Chamber and committees

Most of us can see where new development has resulted in some of the new schools that are needed, but I do not think that we have seen that for GP services. I look at my area here in Edinburgh. Six or seven years ago, I asked questions about what investment was needed in our GP surgeries, and £60 million was the figure that was put forward at that point. New GP practices have not been built, but huge numbers of new houses have been, which are then absorbed into the current GP practices. It feels as though the situation is at breaking point in many communities, which are, quite rightly, campaigning for new practices. There is a recruitment side to the matter as well.

In relation to the pressures that our national health service is facing—especially around accident and emergency departments, when people go there instead of to their GP—and to whether a disconnect exists between new-build housing and the lack of development of additional GP capacity, where was the Government specifically looking? I understand that the issue sits in the different departments of health and planning, but there seems to be a specific issue in that a lot of additional homes are being built.

It is 47,000.

Thank you.

In your opening statement, you touched on the infrastructure levy, which the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 legislated for. If you intend to proceed with that, what is the timescale for its introduction?

Obviously, your portfolio sits between local government and planning. Yesterday, I was at a Perth and Kinross Council meeting to discuss some of its housing issues, specifically around empty homes. In Edinburgh, my council has more than 3,000 empty properties. Where are you trying to connect those two issues to provide the homes that we need?

Gordon MacDonald and I have raised that issue consistently with the council, which always says that it does not have the money to bring the properties back into use. In some cases, the council has not audited the properties to find out what works need to take place.

Given the housing emergency that the Government has declared, getting every home possible back into use seems like an important starting point.

Good morning, panel, and thanks for joining us here and online today. I want to ask a question about concerns that the committee has heard about the wording of some NPF4 policies, which people have stated are unclear. Do you have any examples of where you would like to see that improved? If not, we can move on to another question.

I hope that NPF4 has not driven Ian Aikman to an early retirement, but we will leave that to one side.

David Givan touched on how NPF4 can move towards delivery of an infrastructure-first approach. Gordon MacDonald and I represent Edinburgh and the Lothians, and we have seen huge amounts of development take place with new-build homes, but not necessarily with corresponding infrastructure. Are there examples of how NPF4 might help to move towards that and whether you have seen that change?

Good morning to the panel. I want to ask about NPF4 policies that encourage developers to build on brownfield sites and what else can be done to help support that. Specifically, we have heard concerns around decontamination costs. What impact has NPF4 made and is there is anything that you want to put on the record on that?

If no one wants to add to that, I will move on to the delivery of the infrastructure-first approach that is part of NPF4, and specifically whether or not there have been any changes around that. Here in Edinburgh, the west Edinburgh green network has specifically looked to embed walking and cycling connections for the developments that will grow to the west of the city.

Also—I will maybe bring Morag in—there is the grid upgrade and renewables projects that are coming forward. Housing may be one of the biggest workforce problems. What work is going on that is not necessarily outlined in NPF4, but the industry is taking forward?

We are short on time, so I will ask my last question, which is potentially more for the island and rural councils. There is conflicting evidence on the balance to be struck between NPF4 protecting areas with carbon-rich soils and the development of renewable energy infrastructure. What are your views on whether or not those things are in competition? We heard in evidence that the climate and nature emergencies sometimes rub up against planning in NPF4. Do you have any views on that?