Seòmar agus comataidhean

In England, the strategic housing land availability assessment is used to look at the availability of land for housing over 15 years. I do not see what that looks like in NPF4. In my area, in Edinburgh, it is based on brownfield sites, 90 per cent of which have businesses currently on them, and those businesses have no idea where they will be moved to. Would it have been useful to have a longer-term vision—covering 15 years at least—relating to where homes might be built?

My questions follow on from Paul McLennan’s. It is quite clear from what we have heard that the devil is going to be in the detail, with regards to the guidance, especially transitional guidance.

What are your views on NPF4 and transitioning the planning system between how it stands now and how it potentially will stand, in relation to current planning applications in the system? What will that look like with regards to the housing crisis? It is a missed opportunity not to have that in NPF4. What could be lost in translation between now and NPF4 coming in?

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for joining us. I have some specific questions about land supply. Will NPF4, as it stands, bring forward the future development sites that we need to meet our housing to 2040 target?

Thank you.

I will try to cut my questions down to just two, convener.

It is clear that the witnesses’ opinion is that the climate and nature crises have been captured in NPF4. Should the housing crisis also be very much in the plan?

That is helpful. I would like to go into lots of detail about data sets, but we probably do not have time to do that today. It would be helpful to get your opinion after the meeting on where that currently is in relation to NPF4.

My final question returns to the issue of gender, which Professor Hague raised earlier. Many of the comments that the committee has received point towards what is often a male-dominated industry and the fact that decisions do not necessarily take into account other views, especially with regard to issues such as street layout and lighting. That has been raised with us on several occasions. Will the policies in the revised NPF4 deliver a built environment that meets the needs of women, children and disabled people?

Both witnesses have mentioned that they expect additional information to be provided in guidance. I have said that we need a review mechanism within NPF4 to ensure that land is forthcoming. Is such a mechanism available? You have pointed towards what our committee could look at, but should the guidance include that?

I might sound like a broken record on this, but as an Edinburgh MSP, I am concerned about the emphasis just on brownfield development, which is unlikely to be forthcoming here in the capital. There are very viable businesses currently on such sites and they have had no communication or real conversation on what the future looks like for them with NPF4.

What issues still need to be addressed around that pipeline of land in order to meet all the commitments that are in NPF4, especially in the context of the housing crisis?

All the committees that are looking at the NCS bill know that there is real concern out there in different sectors about what the service will look like and what detail they have not been part of. As the bill progresses through Parliament, it is critical that we start to get answers on that.

Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. I will ask a couple of questions that relate to some questions that have already been asked.

You said that you want to listen to folk whose rights are not being upheld and whose needs are not being met. Why, then, is the right to independent living not in the bill? In addition, given the concerns across Scotland about self-directed support—a policy with which we all agree—why is ensuring that we get that policy working properly not front and centre in the bill?