Chamber and committees

Agenda item 2 is the fourth of our five evidence-taking sessions on the draft fourth national planning framework, or NPF4. The focus of the session is on local government issues. On 22 February, we will hear from the minister.

I welcome to the meeting Councillor Steven Heddle, environment and economy spokesperson, and Calum Lindsay, policy manager in environment and economy, both representing the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; David Dunne, interim chief officer in strategic place planning at Aberdeen City Council; Craig Iles, service lead in planning and building standards at South Ayrshire Council; Pam Ewen, head of planning at Fife Council and chair of Heads of Planning Scotland; Sarah Shaw, head of planning neighbourhoods in regeneration and sustainability at Glasgow City Council; Iain McDiarmid, executive manager for planning at Shetland Islands Council; and Jane Tennant, chair of the Royal Town Planning Institute Scottish young planners network. Thank you for joining us.

We will move straight to questions. If any of our witnesses wishes to respond or contribute to the discussion, they should put an R in the chat box. There are quite a few of you, which is fantastic. We tend to direct our questions to one or two people initially, but if you feel that you have something important to say or highlight in response to a question or to bring into the conversation, please join in—unless, of course, the point has already been made. We have only 90 minutes for this session, and I might have to cut people off and move on to another question. I hope that that is okay.

Witnesses have repeatedly raised with us concerns about the vague language in the draft NPF4. Do you share those views? What language do you think needs to be improved or revisited to ensure that NPF4 delivers positive and concrete outcomes for our local communities? Perhaps I can start with Pam Ewen, because of what she has said in her written submission, and then go to Jane Tennant and Sarah Shaw.

Pam Ewen, you mentioned that the document is in draft and being consulted on, and that that is a process. Do you have any further thoughts on the dual consultation?

It is very good to hear about the more specific issues around the action zones, which feel like just swathes of colours on a map of Scotland. If we were not going to have action zones, what would be a good way to map out different areas of Scotland? Does Iain McDiarmid want to pick up on Paul McLennan’s question?

Thank you—that was helpful. I will bring in Calum Lindsay.

I will bring in Mark Griffin, who joins us on BlueJeans.

Thank you for those two important points. We will absolutely take them on board.

I want to thank our witnesses for their evidence. I have had a lot of questions in my mind and we have already taken a lot of evidence, but I feel that this evidence session has really helped fill in some gaps. I am sure that my colleagues have found it very useful, too.

We now move into private session.

Thank you very much—that was very helpful.

Thank you for being so succinct in your response.

I have a question on land assembly. Witnesses, including Planning Democracy and the Scottish Land Commission, have argued that NPF4 goals can be delivered only if the public sector takes a far more proactive role in land assembly and development. Do you agree with that and, if so, what needs to change for that happen? I am not quite sure who to direct that question to. Perhaps witnesses could put an R in the chat if they have a response and I will take a couple of responses.

Thank you very much for making that pretty crucial point. I will take Pam Ewen, to be followed by Iain McDiarmid and Craig Iles.

Would anyone else like to come in on that?