Seòmar agus comataidhean

That concludes our questions. It has been a useful discussion; it has been great to hear the Government’s position on guidance and to get into some of the details. The fact that a certain number of sites already have planning permission and you are looking into why that is not translating into housing being built on the ground is interesting.

I thank the minister and his officials for their evidence.

That concludes our questions, but I will pick up on a few threads, if you do not mind. Fulton MacGregor asked about dynamic documents. As I understand it, RTPI has said that its members and planners in general are finding that, although NPF4 is an unchanging document, many different bits of guidance pop up, so navigating and keeping track of them is a challenge. The metaphor that I use is that it is like walking through a field after a rainstorm and seeing all the mushrooms that have popped up: work is being done on a mycelial Government network and lots of things have appeared, but it is unclear how they link to each other. My sense is that the RTPI is asking for a dashboard or a way of organising all the materials in one place so that it is easy to see it all and where it has been updated. What are your thoughts on that?

My concern is that it would add another layer, in that there would be a requirement to set up a board. I think that Orkney Islands Council has demonstrated a good approach, which is to say, “We are going to set up this board. We are going to do this, get the funding and support the local place plan, rather than creating something new.” I am concerned that we will start to create lots of different streams of activity in communities where we do not have the capacity to manage it all.

When the Dunoon Community Development Trust produced its local place plan, it realised that it needed to create a community action plan. It is interesting that that work has triggered activity beyond the spatial plan. The committee identified early on that there is a connection between what is needed for spatial planning, public services and support for communities. That is quite interesting.

Finally, I want to take us back to the beginning of the conversation. Minister, earlier, you were talking about the fact that there are a certain number of sites that have planning permission. I do not think that the Government can necessarily rule on that but, as an example, I was speaking to a development trust in Highland, which pointed out that, in its area, there were 53 small sites where a private developer had received planning permission for a personal home that was not built, which means that there are 53 houses that could be being built but are not being built. You are all nodding your heads—as you know, one house in a community in rural Scotland can make the difference in keeping a community alive. Is there anything that can be done in the guidance or to create a culture of support for local authorities to somehow find a way to put those sites back into the mix so that communities could take a project forward?

I see your point that, at present, hutting takes place mostly on private land, but there is an incredible opportunity to have hutting happen on public land; that is why the trial is taking place. My amendment is about creating more opportunities, and possibly making it easier in some ways, for people to access that land. In addition, we have to acknowledge that there is quite a lot of public land surrounding communities that could become available to people.

Thank you, convener—it is good to be here. I apologise to colleagues that I was not able to be at the previous meeting because I was convening the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

Informal buildings, or huts, are important for a number of reasons. They provide a base for outdoor activity; enable the development of better understanding of our natural environment; encourage the development of new skills; provide a platform for the creation of cohesive communities; and contribute to sustainable rural development.

No Government-endorsed model lease currently exists for public bodies that are seeking to create plots of land for hutting. A lease has been trialled at Carnock in south-west Fife to enable a group of hutters to build 12 huts on the national forest estate. Amendment 380 would require ministers to publish a model lease for similar hutting developments that could be used by public bodies in other areas of the country. That would support further public access to land and outdoor recreation, which—I believe—we all understand is badly needed in Scotland.

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2025 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I remind all members and witnesses to ensure that their devices are on silent.

The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to take item 4 in private. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item on our agenda is an evidence-taking session as part of our annual review of the operation of the fourth national planning framework. We are joined in the room for this item by: Pamela Clifford, chair, Heads of Planning Scotland, otherwise known as HOPS; and Dr Caroline Brown, director of Scotland and Ireland, Royal Town Planning Institute. Online, we are joined by: Clare Symonds, chair, Planning Democracy; and Neil Sutherland, founding director, MAKAR Ltd. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting.

We have about 90 minutes for this discussion. Before I turn to questions, I want to acknowledge that planners across Scotland are doing the best that they can in changing circumstances. I want to put that on record, because while we are scrutinising and talking about challenging situations, I want to recognise the workers who are doing such important work for us.

I will start with an overarching question, which I will throw to you first, Caroline. Is there evidence that NPF4 is helping to deliver developments that actually support the six spatial priorities, such as compact urban growth and rural revitalisation, and, if not, why might that be the case? It is not a small question.

Thank you. Throughout the morning, we will be asking questions that will probably tease out some more of those issues.

Okay. There is something to recommend there, I think.

I will come back to Clare Symonds. In its evidence, Planning Democracy highlighted concerns about an overreliance on planning conditions to deliver biodiversity goals and argued that conditions are often not complied with and that enforcement action is relatively rare. Do you have a sense that conditions are flouted? If so, what needs to happen to increase compliance with planning conditions?

I will bring in Clare Symonds but, before I do, I need to say that we must all become a bit more succinct, as we are about halfway through our questions but more than halfway through our time. The evidence has all been very important, which is why I have allowed that to happen, but I give everyone notice that we might roll past 11 o’clock.