 The next item of business is a statement by Tom Arthur on the National Planning Framework 4. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and hence there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Tom Arthur, Minister, up to 10 minutes, please. Today marks World Town Planning Day, so it seems particularly appropriate to be publishing the fourth national planning framework, or MPF4, as it is known, and associated documents in Parliament. Last year, when I published the draft framework, the world had come to Glasgow for COP26. Right now, many of the world's political leaders are in Sharmal shake at COP27, some of them more willing participants than others, it seems. The focus is on the global imperative to reduce emissions and help society to prepare for, adapt to and mitigate climate change. We have some very important decisions to make about our places locally and about our contribution globally. That framework demonstrates that Scotland will not shy away from that task. It confirms that we support sustainable development in Scotland. We are not compromising. We are fully committing to tackling the twin crises of climate and nature. We could not have anticipated Russia invading Ukraine, nor the extent of Westminster mismanagement amplifying the cost crisis here in the UK. However, Scotland's fully devolved reform planning system is well placed to play a key role in helping us to address all those challenges. For this framework, the foundation upon which to build the fairer, greener Scotland we want to see for the benefit of future generations. Members will recall the extensive conversation and debate that we have had on the draft MPF4 through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny last winter. I thank the local government housing and planning committee for its thorough and constructive report and for the wider input from across the Parliament. I thank two cabinet members and ministerial colleagues for their involvement in what has been a truly collaborative and cross-cutting Government endeavour. I especially thank the many people in organisations who gave their time, experience and expertise to engage with us and help create an MPF4 that reflects all our aspirations and will help to drive change. The wealth of evidence and opinions shared has guided our approach to revising MPF4 to produce the much clearer and stronger version that I have laid here today in Parliament. We engaged, we listened and we have responded. As a result, the revised version looks quite different to the draft. Those changes directly respond to Parliament's recommendations and stakeholder responses to the consultation, but the fundamental objectives have not changed and the policy intent remains. MPF4 is now more focused. Importantly, it is stronger where people told us it needed to be. We have substantially reworked the framework's national spatial strategy, which sets out how our approach to planning and development will help to achieve a net zero sustainable Scotland by 2045. We have updated the strategy to reflect extensive comments on development priorities for different parts of Scotland. That recognises the unique contribution that each part of our country can make, enabling this national plan to be delivered appropriately, locally. The spatial strategy is now set out across three themes, as sustainable, livable and productive places, which better reflect the three pillars of sustainable development. We have restructured MPF4's policy handbook to clarify expectations for local development plans and decisions on planning applications and to bring greater confidence, predictability and consistency to decision making. We have also strengthened the language throughout the policies, directly responding to many people's views that the use of words like should and should not was leaving the policy intent lacking the necessary clarity and direction. This final version makes clear what is to be delivered and how. It is now clear through the waiting to be applied to different policies that the climate and nature crisis are the priority. That is reflected in a new policy on tackling the climate and nature crisis, which underpins all other policies in MPF4. There is now a clear expectation on the role that planning must play in delivering the expansion of renewable energy needed to realise the just transitions from a reliance on fossil fuels. Parliament specifically asked us to reflect on the views of the renewables industry, and the revised MPF4 now reflects the need to get behind the delivery of renewable energy to achieve net zero. The planning system has a big part to play in both protecting and restoring biodiversity. That is a cross-cutting theme in the revised MPF4, so that new developments can include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, including the creation of strong-nature networks. Our local places will need to support lower carbon living. We have responded to queries about the practicality of embedding 20-minute neighbourhoods across Scotland and have revised that policy to support a broader and more flexible approach to living well locally. However, tensions remain. They will always feature in planning to some extent. There is a balance to be struck in relation to protecting the landscape and promoting renewable energy developments. That will not be easy to achieve, and Scotland will look different in the future. People want liveable places with local services and thriving town centres. As a Government, we want to cut car kilometres travelled by 20 per cent by 2030 to help to cut transport emissions. Yet many developments—retail, health and learning estate—are still often planned and made out of town. Perhaps the biggest tension that emerges during the process and remains is overhousing. Sustainable, livable and productive places look and feel very different and mean quite different things to different people and communities. That is perhaps most true when it comes to new housing and how to support the delivery of quality affordable homes. Some argued that we proposed figures that would lead to too much house building, while others said that they were not enough. I want to assure members that I have considered all the views carefully during this revision process, and I have determined to maintain a robust evidence-based process on housing policy and targets. Let me be clear that this is about enabling development and not restricting it. The policy will ensure that housing delivery supports and is supported by democratically agreed local development plans. There are many other changes made in this NPF4, and I encourage members to read the explanatory report, which explains that in detail and sets out the rationale for those changes. I hope that Parliament will approve NPF4, and I will of course make myself available to assist in that process, including giving evidence to the local government committee and engaging with any groups or members who wish to discuss its content. We have already spent some considerable time as a Parliament and government to reform our planning system and develop this policy framework. Now we must move to implementation. I am pleased, therefore, to publish the first iteration of the NPF4 delivery programme today. This will be an evolving document, updated as delivery progresses, supporting strong alignment between planning, infrastructure and place-based investment. The programme sets out how we will monitor and evaluate NPF4's impact and learn, progress and deliver over the years to come. NPF4 does not stand alone nor should it. It provides a crucial underpinning to strategic government objectives and policies. Planning provides the base upon which to deliver on these priorities, but delivery cannot be the sole responsibility of government. Many aspects require investment by a range of partners, including the private sector. NPF4 can and will be supported by a range of funding and finance solutions, which puts the three pillars of sustainable development into practice. Working together will be the key, so I can announce that a new planning, infrastructure and place advisory group will be established to build collaboration, realise opportunities, identify barriers to delivery and strengthen the alignment of NPF4 with our plans and investment in both place and infrastructure. There is no doubt that delivering on this new framework will be challenging, given the current severe financial constraints. I am particularly alert to the pressures on planning authorities, which will now be expected to take NPF4 and develop local plans that flow from it. However, the NPF4 will streamline current practice and make it more consistent by freeing up resources to take us in a new and bold direction. That shift in culture and approach will not be without its challenges, so it is vital that authorities feel supported and that we work together to deliver NPF4. Let me be clear that, through our statutory and moral obligations to tackle climate change, means that change is necessary, urgent but also desirable. There is international interest in what NPF4 represents and seeks to achieve for Scotland. In June, I attended the World Urban Forum in Poland, a gathering of Governments discussing the future of sustainable development. Everyone is in the space that we are in, but few are as advanced as we are in Scotland in putting planning and the sustainable development of our places at the heart of all we do. The planning profession is committed globally to addressing climate change and making better places for people to live, work and play, but planners cannot achieve that on their own. Here in Scotland, we now have the framework that we need to enable planning to deliver the change that we seek. However, only if everyone with an interest in the design and creation of the spaces and places of Scotland commits to delivering on its policies and outcomes. Today marks the end of the beginning of a process that shows that Scotland will not compromise on climate change and that we are determined to plan differently now so that future generations get to live in a fairer, greener Scotland. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next night of business. It would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question were to press the request-to-speak buttons now, and I call Miles Briggs. I thank the minister for advance sight of the statement and a 160-page document to read in 90 or 50 minutes. I welcome many of the changes that the minister has outlined and the fact that he has taken on board many of the constructive proposals that we put forward as a local government committee. The number of new homes built in Scotland has fallen by 25 per cent over the last decade. That has been during the time previous national planning frameworks were meant to help deliver housing targets. Over the last decade, Scotland has had the lowest number of new builds completed in any decade since the world war 2. As a nation, we face a housing crisis, especially here in the capital. It is therefore essential that we do see the home Scotland needs built. Access to land remains a key area that I do not think has fully been addressed within the revised draft. I put forward to the minister the need to create a mechanism to address future land supply issues, especially in areas such as here in the capital, where the majority of land in local plans and being suggested around brainfield development is already currently in use by businesses. What steps will be taken beyond this to help to adapt to situations where land is not forthcoming for housing developments? Finally, he mentioned planning authorities, because planning authorities are facing increased responsibilities and serious financial pressures. How will ministers ensure that the staff and resources that are needed to deliver MPF4 are delivered to local authorities? I thank the member for his questions and welcome his support of the changes that we have made in response to the local government's report. Just touching on his last question, the issue of resource is absolutely critical. I said this a year ago when I introduced the draft to Parliament. We need to ensure that our planning authorities, along with other partners, are capable to deliver. There are a number of actions that we have taken. We increased planning fees from April this year, which is providing additional resources, and there is evidence to suggest that that is resources that are feeding directly into planning departments. We have also worked with other partners through the high-level group, such as Heads of Planning Scotland, the RTPI, to develop a future planners project, which we are working and engaging on to address the issue of a number of people in the profession to encourage more people into the profession and ensure that they are fully equipped with the skills. That is a live issue. One point that I would know is that the challenge and recruitment of retention of planners is not unique to Scotland. That does not exclude the fact that we have a responsibility to address that issue, but it is, as we are all aware, a challenge that is echoed in many other professions of the need to retain people within the profession in the first place and to attract more people to go into it. I think that there is an opportunity for what we are doing in the national planning framework and the ambition of the document to encourage more people to go into the profession and to make more young people think that this is a great thing to be involved in shaping our places and what is a moral imperative to reach net zero by 2045. The issue of housing that I recognise is highly contentious. We have updated policy 16 on quality homes. I think that what is important to recognise is that there is going to be a crucial role for this in the local development plans. We have set through the minimum alternative housing land requirements a minimum, but we expect local planning authorities to go beyond that in their land allocations. However, what we want to see is a plan-led system, so that is why it is so important for the local planning authorities to be allocating land in advance and prefer to be clarity on that. We have also set out and clarified policies with regard to the matters that we raise when development and build-out is happening quicker and anticipated. That is provided within the planning policy as revised. I would also encourage the member to say that there is a lot of material to read through, but in the explanatory report there was quite detailed commentary demonstrating how we have taken on board and considered the commentary that we have received on those particular matters and how that feeds into the revised policy. Again, I would be happy to discuss with the member in more detail in the coming weeks. I thank the minister for his fans' sight of the statement and welcome the work done by his official stakeholders to get the framework to this final proposal. I look forward to scrutinising in more detail at committee. The minister's commitment and his statement to maintain a robust evidence-based process on housing policy and targets is absolutely welcome, but why have the Government dismissed concerns about the all-tenure housing targets being based on historic secondary data through the Honda process? I have been advised that up to 86,000 households have not been counted as they are either concealed or overcrowded, but crucially not coming into that category as being both. The resolution foundation reckons that there are about 1 million uncounted across England for similar reasons, so it is not a problem unique to Scotland. The targets in the framework are minimums, but local authorities do not have the resources to undertake household surveys when preparing their local development plans. I ask the minister if he will instruct it and fund local authorities to undertake and bring forward household surveys to properly determine demand in their areas and meet the housing need that we know is there. I thank Mr Griffin for his contribution and again welcome his recognition of the work that he has went in on responding to the consultation. It is important to stress that, as I did in my response to Mr Briggs, I appreciate that Mr Griffin acknowledged that. The minimum all-tenure housing land requirement is a minimum, and we expect planning authorities to identify their own housing land requirement to go beyond that, but we need a robust evidence-based approach. The housing needs and demand assessment is the optimal tool that we have at disposal. Indeed, it is a tool that other jurisdictions have been looking at and applying in their policymaking. What we will see happen following the adoption of NPFOs subject to the agreement of Parliament is the regulations introduced for local development plans. I am keen to work with planning authorities to ensure that they are fully resourced to carry out their work, both in development management and in development planning. I made reference to what we have done around planning fees. An area that we are actively looking at around resourcing is full-cost recovery. It is a complex area. It has potential for unintended consequences, but it is something that I am engaging with planning authorities through the high-level group directly on. I am happy to keep Parliament updated on that and to provide more information and detail to the member if he is so interested. What is really important is that we have to recognise that we need a plan-led system, and for housing, we have set minimum numbers for the all-tenure, minimum all-tenure housing and land requirement. However, it is for local planning authorities in devising and implementing and developing and creating their own local development plans to go beyond that, based on evidence that they are best placed to make a judgment on. The revised NPFO uses tighter policy language than the draft, following the minister's proactive response to recommendations made during the consultation period. Can the minister explain what the effect of the strengthened policy wording will have on the delivery of NPFO? When we are responding to stakeholder views, we have in the revised version restructured the document to make it easier to navigate and to understand. I recognise that that this was a key issue that was raised by stakeholders and the committee. The wording has been refined and clarified, and the structure and layout has been made more user-friendly, with the aim of bringing greater predictability to planning decisions. Providing clarity of intent across the themes and policies allows Government and planning authorities to provide certainty to investors who are also giving community confidence in the system and, indeed, giving decision makers greater clarity around the policy intent. I call Douglas Lumsons, to be followed by Paul MacLennan. The Scottish Retail Consortium has raised concerns that this framework would effectively ban all out-of-town retail development. Can the minister confirm that local decision makers will have the flexibility and ability to approve retail development such as garden centres and agricultural merchants that are more appropriate in and out-of-town locations? I cannot see any in policy 28 that would allow that at present. The member raises a very important point. What I would note is that the particular issues that he highlighted are recognised within the national planning framework from memory policy on getting belts, making it accommodations for one of the limited types of development that would be allowed to take place there. However, we recognise that as a distinct category of retail and that is reflected in the NPF4. I call Paul MacLennan, to be followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted with the proposals in the document today, particularly on support for renewables. As we can see, circumstances can change in the world around us very quickly. Can I ask the minister how the Scottish Government intends to monitor and evaluate key objectives that are highlighted in NPF4, and what can he say about the delivery plan being a live document on an on-going basis? Monitoring and evaluation is already an important part of the planning system in Scotland. As I indicated in my statement, we fully recognise the importance of effective monitoring and evaluation to assess the impact and performance of NPF4 over time. That is why today I have also published the first iteration of the delivery programme, today setting out how we will work to do that. We also link the monitoring of NPF4 to wider work on assessing and improving planning performance as we move to a more outcomes-focused system. As part of this, we are continuing our engagement and collaboration with a range of stakeholders, including through the high-level group on planning performance, to keep our focus on positive planning outcomes through NPF4. I would want to stress that point about the delivery plan being a first iteration, and we will very much welcome comment and feedback from stakeholders as we take that forward. I call Alec Riley, to be followed by Stephanie Callaghan. Presiding Officer, the minister said that Scotland has fully devolved reform planning system is well-placed to play a key role in helping to address the challenges. However, the truth is that Scotland, and he knows, Scotland's planning departments are under-resourced, under-staffed, under-financed, under-valued and struggling to cope. I was grateful that the minister came to Dunfermline and met representatives of over 100 community councils in Fife, where we had a really good session. However, one of the main conclusions for all those community councils were that these planning services are struggling now. How on earth are they going to deliver on this ambition? My question would be, would you get an audit done in every planning service in Scotland? Publish that, because if we don't know the extent of the problems and challenges, then we're not going to fix that. I thank Mr Riley for his question and the invitation to the event that he hosted in Dunfermline. I was very grateful for the opportunity to be along. I found it a very productive morning and I certainly got a lot out of it. He's absolutely right to raise the issue of resource. I'm very conscious that this is a concern that many members have. I don't want to repeat the points that were made earlier with the work that we're doing with a high-level group, the increase in fees, looking at full-cost recovery, and we're also looking at performance as well. I am going to be clear. I recognise that if NPF4 is going to deliver on the ambitions that we all want to see it do so, we need a high-performing planning system and we need plans to feel valued and we need more people going into the profession. I want to assure the member that I am absolutely committed to working to achieve that. It's not going to be easy. There's going to be no overnight fixes, but I'm committed to continued engagement with the planning profession to achieve that. Again, I'm more than happy to engage with a member on specific proposals about how we can take that agenda forward. Can the minister say a bit more about how NPF4 will reshape places for local people and in doing so, assist with Scotland's response to the climate emergency? NPF4 puts climate change front and centre of our planning system while also tackling long-standing challenges and inequalities. The six-course special principles include local living, which is about improving our places to support health and wellbeing through ensuring easy access to services, green space, learning, work and recreation. The 20-minute neighbourhood concept is at the core of this and facilitates delivery of the place principle, whilst providing compact growth for motion of town centres, re-use of assets and reducing the need to travel unsustainably. The approach to local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods is not designed as a template but is expected to be applied according to the circumstances of each plan area, including rural areas and islands. The place-based investment programme, NPF4, local development plans and local place plans, will support and enable communities in tackling local challenges whilst becoming better connected and greener. The minister confidently said that the revised NPF4 now reflects the need to get behind the delivery of renewable energy to achieve net zero, yet permitted development rights for solar are limited to 50 kilowatts. In England, it is 20 times higher at 1 megawatt, yet the minister, Patrick Harvie, is refusing to exempt bigger schemes to help businesses to get behind renewables that he has decided. Will the minister investigate this issue and deliver the change on permitted development rights so that we can advance solar? I am grateful to Mr Rennie's question. I am already ahead of him. We are doing permitted development rights in phase 3, phase 3 is going to have renewables in it. There was a sudden intervention of when very soon in the new year. NPF4 provides needed flexibility in planning in which we will better enable local authorities and communities to deal with ice or vacant abandon and derelict buildings, which evidence shows do negatively impact the wellbeing of communities. The minister will be aware of my campaigning for buildings in south Scotland, such as the George hotel in Stranraer, the Central Hotel in Anin, the NPL building in Hoich and the interfloor factory in Dumfries that need to be dealt with. I also have a current petition on the interfloor factory, which I encourage D&G folk to sign. Can the minister therefore comment specifically on how NPF4 will allow for the derelict buildings in our communities to be addressed? As Emma Harper will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but I understand that vacant and derelict land and buildings can be a blight on communities, often resulting in local authorities and other agencies bearing costs to keep them safe. That often includes for themselves as owners of some of these sites and buildings that can be historic and challenging to deal with. NPF4 will change how we plan our places and will strengthen national planning policy to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of derelict buildings to reduce impacts on communities and contribute to climate change targets. We want to direct development to the right location and maximise the use of existing assets, with local development plans setting out opportunities for the sustainable reuse of brownfield land and empty buildings. Planning is, however, only part of a solution that can involve working with regeneration interests, local communities and other stakeholders to help to deliver place-based solutions to dereliction. The aim is to improve well-being in transformer places into more sustainable, livable and productive places, but one of the biggest challenges to making change happen, particularly in the current climate, will be funding and affordability. The national planning framework is key to turning commitments in the bute house agreement into reality, accelerating the transition to net zero and ensuring development works to support and enhance the natural environment. Could the minister outline what the Scottish Government will do to ensure that new developments can serve and restore biodiversity and what support they will put in place to enable developers to meet those expectations? NPF4 will rebalance the planning system so that climate change and nature recovery are the primary guiding principles for all plans and all decisions. Improving biodiversity is a cross-cutting theme that runs through NPF4. More detailed provision is set out in policy 3 of NPF4, which requires large-scale development or development requiring an environmental impact assessment to demonstrate that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, including natural networks, so that they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. Policy 3 also requires proposals for relevant local development to include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. That is to be supported by NatureScots developing with nature guidance. The Ardeir Peninsula is marked out as a significant site for redevelopment in NPF4. With the special development order still in place, there remains concerns locally about the potential impact of development free from the usual planning restrictions. Can the minister provide an update on the commencement of provisions to deal with SDOs and assure my constituents that environmental considerations and the important biodiversity of the site are of key importance to the Scottish Government? Yes, I would and I would want to recognise the particular interest of Rhym Gwyr Hasling on this issue. Following the adoption of NPF4, we will be continuing our programme of work to implement the planning act with a focus on delivering its priorities and proposals. We remain committed to bringing forward regulations and compensation on revocation of development orders as part of that. We will progress this work in 2023. In the meantime, NPF4 provides strong protection for biodiversity and sets out requirements for development to contribute to nature restoration. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have some concerns regarding the productive pillar. As the minister mentioned, business and investment are going to be important as we achieve our net zero targets. With footfall in Scotland's high street, it fell by 17.5 per cent in February 2022 in comparison to February 2020. This was the sharpest fall across the whole of the United Kingdom. That highlights the need for concerted action to help our high streets to recover from the impact of the pandemic. Will the minister outline how the refreshed framework will support businesses of all sizes? Thank you for your question. There is a range of policies there. There is a special principle of specific policies in the productive pillar, such as policy 27 on city, town, local and commercial centres, policy 28 specifically on retail, policy 26 in business and industry, policy 25 in community wealth building. Other policies also have an important bearing on that. For example, policy 8 on great green belts, which can help to promote urban densification. Urban densification has been very important for our town centres. We recognise through local living that we want to see more people living in our town and city centres. That is absolutely essential and vital for sustaining local commerce and local services. That aligns strongly with other work that we have undertaken such as the town centre action plan and the retail strategy. There is a range of policies and the special principles that are all aligned with the town centre action plan and with our city centre recovery task force, because we want to see thriving town city centres. That is absolutely vital for our communities. This is something that the National Party for will help to deliver. I refer members to my register of interests. Can the minister explain why the number of houses to be developed in Edinburgh has been reduced by four and a half thousand homes at a time when the city is facing a long-standing deepening housing crisis? Can he say whether new GP and local health services will be included in planning proposals for the new housing being proposed across the Lothians, given the challenges we are already facing in terms of GP capacity in areas where significant new development is taking place and is now being planned through NPF4? On the latter point, policy 18 infrastructure first is embedded in the infrastructure first approach in planning across Scotland, so I can help to address the issues that the member raises. With regard to the minimal tenure house and land requirements allocation for Lothians, we will publish an addendum to the explanatory report that we published with the draft NPF4. We are happy to send that to the member to provide details on how that was arrived at. I think that that was everything that she asked. I think that that is probably a good... It was very difficult to write to the member because we are running out of time. I call Graeme Simpson. Thank you very much. The minister knows that I had concerns around protection of woodlands and wild land and that I actually sent him some specific wording that I felt could improve matters. Some of that was around the language, particularly in relation to woodland, but there were ideas such as compensatory planting, enhancing peatland and introducing wildland impact assessments. I do not know if he has responded to any of that, so perhaps he can tell us. Yes, with policy 6 on forestry, woodland and trees, we have made changes including clearer requirements and stronger language. That was directly in response to the Woodland Trust campaign that Mr Simpson referred to. We have also worked closely with Scottish Forestry to define ancient woodlands, purposefully referring to the land that has maintained continuous woodland habitat and not just woodland itself. I am very happy to take those measures forward and I am very grateful to the member for his contribution and engagement throughout the process. On wild land, we have set out a policy on wild land that we have found out in natural places in policy 4. I would like to give the member the opportunity to consult the explanatory report, but if he would like to follow up on any specific questions, I would be more than happy to. Thank you minister. That concludes the statement on the national planning framework 4 and there will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow front bench teams to change positions.