Chamber and committees

That is helpful.

When the committee was doing work on NPF4 and I spoke to members of the public and my constituents, one thing that came up was the infrastructure first approach. For a lot of people, there is often frustration when development takes place—such as a new primary school, a general practitioner surgery investment or even just play parks—and parts of designs are not delivered. We had some good examples, such as Bertha Park secondary school in Perthshire, where the school was built early and to plan. Has that infrastructure first approach started to be embedded in planning over—this is quite a short period—the past year? It is certainly something that members of the public want to see NPF4 deliver.

Thank you for that.

Thanks and good morning. I asked a question of the previous panel about some of the concerns that have been raised with the committee about the wording of some of the policies in NPF4 being unclear and leading to inconsistent decision-making. We have heard evidence about evidence reports and how different councils are looking at the guidance not being in place. What is your experience of that and what solutions do you think could be put in place to have a more consistent approach?

Thank you; that is helpful, and leads on quite well to my next question on the infrastructure first approach. I wanted to ask whether there has been a different approach. We touched on some of the potential section 75 reforms, but, as a Lothian MSP, I think that the regional growth that we have seen in house building has not necessarily been matched by the necessary infrastructure. There are predictions that around 80 per cent of all future growth will be here in Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland, so we need to make sure that we take that infrastructure first approach.

How do you think NPF4 is helping to facilitate that and, if it is not, how could it be tweaked to ensure that the services that we will all rely on will be there, especially in the significant developments in the peripheral areas of the capital, for example? Tony Cain, do you want to answer that, and then anyone else can come in?

That is helpful. Some of the evidence we have had on settlements with flood defences has shown that it is becoming proportionately difficult to take them forward. Catriona Hill, did you want to come in on that?

How could that be reformed? We can think of planning gain and the amount of money that a new build house, for example, provides a local authority. People will often complain that that money has been lost in the system or lost in translation in relation to a new primary school and, especially, GP surgeries. Here in Edinburgh, that is one of the biggest issues, given the amount of new build homes that we have had and will have, and the predicted developments that we will be seeing. Does that need to change so that the money that is allocated has to go to the projects that the community has been led to believe that they would enjoy? It seems to happen with retail in communities, so why not public services? Why is that not necessarily being better managed within NPF4? From what you have said, it does not seem as though that has really improved the picture.

I want to ask a question that follows on from Gordon MacDonald’s earlier line of questioning about town centre regeneration. Here in Edinburgh, a lot of former office sites are being changed to housing and other sites have become student housing, for example. I know that some colleagues across Parliament from more rural areas have seen their high streets completely disappear where, in the past year, NPF4 does not seem to have facilitated any real change. It could help to look towards housing being part of that. What different model needs to be provided to make that stack up financially for developers to look at town centre regeneration in a completely different way and facilitate that? Do you have any views on what currently is not in NPF4 that could help to shape that?

Good morning, panel. Thank you for joining us today. I wanted to ask a question about some of the concerns that have been put to the committee around wording in NPF4 policies being unclear and leading to inconsistent decision making. We have heard specific concerns with regards to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s strict interpretation of NPF4. Could the panel provide examples of how that has been the case over the last year and how that could be addressed?

That is helpful. Thank you for that.

Ailsa Macfarlane, I want to go back to the points you made earlier regarding community wealth building, which is the committee has been looking at. Do you feel that NPF4 has gained greater prominence in planning decisions since its introduction? Do you have any examples of what that might look like?

Does anyone else have anything they want to add?