we have sought to do through the draft is to enable the rural development and diversification at Mr Mifflin and to seek to introduce the strength and resilience of communities and to enable infrastructure in the areas that they need. Of course, coming back to the point about flexibility, we may have a policy called rural policies, but not every rural area is the same. The requirements of different rural areas have to have a national policy that is broad enough to recognise that. The work on how to deliver that policy on the ground is something that comes through the process of a local development plan and the engagement that takes place. To look at some examples beyond rural policy, we have draft policies for employment in new homes, community facilities, services and shops, which again recognise rural need. That includes diversification to support farm shops and local access to fresh produce. We recognise the need for private vehicles in rural areas, so that is why we are supporting electric car charging. Policies in the areas of aquaculture, digital connectivity, green energy, heat networks and facilities for the circular economy, national development 5 and circular economy and materials management facilities. That is a national development that applies to all of Scotland, so it is a recognition there. In the national developments, we have, for example, the island hub from net is zero, so we recognise that particular environment and a specific national development for it. We also have, within the special principles, balanced development, so that is recognising the need that we are thinking about and planning obligations across Scotland. We need to get the balance right, and that means recognising where we need to have concerns around sustainability in more pressured areas, but also where we need to support population retention and increasing population in other areas that are under pressure. Perhaps if Fiona Simpson wants to add some detail. I would just pick up on that and say that the action areas and the spatial strategy actually have a really important role to play in painting a picture of how rural development could look in the future. We prepared that with input from the regional perspectives and the regional indicative regional spatial strategies. All of those areas try to set out what the common issues are across different parts of rural Scotland and where the opportunities and assets could be. We expect that they will be picked up and explored in more detail in regional spatial strategies that come forward in the future, but it is a starting point for that and an overall framework to bring it together to provide a national picture. I will move on to the next question, if that is okay, convener. The next one really just is talking about infrastructure first. We heard from the RICS and our evidence talking about how it might be delivered. I will move a bit more expansion on that. One of the key things as well is to find out, as I mentioned in the planning act in 2019, about the possibility of an infrastructure levy. Can you talk on infrastructure first and the specific issue about the infrastructure levy? I will pick up on the latter point that I touched on this earlier. We have an on-going review of developer contributions. We have the provision within the act, and that is something that we will be taking forward. We are very conscious at the moment. We are asking a huge amount of stakeholders with NPF4 draft regulations and guidance on local development plans as well. We are taking a phased approach to this work, but that is absolutely something that we are going to be taking forward later in this session. In the work that we are doing right now in a review, we will inform the shape of that. With an infrastructure first approach, this is ultimately about achieving an alignment between planning and infrastructure provision. Clearly, the work that has come out of the infrastructure commission is informed by the hierarchy of sustainable investment in infrastructure, planning for the future, maximising the useful life of existing assets, repurposing and co-locating. Only after the exhaustive possibilities do we start to look at perhaps replacing building or creating new assets. Those elements will have an explicit infrastructure first policy policy A within the policy handbook. It is something that is embedded throughout the document. We can see how policies, for example, around 20-minute neighbourhoods—we were just discussing how that can complement an infrastructure first approach—will look to site development where we have that existing infrastructure. Maybe if there is anything additional that Fiona would want to add to that. I would say that we have done work with infrastructure providers. We set up an infrastructure delivery group as part of the wider planning reforms that we were doing. A lot of that work is around how can the new planning system provide certainty and confidence for infrastructure providers, whether they are public or private, to be assured that the sites that are allocated in plans will be brought forward and built out. That discussion is on-going. Infrastructure has been an important consideration for the local development plans, regulations and guidance in our thinking about how we can make sure that plans are actively taken in infrastructure first approach and work with capacity and the providers to have a clear route to delivery. He touched on connectivity and other policy documents that he talked about in 2014 in the third national land use strategy. He talked about the importance that they are very relevant, but they have different timescales. I think that the key thing is how to monitor that connectivity during the period of NPF4, to make sure that that remains at the outset, but it remains as NPF4 involves and develops. How do we monitor that? Obviously, the housing 2048 strategy is vitally important. I think that, when you read housing to 2040, you see the references in the connection between NPF4 become very clear, whether that be around town centre living or community wealth building. It is explicit, but I have been reflecting on the comments that have been raised around connection between other policy documents and NPF4. Notwithstanding the comments that I made in my opening statement about the need to recognise the distinct nature of the document, it is part of the statutory development plan. I will take a way and reflect on how we can make those connections more explicit, perhaps by supporting documents to help to make clear to members of Parliament and wider stakeholders and users of the planning system what those connections are. We recognise the unique nature of what NPF4 is. I want to make sure that we make those links more clear and explicit. I am happy to consider how we can do that through additional guidance. It will also be reflected when we have published a final delivery plan for NPF4 when it is adopted. I think that that would be welcome. I know heads of plan in Scotland specifically referenced that, so I think that that would be welcome. I am looking forward to seeing that. My final question just really leads on more specifically around connections to, I suppose, not so much to policies but other things that are out there in terms of when the key thing minimum, all-tenure housing and land requirement figures and also the housing needs and demand assessment. Homes for Scotland specifically mentioned that last weekend about the figures because that sets out a real context for the rest of NPF4 and how we deliver specifically the housing 2040 strategy. I just know if you want to talk a little bit more on that. I know Homes for Scotland were keen to explore that issue with you and I do not know what discussions are already going on with yourselves at the moment and how that is going to be developed and again how that is going to be monitored over that period of time and how we deliver the figures in the housing 2040 strategy. It is a really important issue and I am very grateful to Homes for Scotland for all of their constructive engagement and the evidence that was ready to the committee. I look forward to continued engagement with Homes for Scotland and other stakeholders as we work towards a finalised NPF4. The first point that I would make is that there is no getting away from the fact that housing numbers have been and remain one of the most contentious aspects of the planning system. I think that we can probably all have an experience of that as representatives of our respective constituencies and regions. One of the things that we are seeking to do through the approach to housing within NPF4 is get away from debates around numbers and process and actually be focused on making great places. The minimal 10-year housing land requirements is our response to a statutory requirement that was from the 2019 act. We have taken a constructive, collaborative approach engaging extensively with local authorities to arrive at those numbers. The thing that I want to stress is the language that has been chosen because it is maybe not the neatest expression and I am not quite sure how we have pronounced it as an acronym yet, but just that first word minimum. Those are minimum numbers, they are not a cap, they are not an aspirational target, they are the minimum numbers that we expect to be within local development plans. Local development plans, planning for us and preparing them will be able to, if they can robustly evidence through local knowledge and research and need to increase those numbers, then that can take place. Also, of course, LDPs will be prepared following the adoption of NPF4, so there will be an opportunity to use more up-to-date information as it becomes available. Even as we move towards the adoption of a final NPF4, we will, of course, be reviewing and refining those numbers. We expect us to be, if this is a starting point for LDPs, so while I recognise that there are varying views on housing numbers, some are going to think that the numbers are too high, some will think that they are too low and I appreciate that other stakeholders think that we have got it just right. It represents a starting point, 10-year figures, and we hope that what we want to achieve is to allow the focus to move to the delivery of great places, but I do not know if there is perhaps anything Fiona would want to add to that. Second Minister, I did this before being free, because one of the questions that I was going to ask as a follow-up was really learning about what lessons can we learn from previous frameworks around about deliverability, that we can then take into NPF4 to ensure that we maximise that deliverability. It is really important that we have the housing figures and the targets that are there, but the deliverability and the lessons that we learned from previous frameworks is vitally important. What do we take forward from that? One point that I want to make is not targets, but minimums. That is really important to be in mind, but I will ask Fiona to come in. The approach that we have taken to housing in the national planning framework, we are trying something new here. It has been a very rigorous evidence-based process that we have taken steps to make that very transparent, and we have also not done that on our own. We have worked closely with local authorities to make sure that the minimum numbers are correct. There is a lot to learn in terms of thinking about how the system works at the moment. For each local development plan at the moment, there is often a very lengthy debate about housing numbers. By setting out those numbers in the national planning framework, we should be able to move on from that. We will have a minimum to build on that. That means that the local development plan will be able to focus much more on looking at the sites and looking at how a place should evolve in the future and thinking about the choices that it can make and involving people in discussions about that. As the minister also mentioned, that emphasis on deliverability is also strong within the policy, and that will have a really important link with the infrastructure first approach. Less time on numbers through the local development plans. I think that most people, although they have very different views on housing, everyone agrees that the system could be improved by focusing a bit less on precise numbers and taking a broader, more long-term and flexible approach to housing. I am going to bring in Willie Coffey in a moment, but I am just going to come back to Megan Gallagher. We have a little bit of housekeeping to tidy up here. Thank you, convener. I am very grateful. Apologies, committee. When I was questioned in the minister this morning, I should have referred members to my register of interests, as I am a servant councillor in North Lanarkshire, so I would be grateful if that could be added to the record. Good morning, minister. I wanted to touch on a subject that has come up time and time again, the committee sessions that we have had to date, and it is how NPF can influence the look and feel of our town centres. As you know, and all members will be aware, we all suffer from complaints from constituents about our high streets, where there are parcels of land that are abandoned or derelict, and that applies to shops and buildings too. There are multiple ownerships involved here, minister. We heard from Celebrate Kilmarna during one of our sessions about some of the good work going on down there in terms of creating more community spaces and disposing of old, redundant properties and buildings. Yesterday at Govan, we took a committee met some people in Govan and heard about some of the wonderful ideas that they have to regenerate that part of the city of Glasgow. Can you give us a little flavour, please, about how NPF4 can influence the look and feel of our town centres to deal with some of those particular issues that have been really prevalent for many, many years? Thank you very much. I think that this is a question that we could dedicate an entire session to. The first, and I would just know, I had the pleasure of visiting Govan. I think that it was back in August and seeing some of the outstanding work that is going on in there, so I am very much not surprised at how impressed you would have been, and it is an example of what can be achieved. NPF4 has a very big role to play, of course, but it is not going to deliver that change alone and nearer it is the planning system. Within NPF4, we are obviously in terms of shaping our future development. We have specific policies, policy 24 on centres, policy 25 and retails, particularly in that limiting out of town development. We know that has had a big impact upon occupancy rates in our town centres. Town centre first assessment, 26, town centre living policy 27, so there is a suite of policies there that are vacant in derelict land. The work will take beyond that and permitted development rights, which I mentioned earlier. The work on land assembly and CPO, master plan consent areas, there is a huge amount going on with regards to the planning system about what we can do, but there is other work that I am taking forward with other aspects of my portfolio. For example, the review of the town centre action plan, which was conducted by Professor Lee Smarks, we are working at pace with COSLA to go and deliver an action plan in response to that. There will also be a worthy forthcoming national strategy and economic transformation following that. We are publishing a retail strategy, which has been developed with stakeholders. There is a range of different levers that we are seeking to pull to influence the amenity services and the range of opportunities that are available within our town centres and urban spaces. It is going to take a collaborative approach. Local government has a huge amount—it is a lead agency in delivering. We provide support, for example. We have the place-based investment programme, £325 million. There is also the vacant and derelict land programme, £50 million, which has a role to play. Perhaps, to ask Fiona for her particular points, that might be specific within the NPF for the planning system, you might want to foreground. Throughout the document, there is a strong emphasis on that, whether it is a special strategy, the updated policies that the ministers outlined, and development planning has a really important role to play within all of that. In terms of the town centre review and the recommendations of that, we are obviously looking at that and thinking about how the town centre audits and strategies for town centres link with the planning system. There is a whole range of different things that are set out within the document. We have covered city centres as well as town centres within all of that, thinking about the lessons from the pandemic and the changing places and the long-term mix of uses within those areas. That is all about that. The key thing is that this cannot be done to communities that must be done with communities. That is absolutely essential. Working with local partners such as the Development Trust, community councils and other community groups, local place plans, which have recently come online through regulations, provide an excellent avenue into shaping local development plans and having those conversations. I hope that that gives a rounded view. I appreciate that we are here specifically to discuss the NPF for, but I do not think that we can see it in isolation in terms of how we tackle some of the challenges that our town centres and city centres have faced. In the absence of new proposals that might come to the table and be delivered within the NPF framework, how do we deal with issues at the moment, Tom, where we can see in all our high streets? Yesterday, we saw empty abandoned derelict cinemas, empty shops with trees growing out of graffiti stuck to windows. There is no plan, no proposal at the moment coming from communities for any of that stuff. Do you think that the planning powers that we have are sufficient to enable us to deal with that? Local people say to me, what can I do about that problem? How can I help to improve what powers do the planning authorities need to intervene to turn these kinds of issues around? I think that there is an expectation there that I hope that the NPF will embrace that and allow the local authorities to intervene more directly to improve the look and feel and vibrancy of the built heritage, particularly in the urban setting, that has been sitting dormant and abandoned for so long. If there is anything that you could see in that regard, that would be really welcome. When you get to the hall of it, it is quite a profound set of questions that you are posing, Mr Coffey. Of course, there are existing powers around amenity notices that local authorities have at their disposal. There are a huge number of factors at play. Planning is a lever. It is not one that you can just pull and you get an immediate response. It takes time, but having that focus on, for example, city centre and town centre living, when you get people back into an area, you increase demand, which incentivises economic activity, which incentivises uptake and occupancy of units. That is—there are a number of different factors that are going to influence on that. I think that the key to it is the local living, trying to focus development back into our town centres and Brownfield first approach. The things that I mentioned earlier are some of the levers that we can look at around permitted developments, use class, compulsory purchase, reforming that, as we are going to take forward in this parliamentary session. That all has a role to play, but at the heart of regenerating our town centres, key aspect is going to be that town centre living and indeed that city centre living. I know that that is something that we are already starting to see happen with a number of proposals across the country in different localities of different scales. I think that that is going to be at the heart of it. The ever-setting policy levers, or policies, rather, are within NPF4, which can stimulate more people going into town centres, which can seek to dissuade development outwith town centres on the edge of towns, but it is going to take a longer-term approach. I do not think that there is any sort of immediate lever that we can pull. Ultimately, a place-based approach has to involve engaging with the local communities. That is why I am conscious of trying to suggest that there is some grand plan that a minister can come in from on high and implement and solve all the problems of a particular local community. There is a job in supporting providing the framework within planning, providing resourcing, providing the tools for planning authorities to require that, whether that be updated to the EPO powers, PD rights, master plan consent areas. The key thing is to get more people living in town centres and centres, but empowering those communities as well. That is why, for example, local place plans have a huge opportunity as a vehicle for doing that. I do not know if there would be anything that you would want to add. I do not know specifically, although I would say that involving people through local place plans and taking an interest in their place could make a real difference to that sort of thing. I do not know if Andy Cunaird wants to add anything on legislative powers. I will just mention a bit more about what the minister mentioned on amenity notices as a power that is available to authorities at the moment. That is something that they can use to do something about the look and feel of vacant or abandoned properties within their town centres. There are a mix of existing powers that are available to them, but we are also trying to do just to strengthen those powers at the moment. Authorities can serve those amenity notices on the owner, less the occupier, where the amenity of an area is being adversely affected by the condition of the land within that area. Alongside that crucial element is that, once an amenity notice is taken effect, if the steps have not been taken, the authority can go on to the site itself and take direct action to carry out the improvements that the notice had required. I do appreciate that. In doing that, there are some cost risks to the authority. They are able to claw back their costs on any administrative expenses, but traditional debt recovery methods have not always been entirely successful. As a result of that, there is a bit of a reluctance among authorities to take that financial risk as they go forward, to recognise the resource pressures that authorities are under already. For that reason, the 2019 planning act includes new powers that a planning authority can place a charging order on the property title that can ensure that they are able to recover the costs. We have programmed the work cons to implement the charging order powers, which will need some new regulations, as we have programmed that to be taken forward later this year. That is really helpful to ask. It has been a recurring theme, minister of the committee, and it has welcomed the comments that have been made by yourself. I will ask my last question for you. It is about how NPFO integrates with other things. You mentioned SPR, too. I am interested in how it integrates with things such as the city growth deals, because our Government friends yesterday talked about that, and one of the projects that they have on-stream will be funded through the city growth deal. Can you say a few words about how NPFO integrates with other major initiatives that are going on, such as the city growth deal funding and the levelling up funding that is coming in from another direction, as we know? How do we make sure that it is all co-ordinated and that everybody is singing from the same hymn sheet as far as it is possible? That is a fair point. Fundamentally, it is integrated, because the hymn sheet that NPFO is singing from is the same hymn sheet that the city growth deals are singing from, which is a range of policies that we already have in place. There is no national transport strategy, housing to 2040, land-use strategies, publications, all-preedy, NPFO, but there has been close collaboration across Government in the development of these proposals. There is an innovative effect just as the infrastructure investment plan influenced NPFO, so NPFO will influence the next infrastructure investment plan. That is already taking place. I think that what has emerged from the deliberations that the committee has had over the past few weeks is a need to more clearly demonstrate where these links are to make it explicit. I appreciate if you are immersed in your sitting region over documents side by side. Some of these links can be more apparent, but I recognise if you are perhaps approaching NPFO for the first time, and I want the document to be read by as many people as possible. It is not just planning, it is not just for planners, of course. I recognise the point that I have been able to help people to orient and see how it integrates into that wider policy landscape. That is what I made the suggestion earlier on, that we would look at perhaps how we could put a publishing and additional piece of guidance or reference around how NPFO reflects a wider policy landscape and how that wider policy landscape influences things such as growth deals and what potential local authorities may seek to do with levelling up money. I do not know if there is anything that we might want to add to that. I would add that the changes that we are introducing to strategic planning to introduce regional spatial strategies has aimed to achieve a greater horizontal alignment at a regional scale. We found that, when authorities got together to prepare indicative regional spatial strategies, the geography of that broadly reflected the city and growth deal geography. There was quite a lot of discussion as they were formed and as we exchanged learning on that about how the city and growth deal proposals could be reflected in the spatial strategies but also how the spatial strategies could provide that vision and that various collections of projects could help to deliver. I think that the iterative process between spatial planning in the thinking about city and growth deals is embedded in the early work that we have done on that. However, as regional spatial strategies come forward when that is taken forward and enacted as part of the 2019 act, we will see more alignment at that scale. It is also designed to be more flexible, so it is not on a fixed review time scale. It can come and go and be more agile to reflect different opportunities that might arise. We have repeatedly from stakeholders, both in person and in writing, been very positive about the ambitions that are contained within MPF4, but we have questioned the deliverability of that. Not so much questioning the deliverability but questioning the ability to scrutinise the deliverability. Why was the draft document not accompanied with a draft delivery plan to enable that scrutiny? Will a delivery plan be published before the final draft of MPF4 is laid? The thinking is that we will, when we publish the final draft of MPF4, we will set out how it will be delivered. I understand that it is a legitimate question why not publish a delivery plan at the outset. What I was conscious of is that I did not want to prejudge what the outcome of the consultation and the engagement in the scrutiny was going to be. The other aspect, of course, is that when we do publish a delivery plan, as a reference in my opening statement, this is not a capital investment plan, it is a planning, it is a development plan. A lot of the ways in which this will be delivered from a public sector side are already illustrated within other strategies. Mr MacLennan made reference to housing to 2040 as one example. The important thing to remember is not just the public sector that delivers this, it is a partnership approach, so yes, national government, local government, but the private sector has a huge role to play in the delivery of this as well. Planning works as a facilitator, as an enabler. What we will do following the publication of the final NPA4—we are doing work with Scottish Futures Trust at the moment—is to get to a position where we can deliver a delivery plan, a bit of a clumsy phrase, where we publish a delivery plan, which will highlight and bring together the various policies and streams of funding that are available to support realising the vision and ambition within NPA4. I note that a lot of those funding streams are already online. I made reference things like the play-space investment programme, the devilic land, commitments in resourcing towards housing to 2040. A lot of that is already live at the moment. However, the points that are made with regard to how this relates to other strategy documents, the delivery plan will help to answer that question by bringing together and highlighting the different vehicles that will be deployed to realise what is an NPA4. I do not know if there are any points that perhaps missed it, if I would want to pick up on. I would just add that for the national planning framework 3, we published an online action programme and kept that updated, but it was still relatively static. I think that we can improve and learn from that and have more of a live and dynamic document that is signed up to it by a wider range of parties. That will take a bit more time through the collaborative work that we are doing, just now, to see how that will be constructed and how it will work in practice. I think that it will be important, though, not to just be a single one-off document, but it is something that is open, transparent and kept updated by all the various parties involved. That is the key word, collaborative. It was a collaborative process that has got us to hear. It is a collaborative process that we are taking through the consultation, it will get us to the final draft. In the delivery, it will be a collaborative process. The reality is that delivery is dynamic. It can just be a single fixed document, but it is immutable from that particular point forward. I hope that that helps to give a sense of how we take forward the delivery of NPA forward once it is adopted. I appreciate that commitment. As I said, that has been a common theme with the submissions and the evidence sessions that we have had so far. I just wanted to ask beyond the point of approval with that delivery plan being published, that document will be in place for 10 years rather than the previous five years. How would that delivery document in progress essentially be reviewed? I think that you would agree that review and progress is far more important with a 10-year timescale rather than a five-year timescale. It is a live document. We recognise that. If the last two years have taught us anything, it is about the inherent uncertainty of the future. Of course, that will be a live document, and I have no doubt that there will be rigorous parliamentary scrutiny as to whether or not we are seeing delivery on the aspirations within NPA forward. Thank you. I am now going to move to questions from Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Good morning to your officials. Thanks for joining us this morning. I wanted to carry on the line of questioning that Mark Griffin and Paul McClellan have taken forward, because specifically the concerns that Homes for Scotland have stated around, as it currently stands, NPAF4 likely to reduce the number of homes being delivered. Obviously, it is exacerbating the housing crisis if that takes place. I have listened to what you have said today in your officials as well with regard to local plans moving to 10 years, but what I have not heard and wondered if you could give more detail was specifically around the mechanism therefore to introduce additional land, what that will look like, and if we are talking about open and transparent processes, how is that being put into NPAF4 at this stage? I think that for a lot of communities that will be important. I think that it is recognising it that the total allocation within the MMO in land requirement is 200,000 homes over the next 10 years, about 20,000 a year. However, as I made reference to earlier, the local authorities, notwithstanding the fact that we will seek to refine those numbers further ahead of the final draft, local authorities in developing their own local development plans and through their housing needs and demand assessment in relation to their local housing strategies, they will, through a process in which robustly evidence will be able to increase those numbers. The key aspect of your point, Mr Briggs, about transparency is that what we spoke about earlier regarding the need for engagement on local development plans and where local place plans can have an input as well. That can play a part, a very strong part, a central part indeed, on addressing that question of transparency. As I stated, those are minimum numbers, they are not aspirational targets. That is the starting point for authorities in developing their local development plans and, of course, where additional needs are identified, then, of course, when they can evidence that, they can increase those numbers. I think that what will be really helpful and what will be really important is to do that in a collaborative way in which we take advantage of, for example, local place plans and that community engagement. I think that we are perhaps all recognised that often, when we think about planning and housing, it is often, perhaps, that we think about our own mailbags as MSPs. We know the kind of issues that are raised. By having that early engagement, and setting those numbers out for the next 10 years as part of that process, having that early engagement as well through the LDP, we can actually move away from some of the conflict that is often associated around housing numbers and move towards really talking about how we develop great places. Remembering it, what makes a home does not just stop at the front door, it is about the community. That is in relation to the broader suite of policies that were being discussed in the earlier 20-minute neighbourhoods and so on. However, I do not know if Fiora Arande would like to comment on some of the process points, particularly on the LDPs. I draw attention to policy 9i in the MPF, because overall, what we are trying to do is have a strong plan-led approach to housing provision and to make that flexible and deliverable through a pipeline of housing land that can flex, depending on the way in which sites are built out and the timing of that. Policy 9i also has a slight bit of flexibility there, so it allows for sites to be brought forward if land that has been allocated for housing has been used up so it is being built out, and the aim of that is to strongly incentivise actual construction of houses on the sites that are allocated for housing. That is quite an important mechanism within the policies as a whole. There is also a lot more detail in the local development plan guidance and regulations around that, and we set out how we expect planning to be done. We also expect more attention to monitoring of housing land as well, and we have been looking at the housing land audit process as part of that. I would also maybe ask Andy Cunair to add something on the mechanism for updating local development plans. That is worth mentioning too. As with NPF, local development plans are going to be moving from a five-year cycle to a 10-year cycle, and that can be quite a long period just to be looking ahead. The planning act also allows for us to bring forward regulations that would make the arrangements for how a planning authority can then make amendments to their local development plan without necessarily going into a full review. That gives up the opportunity that, if there is a high level of housing being delivered within that period, just that particular aspect of the LDP can be amended to account for more further down the line. That is helpful. Thank you very much. One of the key things that I have picked up during our work on that is that we also need to look to make sure that this is accompanied by a 10-year capital investment plan across the public sector. That is why, for NHS and especially education services, it is something that we will find challenging. I know that the minister will be aware of conversations that we had on the Health and Sport Committee on this, and that a lot of new-build developments often destabilise GP surgeries. Where that capital investment is needed, we need to see that complemented. I am moving on to my other question with regard to renewables. Some of the evidence that we have received has expressed concern that, as it is currently drafted, NPF4 could lead to delays within renewable energy developments. The minister said that he takes the word minimum in terms of numbers that are expected around housing. Is that the same with regard to targets around renewables? Is it your opinion that we need to see a presumption in favour of renewables within NPF4? I think that language is going to be key around this for local authorities delivering not necessarily targets but the minimums that we are expecting. I will just pick up on language. Minimum all-tenure housing land requirement is an important distinction, but we are talking about housing land, which is an important point to make. I recognise the points that have been raised. I look forward to further dialogue and engagement with the renewables sector, which I am very open to as we move towards the finalised version. We all recognise the categorical importance of renewables in delivering our ambition to head of 2045. It is really important to bearing mind when we are looking at our suite of planning policies, not just the specific policy on energy and energy for 19 from memory, but the key policy to climate emergency. Just to give a second policy in the policy handbook, policy 2A, when considering all development proposals, significant weight should be given to the global climate emergency. That is at the heart of NPF4. We recognise clearly that the planning system must do all it can to support us in our journey to net zero. It is implicit and well understood, and we recognise the role that renewables have to play. I do not know whether there are any specifics on the policy that I would want to add. We are aware that there are lots of different views on the approach that we have taken to renewable energy policy. We have had some very useful discussions with the industry. We are also having wider discussions involving a wide range of stakeholders in thinking about the policy and will it achieve what we are trying to achieve. There is a lot of detail in all that, and we will look in detail at the wording to make sure that the policy intent is carried through to the way that the policy is drafted. I would add in that particular point on intent that policy 19A, local development plans should seek to ensure that an area's full potential for electricity and heat from renewable sources is achieved. Opportunities for new development extensions and repowering of existing renewable energy developments should be supported. That is categorical, but having said that and referred to points that Fiona made earlier on, we want to hear a detailed commentary analysis of language to make sure that we are going to deliver on the policy intent. I am very open to continued dialogue and making sure that we achieve that. I think that it is an ambition that we all share. That is helpful. Finally, convener, it was around that draft delivery plan, because I note the onshore wind policy statement, which specifically now looks towards 8 to 10 GW and onshore wind being delivered as part of that. During a much shorter timescale that we have done previously to deliver the renewable energy that we now produce, there is a huge issue around where planning departments will be looking at renewable energy projects. It is not necessarily taking them forward, but how we meet that target and what delivery plan the Scottish Government is expecting local authorities to do. Obviously, those are often large rural planning authorities, not urban ones. I would be interested to see where that discussion goes and it is maybe someone that we can take forward around the draft delivery plan, because I think that the devil will be in that detail. I look forward to having a discussion. I think that the other point that I would add to, and it picks up in the line of questioning from Mr Daly on, is about the importance of resourcing for our planning authorities and underlines why we have taken the action that we have around fees, because we recognise the key role that planning authorities will play in realising our ambitions and their obligations around delivering renewable energy. I notice that we are at time, but I would be grateful if you would stay with us for a little bit longer. I have a couple more questions that I am keen to bring in. I think that the discussion has been very useful for the committee this morning. This one is about priorities. Several witnesses asked for clarity on how developers and decision makers should balance or prioritise the four priorities set out in the national spatial strategy, the six spatial principles, the development priorities set out in the five action areas and individual national planning policies. We heard from Christina Granger from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. She argued in oral evidence that the document covers a huge amount of ground, and because not everything can sit in one place, we need a hierarchy. There needs to be some sort of primacy amongst these policies to help people to understand where the priorities themselves lie. Is that something that you intend to take forward, the idea of a hierarchy? The first point that I would make is—I suppose to preface a more general point of make—a specific 10pfo. We have, of course, six universal policies under sustainable places. Indeed, we have previously discussed policy 2 on the climate emergency and significant weight that we should be giving, and that runs through more generally the role that there is a job, and it is a job best done by local planners to balance a lot of these competing priorities. Ultimately, planning is about mediating space, creating less. As such, that is a job that planners have to do, and they have to balance competing priorities. That ultimately is a judgment call. It can be argued that planning is as much an art as science. We cannot have planning by algorithm. We cannot automate that process. We cannot take out all of the human agency and decision making that is involved in the planning process. Planners will continue to have that role about how to judge and balance competing priorities based upon local knowledge. Having said that, I recognise some of the points that have been made around language. However, it needs to be more detailed to avoid unintended consequences or to ensure that it is delivering in full policy intent. Fundamentally, this is a document that has to be read in the round. It is holistic, and I appreciate that there is a huge amount in it, but planning is that broad and captures and touches upon almost every aspect of our life. That is unfortunately unavoidable. That is why we depend on the expertise and the skill of our planning professionals. I do not know perhaps of anything that Fiona would want to add to that. I would just add that the context for each decision is unique. It is for decision makers in each case to determine what we need to give policies. I echo the view that we can look at the readability and the structure in terms of hierarchy or just how clear we are around what the priorities are in the final draft. I want to note that I am not opening up a discussion here, but I do find it interesting that you have couched the NPF in the Sustainable Development Goals. No one has really brought that up in any of our evidence sessions. That is sitting there with 17 very important internationally acknowledged goals. That seems to underpin what you are trying to do with the NPF4. The draft NPF4 makes no direct mention of the needs of women, children, or sustainable development goals, or disabled people, or how the planning system can help to remove barriers to their use and enjoyment of the built environment. Fiona, you mentioned that there is going to be an equality round table, but could you tell us a little bit more about how you might remedy the oversight? That is a really important question. If we look at the obligations that are placed on the NPF4 by the planning act, improving equality and eliminating discrimination as a requirement, we have policy 4 on human rights and equality. Again, that is one of the six universal policies that the entirety of the NPF4 has to be understood by. I recognise the points that you are making. I had an excellent and very informative discussion with Engender recently. That is something that we are going to take forward and reflect on ahead of the finalised draft of the NPF4 that we put forward. That is an important point. That has to be an NPF4 for everybody, and I am notwithstanding the obligations that we have under the qualities legislation and notwithstanding the obligations that are placed on the NPF4 by the planning act and policy 4. It is important that we recognise that one's definition of accessible, safe or a 20-minute neighbourhood constitute is very much predicated upon one's personal circumstances. That is something that planners as professionals recognise and do instinctively when they apply these principles, but I am conscious of the ask to make that more explicit within the NPF4. That is something that I have given an undertaking to Engender and I have given an undertaking to the committee today to do as we move towards the finalised draft. I do not know if there is anything that Fiona Hyslop wants to add. I would just add that the draft has been informed by a really rigorous integrated impact assessment that covers the qualities of a fairer Scotland duty assessment, child rights and wellbeing impact assessment and an island communities impact assessment. All of that is showing that the draft is heading in the right direction around creating better places for everyone. Obviously, we will take into account views building on that from the consultation and look at the final draft to see if there are areas that need to be drawn out further. Thank you very much for that welcome. I would like to bring Graham Day in for a thank you. I appreciate that. Parliament and parliamentary committees are very good at calling on the Government to listen to stakeholders and to listen to the views of parliamentary committees, which is as it should be. It is very much heartened by what I have heard today about the work that is still on-going as part of this process. You have talked about the engagement with on-equality issues. You have talked to us about the delivery plan and the work that has gone on there and still to be done. You have committed to the committee to be prepared to come back and further engage with ourselves further down the line. Of course, we have also heard about a great deal of work that has gone on with multiple stakeholders. Given all that laudable effort that is still going on to get this right, will the timetable of bringing a completed MPF to Parliament for confirmation by the summer is a realistic one? It is a very good question. I know that one comes from the experience of someone who has had many deeply much experience in having to go and bring forward legislation and documents. I am very heartened by the discussions that we have had, not just today in general, because I think that we are a place where what we are really talking about now is notwithstanding some areas of contention, but a lot of fine-tuning and making this the best it possibly can be. I am not picking up those fundamental disagreements in the direction of travel, either from this committee or from wider stakeholders. I think that we have an opportunity to work intensely and at pace, but we can bring forward a finalised MPF for adoption by Parliament and adoption by ministers prior to summer recess. I think that it is a reflection of the collaborative work that has been undertaken over the past two years. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Kevin Stewart, for the work that he undertook on MPF 4 when he was a minister with responsibility for planning. I think that we are in a very good place. The important thing is that we need to get this right. Quality cannot be sacrificed for time. We need to get this right. That is going to be a hugely important document. It is defining our spatial strategy for up until 2045. That is a priority for me, but I think that we are in a very good place at the moment, and with intense work and continued engagement as we work towards that, the end of the public consultation phase in the 31st of March, I am confident that we can get it to a place where we will get a finalised MPF for Parliament to consider before summer. Thank you for that response. We look forward to that. I want to thank you and your officials for your evidence today and just to let you know that the committee expects to publish its report on the draft national planning framework in April. We will now have a short break before we convene in private for item 2 in around five minutes time, but as that was the only public item on our agenda, I now close the public part of the meeting.