Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is great; thank you very much for that.

My next question is for Christina Gaiger, because she has already raised the issue. I want to explore the tension relating to use of existing buildings and places—in particular, the need to protect the historic built environment while also allowing the adaptations that are necessary in order to reduce carbon emissions. Does the draft NPF4 pay sufficient attention to the tension between the two competing issues?

What you have said is helpful, and it echoes a lot of my feelings on the issue.

Before I bring in Dr Brown, I want to take you back to the concept of community wealth building, which we touched on earlier. How does the idea of keeping wealth local fit in with the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods?

Before I ask my questions, I refer everybody to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am still a serving councillor on East Ayrshire Council.

I direct my first question to Robbie Calvert, because he was the first person to mention the issue this morning, although it has since been mentioned several times. Written submissions have raised concerns about the wording of national planning policy. We can think about things that have already been mentioned, including 20-minute neighbourhoods, community wealth building, carbon emissions and human rights. I brought up the issue with the chief planner last week, and I want to explore it. Is the wording insufficiently clear for decision-making purposes? How can it be improved? We have already heard this morning that it could lead to appeals and a very interpretation-based system. Do you have any suggestions and concrete thinking on how the wording could be improved?

Thank you. That is a really interesting point that we need to take on board. Clare, do you have any thoughts on that?

Thank you—although I will come straight back to you, because my last question is for you. My question is on the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement as set out in the draft NPF 4, which is there to support a consistent and more simple and transparent planning system for housing. I know that Planning Democracy has already submitted thoughts on that; we have also touched on it this morning. Do we need to make changes in order to achieve the aims of simplicity, consistency and transparency in housing land requirement? I would welcome your thoughts on that.

I do not want to cut you off, but I can see that Robbie Calvert would like to come in. Robbie, would you like to give us some brief thoughts?

Thank you for that. I see that Ailsa Macfarlane and Clare Symonds would like to come in. We are only halfway through our questions, so if you could make only additional comments that would be great.

Thank you, Professor Sparks.

My final question is for Dr Brown. Do you think that the policies in the draft NPF4 will produce an environment that meets the needs of children, women, older people and disabled people? If not, what changes would you like to see?

That is great, Dr Brown, and it is a really good segue into the question that I have for Professor Sparks.

A huge driver behind the draft NPF4 is living locally. Given your expertise on retail, Professor Sparks, do you think that the framework will drive local investment in planning, or will we still end up with out-of-town retail as opposed to in-town retail?