Seòmar agus comataidhean

That might be something that we can look into, as well. Active travel is a network, and it has a budget. It would be interesting to understand how that is progressing.

I have a final question about the national outcomes. Last week, the Scottish Government proposed a new set of national outcomes, including a new outcome for housing:

“We live in safe, high-quality and affordable homes that meet our needs.”

Earlier, our panellists spoke about the difficulty in aligning the various national policies. Could a new overarching national outcome for housing help with that alignment? To what extent does the delivery of NPF4 already connect with the existing national outcomes—for example, on communities and the environment? That is a small question to end. Does anybody have any thoughts about a new national outcome for housing?

Exactly.

We have come to the end of our questions. This is the first of a number of sessions that we will have on national planning framework 4, and it has been very helpful. Thank you very much for joining us.

I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

I welcome our witnesses on our second and final panel this morning. I apologise for starting quite a bit later than we anticipated, but we had a good first discussion on the national planning framework with the previous panel.

We are joined in the room by Kevin Murphy, head of planning at Homes for Scotland, and Ailsa Raeburn, chair of Community Land Scotland. Online, we are joined by Tony Cain, policy manager at the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, otherwise known as ALACHO, and Donna Young, co-ordinator at Rural Housing Scotland. I welcome you all.

We will try to direct our questions to a specific person initially but, if you want to come in, please indicate to me or the clerks. Donna and Tony, you can do that by typing R in the chat function and we will bring you in. There is no need to operate your microphones—we will do that for you.

I will start with a question for Kevin Murphy. How have house builders changed their approach to development in light of the policy priorities set out in NPF4, particularly with regard to climate change and biodiversity?

I will throw that question to Tony Cain as well.

I do not know whether you were watching the previous evidence session, which was more focused on the planning side. When you apply for permission, is there any evidence that the planning authorities have changed their approach because of NPF4?

When we produced NPF4, did we miss an opportunity to look at an urban framework and a rural one? Did we need to go there?

There is a question that I meant to ask earlier that is less about local place plans and more about the funding part. Do you think that the rural and islands housing fund needs to be more flexible—to use the term that Ronnie MacRae used last week—in acknowledging the requirement for all the different pieces of work that need to go together, such as the bat report and so on? Do you think that the funding process needs to acknowledge that better?

Thanks. Ailsa, do you have anything to add?

I have a question on the place principle, which Donna Young touched on when she gave her example of people being told that a two-way street was needed but that did not suit the community. I am interested in hearing from others about that. To what extent does the place principle that underpins the NPF4 delivery plan actually guide the actions of planning departments, developers and others? What could be done to further embed that principle in decision making?

That is a good point. Does anyone else want to comment on how the place principle is being delivered?