Chamber and committees

Thank you, that is great. I can see that Clare Symonds wants to come in, then I will let Robbie Calvert back in.

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2022 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent and that all notifications are turned off during the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is evidence on the draft of the fourth national planning framework. This is the second of five evidence sessions that the committee will hold on NPF4. The focus of today’s session is on planning, and we will hear from two panels. On 1 February, we will explore issues around housing, and on 8 February, we will look at local government issues. The committee will hear from the minister on 22 February.

I welcome the first panel to the meeting. Robbie Calvert is policy, practice and research officer at the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland; Clare Symonds is founder and chair of Planning Democracy; Ailsa Macfarlane is director of Built Environment Forum Scotland; Barbara Cummins is vice chair of Planning Aid for Scotland; and Christina Gaiger is president of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. Thank you very much for joining us today.

We will move straight to questions. If the witnesses wish to respond or to contribute to the discussion, they should put an R in the chat box to?indicate that, please. We tend to have the practice that whoever asks the question directs it to someone to initiate the discussion. However, do not feel that that means that you cannot come in if the question is not directed at you. Put an R in the chat function, and the clerks or I will pick that up.

The draft national planning framework represents a significant shift in national planning policy, with a new focus on issues of place, liveability, wellbeing and emissions reduction. Is the Scottish planning system set up to deliver such outcomes, or are changes needed? If so, what changes would you like to see? I direct that question initially to Robbie Calvert and then to Ailsa Macfarlane.

That was insightful. You have filled in some parts of the puzzle for me.

You talk about planning departments being pressed. Some of that comes from the right of recourse to appeals. Why do we have an appeal system? Developers can have a planning application refused but then take it to appeal. You are saying that constantly having to deal with that puts pressure on planning departments

Do you have any more questions, Miles?

In that case, we will move to questions from Mark Griffin.

That is a brilliant point to bring up. I have definitely been grappling with retrofit lately myself.

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am grappling with planning policy having to try to catch up with our new understanding of peatland, for example. Projects on peatland received planning consent perhaps a few years ago, when we did not really understand how peatland can help us with our carbon emissions if we look after it well. We need to consider whether we need to call a halt on projects that are going ahead and reconsider what we are doing.

I thank the witnesses for spending time with us this morning—we have gone into the afternoon. The evidence has been very useful. I wish that we had time to hear all your one-hour lectures on the various topics that you know so much about. In the coming years, we might see you again for other evidence sessions.

Cliff, do you have anything to add on that?

Thank you.

This has been a brilliant and illuminating discussion that has given me clarity on some points about which I have been mystified. I have a few questions. I will ask them of you all.

Should the Government require public bodies to procure a minimum percentage of their food from suppliers that are based in Scotland, and a minimum percentage of their food from organic farms?

I will do a preamble to my next question. The response from Scottish Land & Estates to the committee’s consultation notes that

“consumers will need an understanding of what constitutes ‘good food’”.

We have touched on that already. It also states:

“This will require clear labelling and a greater understanding of the provenance of Scottish produce.”

I ask the witnesses for their views on the importance and practicalities of enhanced food labelling, which could include the product’s carbon footprint, the method of production for livestock products, whether the food is ultraprocessed and, potentially, other categories.

I am sorry that I am rattling through my questions. I hope that the witnesses get the gist of them. I can jog their memories.

My final question refers to the Scottish Food Coalition’s consultation response, which stresses the importance of aligning

“Government business and trade policy … with the Good Food Nation goals”,

so that business incentives never encourage movement away from the goals. Do Robin Gourlay and Geoff Ogle agree with that recommendation? Do any of the witnesses have suggestions for how that could be achieved in practice?

I ask Mary Brennan to start by picking up on those three questions. They are about procuring from Scotland, food labelling and business incentives that encourage the good food nation goals.