National Planning Framework 4: integrated impact assessment post adoption statement

5. How the opinions expressed have been taken into account

5.1. Consultation and Engagement

5.1.1 Three rounds of formal engagement on NPF4 were undertaken from 2020 onwards: the Call for Ideas (2020)^[28], the Position Statement (2020)^[29] and the Draft NPF4^[30] (2021). The 'Call for Ideas' sought early views on NPF4 and ran from January to April 2020. Stakeholders were invited to consider Scotland in 2045 and reflect on planning policy changes and National Developments needed to get us there. The Call for Ideas was backed up with extensive stakeholder engagement and a roadshow around Scotland to hear what people had to say.

5.1.2 The November 2020 Position Statement set out an overview of likely key challenges, opportunities and potential policy changes, having reflected on the wealth of information and views received. It also reflected on the impacts of COVID-19 and what NPF4 can do to help societal and economic recovery. The consultation on the Position Statement received over 250 responses, with a broad support for the general direction of NPF4, the ambition on climate change, the focus on the place principle and the focus on 4 key outcomes.

5.1.3 The draft NPF4 was issued for consultation alongside the Integrated Impact Assessment on the 10 November 2021. Views were invited on 70 questions of which five related to the Environmental Report, six to the Society and Equalities Assessments, and one to the partial BRIA. Upon the closing of the consultation period on the 31 March 2022, 539 responses from organisations and 222 responses from individuals were received. Respondents from organisations included membership representative bodies, businesses, campaign groups, charities, research institutions and public sector bodies, including the SEA Consultation Authorities.

5.1.4 Further to the consultation outlined above, the draft NPF4 was subject to parliamentary scrutiny for a period of 120 days. A broad overview of committee consideration and parliamentary timeline for this period is given in the NPF4 explanatory report^[31].

5.2. Comments on the Draft National Planning Framework 4

5.2.1 A detailed independent analysis of the responses to the draft NPF4 consultation was published on 8 November 2022^[32]. Set out below are the main themes which emerged, together with the Scottish Government response. Further detail is contained in the Explanatory Report^[33] published alongside the Revised Draft NPF4 laid in the Scottish Parliament for approval on 8 November 2022.

5.2.2 Strategic hierarchy and relationships: A number of respondents commented on the inter-relationships between NPF4 and a range of other national, regional or local strategies or plans. A general observation was that NPF4 misses an opportunity to clearly state where it sits within the overall context of other Scottish Government plans and strategies. Being clear about the relationship between NPF4 and these related strategies was seen as offering the best chance of success, with the quality of alignment seen as key. It was suggested that this is especially important when it comes to the successful delivery of those individual planning policies which cross over into other areas and where strategies have complementary aims.

5.2.3 SG response: The narrative for each theme (Part 1) now covers links and relationships with other national strategies and policies. A new schematic (Table 1 in NPF4 as adopted) was added to show key policy links. A new 'How to Use this Document' Annex covers the roles of NPF and other plans in the planning system (including Regional Spatial Strategies, Local Development Plans and Local Place Plans) and also references Regional Transport Strategies.

5.2.4 Structure of NPF4: Respondents commented on the relationship between the different parts of the draft document, as well as its overall structure. Suggested changes or additions to the document included: setting out the interconnections across the national spatial strategy, National Developments and policy handbook; the use of schematics that illustrate how the different elements of NPF4 come together at different scales through a place-lens; and adding a statement in the early part of the document on how it complies with the various statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), and other related legislation.

5.2.5 SG response: The document has been restructured under 3 themes rather than 4, with Distinctive Places being removed (and policies under this heading redistributed), to focus on the three pillars of sustainable development: environment, people and economy. The narratives for each theme have been strengthened and additional detail on how the strategy will meet the statutory outcomes has been added. The Regional Spatial Strategies have been sharpened, more clearly focusing on the main issue for each area, including the main priorities for action and the relevant National Developments. A new schematic (Table 1 in NPF4 as adopted) was added to show how the spatial principles, national developments, policies and sustainable development goals and national outcomes connect.

5.2.6 Language: A frequently-raised issue related to the wording used across NPF4, including the frequent use of 'should'. It was suggested that this is ambiguous, and it is not clear where this means that the relevant policy must be complied with. Another frequent concern was around references to development being 'supported' or 'not supported', and there was a question as to whether this means that development is to be approved or not to be approved.

5.2.7 SG response: The wording, and use of language has been refined throughout, particularly within the policies, to provide greater clarity and consistency. Annex A – 'How to Use this Document' confirms that the policies are a package and must be read as a whole.

5.2.8 Part 1 – Spatial Strategy: A number of the comments addressed the deliverability of Liveable Places, with observations including that there is very little detail on how transformative social and economic change is going to be delivered. Respondents also commented on the importance of communities being empowered to be the key drivers of this change. There was support for the focus on the just transition to net zero and a nature positive economy. It was noted that the move to a greener economy could provide opportunities for business development, job creation and investment in communities, through community wealth building. In relation to rural, highland and islands settings, it was suggested that their distinctive socio-economic and market characteristics require a flexible, responsive approach to development, taking account of local context and need. It was noted that the concept of Distinctive places is already well embedded in the planning system and there were concerns around how high level strategy translates into the individual policies required for delivery. There was support for a stronger commitment to placemaking.

5.2.9 SG response: The spatial strategy section has been re-presented. We have moved from 4 themes to 3 to better reflect the three pillars of sustainable development. The narrative to each theme in Part 1 has been updated and wording sharpened. Clear linkages to other relevant policies and strategies have been added. Priorities for each theme along with National Developments that will help to deliver the theme have been more clearly presented. Text outlining cross-cutting outcomes and policy links has also been added.

5.2.10 Part 2 – National Developments: A number of issues were raised in relation to the implications of National Development status, including suggestions that it should carry a presumption in favour of planning consent. It was also suggested that guidance will be needed with respect to how to balance the competing priorities of different National Developments, and that it would be helpful to explain how National Developments might interact with Regional Spatial Strategies and the NPF4 action areas. In relation to the selection of National Developments, it was suggested it would be helpful to set out the rationale for selecting those chosen and why some are conceptual, and others are existing proposals.

5.2.11 SG response: The main document now includes a summary of each development, whilst the technical descriptions have been moved to Annex B. We have also made connections to the National Developments in each of the action areas. These structural changes also reflect Committee comments received. The preamble to the statements of need has been revised and moved to Annex B with some elements taken into the Delivery Programme. An additional paragraph has been added to the preamble at Annex B to take account of impact assessment findings. Each national development has been updated, with many of the changes being relatively minor. However, in response to both consultation views and the associated impact assessments, more substantive changes have been made to the Islands Hub for Net Zero, Dundee Waterfront, the Circular Economy Materials Management Facilities and Hunterston Strategic Asset. Some respondents also provided a range of national development suggestions in addition to those proposed in the draft. No further National Developments were taken forward on the basis that the additional proposals had previously been considered following the earlier Call for Ideas; are more of a policy or strategy than development; are likely to be of sub-national impact in spatial planning terms; and/or already have consents in place or construction is advanced.

5.2.12 Part 3 – National Planning Policy: Across the policies, there were frequent requests for greater clarity, including through the inclusion of definitions of key terms and/or by providing further information or guidance. There were also a number of references to polices being strengthened, including by requiring, rather than permitting, their application. This latter point was often connected to the more frequent use of 'must', rather than 'should'. There were a number of comments about how the application of the Universal Policies in the Draft NPF4 related to the application of other NPF4 policies, and in particular whether the Universal Policies were expected to take precedence.

5.2.13 SG response: Universal policies have been removed. Each policy has been set out to ensure that the policy intent and outcome are clear. Instructions for Local Development Plans have been separated out to remove confusion with development management policies and there is tightened wording throughout. We have also added links to other key policy connections and identified which spatial principles will be delivered through each policy. Annex A - How to Use this Document confirms that the policies are a package and must be read as a whole.

5.2.14 Part 4 – Delivering Our Spatial Strategy: A number of respondents commented that a delivery plan would have been helpful to support the Draft NPF4. The importance of the delivery strategy was highlighted, including to provide confidence to all sectors involved in the built environment. There was broad agreement that monitoring will be an essential part of the NPF process, and also that it will be a significant and challenging undertaking. In terms of overall responsibilities, it was suggested that monitoring of NPF4 should be led and undertaken by the Scottish Government as the coordinating authority.

5.2.15 SG response: A delivery programme has been published alongside the Revised Draft, which sets out how the priorities in NPF4 align with wider investment programmes. Section 5 covers monitoring and evaluation. The Scottish Government is committed to updating the delivery programme within six months of adoption, and annually thereafter.

5.3. Comments on the Environmental Report

5.3.1 The following five questions were included in the consultation to help frame responses on the Environmental Report:

• What are your views on the accuracy and scope of the environmental baseline set out in the environmental report?
• What are your views on the predicted environmental effects of the draft NPF4 as set out in the environmental report?
• What are your views on the potential health effects of the proposed national developments as set out in the environmental report?
• What are your views on the assessment of alternatives as set out in the environmental report?
• What are your views on the proposals for mitigation, enhancement and monitoring of the environmental effects set out in the environmental report?

5.3.2 The views and comments received have been summarised below.

5.3.3 Accuracy and scope of environmental baseline: Positive comments about the accuracy and scope of the baseline set out included that it is comprehensive, appropriate and proportionate to enable the impacts of implementing NPF4 to be suitably measured through monitoring arrangements. Elements which respondents particularly welcomed included the extensive use of maps, the identification of key pressures and trends affecting the baseline, and the recognition of the undesignated historic environment. However, there were also some broader concerns. These included that there are many caveats, the baseline is not far-reaching enough, and that the lack of data for the last 3-4 years, especially in the water and pollution context, is problematic. There was also a concern that the baseline appears to be centred on analysis and statistics principally provided by NatureScot. There was a call for an independent scientific review of the accuracy and scope of the environmental baseline, to ensure that this is the correct starting point. There was also a view that the environmental baseline is very optimistic, including in relation to biodiversity losses, the condition of our soils, and the state of our freshwaters and some marine habitats.

5.3.4 Predicted environmental effects: Some respondents either noted that they agreed, or agreed in principle, with the predicted effects. However, it was also suggested by some respondents that the assessment is inadequate, or optimistic. It was also described as hard to validate and there was call for further detail on how biodiversity, climate and environmental targets are decided upon, and are to be measured and enforced. It was also suggested that the significance of NPF4 in meeting the requirements of relevant environmental legislation is not made clear in the SEA. An example given was that in relation to National Development (ND) 7 (Island Hub for Net Zero), it is noted that consideration needs to be given to the implications of European sites.

5.3.5 SG response: Early findings from the IIA helped to inform the preparation of the revised NPF4, including the National Developments. Early and emerging findings from the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) in particular led to direct amendments to Islands Hub for Net Zero National Development, and Dundee Waterfront, including the removal of relevant classes of development as the emerging appropriate assessment identified (on the basis of information available at this stage in the planning process) that it was not possible to conclude that those particular classes could be progressed without adversely affecting European sites.

5.3.6 Potential health effects of proposed national developments: Broad agreement with the potential health effects as set out, but also views that positive impacts do rest on the positive environmental impacts identified being achieved. Other general issues raised included that prioritising biodiversity and nature recovery through planning policy has immense potential for restoring human health and wellbeing. An alternative view was that Scottish Government energy policies are impacting negatively on communities, land and seas. There was specific reference to families living near windfarms.

5.3.7 SG response: Policy 11 (Energy) ensures that potential impacts on communities, nature and other receptors remain an important consideration in the decision-making process for renewable energy proposals. There is also a specific criterion within the policy which requires noise and flicker impacts are addressed through project design and mitigation.

5.3.8 Assessment of alternatives: It was considered that the assessment was potentially very useful, or that respondents agreed with it in principle. Alternatively, it was suggested by some that not enough detail had been provided, that the assessment was inadequate, or was focused on the interests of the Central Belt. There was also a view that reasonable alternatives should have been identified, particularly where adverse environmental effects are likely. For example, given that the discussion of alternatives to Policy 19 (Green energy) recognises that it is difficult to predict how impacts may differ between the proposed policy and current Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), and that keeping the existing SPP approach would mean a greater level of protection may be afforded to sites and species, it was suggested that the existing approach should be retained. The assessment of the alternative national developments was welcomed, although it was assumed that further assessment will consider the environmental impact of proposals in further detail. A number of specific alternatives that respondents wanted to see included, or given greater coverage, were also put forward.

5.3.9 SG response: Our assessment findings and the comments received have been taken into account in finalising NPF4. Where suggestions were received for national developments which were not considered further for national development status, these informed development of the wider strategy as appropriate. Further information is available in the National Developments Report of Assessment^[34].

5.3.10 Mitigation, enhancement and monitoring: While some respondents noted their agreement with the proposals for mitigation, enhancement and monitoring, others saw them as inadequate, suggested they were unenforceable, or suggested that insufficient information has been provided. Other comments included concerns that NPF4 will not protect and enhance biodiversity to the extent needed to deliver transformational change without a clear mechanism for delivering biodiversity enhancement, and clear wording to ensure the mitigation hierarchy is followed. An associated point was that NPF4 will be influential in determining the focus and content of LDPs, as well as determining development proposals. Given this, it was described as imperative that the findings of the SEA lead to actions which are embedded into NPF4, and that the SEA is not used as a barrier to implementation but as an opportunity to incorporate strong environmental principles throughout NPF4. With specific reference to mitigation, comments included that it should not be used as an excuse for allowing otherwise unacceptable environmental degradation or damage. In relation to monitoring, it was suggested that the Environmental Report does not appear to set out any detailed monitoring arrangements, making it difficult to comment on the suitability of the monitoring programme.

5.3.11 SG response: Language in NPF4 policy 3 (biodiversity) has been tightened to reference the mitigation hierarchy. The NatureScot guidance document, 'Developing With Nature'^[35] supports finalised NPF4 policy on Biodiversity in relation to local development proposals. We have also commissioned research to explore options for developing a biodiversity metric or other tool, specifically for use in Scotland.

5.4. Comments on the Society and Equalities Impact Assessment

5.4.1 The six questions used in the consultation to help frame responses on the Society and Equalities Impact Assessment were:

• What are your views on the evidence and information to inform the society and equalities impact assessment?
• Do you have any comments on the findings of the equalities impact assessment?
• Do you have any comments on the findings of the children's rights and wellbeing impact assessment?
• Do you have any comments on the Fairer Scotland duty and the draft NPF4?
• Do you have any comments on the consideration of human rights and the draft NPF4?
• Do you have any comments on the islands impact assessment?

5.4.2 The following sections summarise the responses received to each of the above questions.

5.4.3 Evidence and information: General comments included that the evidence and information appear reasonable, or that the breadth and scope of the baseline information is good. However, there was also a view that the evidence and information, or the EQIA process, is not objective. It was also suggested that the recommendations within the EQIA could be more strongly reflected in NPF4's policies, for example, in relation to housing need, equality and human rights. In terms of the assessment process, comments included that the non-technical summary should be a living document, especially given the long-term nature of NPF4. It was suggested that the Equality and Human Rights Commission's measurement framework for equality and human rights may assist both government and local authorities with the collection of equality data. There was also a recommendation that Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) benchmarks, measures and reporting be carried out in order to track and monitor progress on EDI on an annual basis, as well as society and equalities impact assessments. In relation to the evidence used, it was noted that the EQIA references a broad evidence base and cites various reports that are not referred to in the draft NPF4. It was described as heartening to see that such a body of evidence had been considered, but it was noted that the confinement of this evidence base to the EQIA requires that this be read in order for the policies in NPF4 to be understood in their entirety. Finally, it was noted that while the EQIA cites a comprehensive range of evidence to show how planning may impact on protected groups, this is presented without criticism or comment, and it is therefore left up to the reader to interpret how to use this information to deliver equal outcomes for all groups.

5.4.4 SG response: These comments have been noted. Further information on NPF4 monitoring is set out in section 7 below, and in the NPF4 Delivery Programme v1^[36] available online.

5.4.5 EQIA Findings: General comments included that while it is welcome that 'improving equality and eliminating discrimination' is a stand-alone outcome of NPF4, there is also a need to apply an equality lens/priority to each of the other required high-level outcomes and the ensuing strategies, developments and policies. It was suggested more could be done to emphasise the cross-cutting nature of improving equality and eliminating discrimination. For example, it was suggested that most, if not all, of the actions and policies identified in the draft NPF4 can and should identify how they will support this high-level outcome. The concern was, if not considered from the outset, there is a risk that inequalities will be overlooked, reinforced, perpetuated or exacerbated at implementation stage. It was suggested that in order to move beyond 'suggestions' and 'potential', there needs to be clear evidence and strategies throughout NPF4 on how this will be achieved in practice.

5.4.6 SG response: The NPF4 was revised to include a cross-cutting outcome on 'A fair and inclusive planning system' which sets out at a high level how the policies and engagement opportunities interact to support development that helps eliminate discrimination and promote equality.

5.4.7 CRWIA Findings: General comments included that the involvement of children and young people in the preparation of NPF4 is welcome. There was a concern that the conclusions drawn in the Children's Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment are simplistic, and that children's human rights and wellbeing would be better protected by much more explicit mention and signposting to other relevant policy objectives, such as the SHANAARI principles (Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible and Included) and Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC). Other comments included that while the Impact Assessment includes a good range of evidence, it misses out a few key pieces of place-based research of relevance such as The Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland report, Scot Youth and COVID 2. In terms of general issues or themes, it was suggested that the planning process can make a critical difference to tackling poverty and noted that tackling child poverty is a priority for the Scottish Government. Associated suggestions included that a greater focus on child poverty would ensure that child poverty is given suitable priority within planning decisions; it was noted that child poverty is only mentioned once within the draft NPF4.

5.4.8 SG response: NPF4 as adopted recognises the importance of place and continued investment in regeneration, targeted to areas where the need is greatest. The spatial strategy as a whole is clear that our future development must support a just transition, and it highlights opportunities for development and regeneration that are designed to tackle social, economic and health inequalities. Policy 16 (Quality homes) in particular recognises the value of more energy efficient, net zero emissions homes, supporting a greener, fairer and more inclusive wellbeing economy and community wealth building, tackling both fuel and child poverty. Where specific suggestions have been made regarding evidence and data, these are noted and will help to inform future assessments.

5.4.9 Fairer Scotland duty: General comments included that it is good to see the Fairer Scotland duty reflected. Particular aspects of the Impact Assessment that were welcomed included the recognition that income is a strong determinant for people's ability to respond to, and recover from, climate change impacts and that our future places and spaces need to contribute to improving equality and eliminating discrimination. It was also noted that the assessment has identified a number of key policies which will help tackle inequalities and poverty, including NPF4's spatial strategy, thematic policies and proposed national developments. However, there was also a concern that the draft NPF4 had an urban bias, or specifically is biased towards the Lothians. There was an associated need for equality of access to services across Scotland, including through necessary and timely investment, for example in digital and transport infrastructure.

5.4.10 SG response: Care has been taken to ensure policies reflect the specific needs and constraints of rural areas. Policy 13for exampleensures that in assessing the transport impacts of development, the area's needs and characteristics are taken into account. Policy 15aims to promote local living in broad terms, including through 20 minute neighbourhoods, recognising the importance of varying settlements patterns and the particular characteristics and challenges of different areas in applying these principles in practice. Policy 24 will support the delivery of digital infrastructure to support investment and population growth in rural areas. NPF4 recognises that there remain issues of digital connectivity and includes a Digital Fibre Network as a national development. It aimsto enhance the connectivity of communities and help to facilitate more sustainable ways of living, including in rural and island communities. Policy 28also recognises the importance of retail facilities for rural communities and economies. Policy 29 encourages rural development that is sustainable and contributes to the viability and diversity of rural communities.

5.4.11 Human rights: A number of respondents expressed disappointment that there is not currently a specific Human Rights Impact Assessment. Further connected comments included that housing is a human right, but there is no reference to this in NPF4, nor any of the supporting documents. It was suggested that it is vital that Articles 17 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be afforded weight in the preparation of NPF4.

5.4.12 SG response: Human rights were embedded throughout the policy making process and are recognised in the cross-cutting outcome 'A Fair and Inclusive Planning System'. The Integrated Impact Assessment recognises that everyone in Scotland has the right to an adequate standard of living, including both adequate housing and adequate food (Article 25).

5.4.13 Islands Impact Assessment: General comments included a view that no consideration had been given to the island communities affected by development policies. There was specific reference to the treatment of the islanders of Orkney and Shetland, and it was suggested that there needs to be more proactive engagement with island communities about planning. Respondents also highlighted a range of issues that affect island communities, including housing, childcare provision, and lack of stable employment. Although an assessment dedicated to island communities was welcomed, it was noted that many mainland communities experience similar issues of fragility and isolation. There was a query as to how these communities might receive the dedicated focus and actions that has been applied to island communities.

5.4.14 SG response: Improving community involvement in the planning system has been a key aim of planning reformfrom the outset. It is vital that local people have the opportunity to engage meaningfully and have a positive influence in the future planning of development in their areas. Provisions within the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 will provide enhanced opportunities for communities and the public at large to engage in shaping the places they stay. The challenges faced by island communities are shared with much of rural Scotland, and often have similarities with other communities that suffer disadvantages, for example in accessing public services or high quality employment. However, the consequences of geography (including higher costs and environmental factors) can create particular problems for island communities and people have felt abandoned and disadvantaged by central-based governance systems. Issues which impact on all islanders to some extent, those relating to access to transport or adequate housing for example, may be acutely felt by some groups more than others and require targeted measures in order to redress the inequality experienced. The Islands Act was the first step in remedying these challenges. NPF4 recognises the role of encouraging rural economic activity, innovation and diversification whilst ensuring that the distinctive character of the rural area, and the service function of small towns, natural assets and cultural heritage are safeguarded and enhanced.

5.5. Comments on the Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment

5.5.1 Question 70 of the consultation asked for comments on the Partial BRIA, and received 45 responses.

5.5.2 General observations included that there is little tangible information on costs provided. A number of respondents noted their concern that the cumulative resource burden of NPF4 on planning authorities is not recognised in the partial BRIA. The BRIA's suggestion that replacing most local policies with national planning policies will free up time and resources for local authorities to focus on spatial elements in their development plans was questioned. There was also doubt that the introduction of a Minimum All-Tenure Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR) for each planning authority will reduce the workload of local authorities.

5.5.3 SG response: The national planning policies that will apply across Scotland are intended to reduce the need for different policies to be put in place by individual planning authorities. This will provide greater consistency, predictability and certainty for businesses, and other stakeholders, on the issues that must be addressed by specific proposals regardless of where they are located. This should result in cost savings arising as a result of not having to engage with different local authorities on different policies and also free up resources for local authorities to bring forward development plans that primarily focus on the spatial issues within their areas. Although some consultation responses query these cost savings, we remain of the view that the new system will result in savings to authorities in this regard.

5.5.4 Responses to the partial BRIA highlighted that business may be impacted where NPF4 policies introduce requirements for assessments to be undertaken in new work areas. Further, there was doubt that cost savings will outweigh the need in local authorities for resource and skills to deal with new work areas. However, where additional requirements are more significant, primarily in relation to climate change related policies, additional guidance and skills development will be undertaken.