Planning, Infrastructure and Place Advisory Group: annual report 2024

Appendix C: Short Life Working Groups (SLWG) & Additional Research

C.1 Winchburgh Short Life Working Group (SLWG)

Purpose

The Winchburgh SLWG was established to consider lessons learned from the Winchburgh Development (see Appendix B, Case Study B.1.) and consider whether these can be used to deliver further strategic development projects in Scotland.

Members

Members of the Winchburgh SLWG include:

• John Hamilton, Winchburgh Developments (Winchburgh project lead/private sector perspective).
• Pam Ewen, Head of Planning Scotland (planning, infrastructure and local authority perspective).
• Kat White, Scottish Government (SG policy/finance perspective).
• Susan Campbell, Scottish National Investment Bank (investment/funding/finance/commercial perspective).
• Tony Rose, Scottish Futures Trust (infrastructure and public/private partnership, PIPAG co-Chair).

Remit

To fully understand the structural model used at Winchburgh and lessons learnt in relation to key players, governance, risk-return sharing arrangements, financial mechanisms and outcomes. This included:

• Consider current and updated context e.g. funding, housing market, NPF4, 20 minute neighbourhoods/local living etc.
• Identify transferrable principles.
• Identify conditions for success (reflected in the case study, Appendix B.1.).
• Analyse governance requirements and co-ordination of stakeholders involved.

Programme

The Winchburgh SLWG met for a first workshop in March 2024. The group met 4-5 times over a 6 month period, with a second workshop in May 2024 and a final paper produced in August 2024 at the conclusion of the working group.

SLWG Considerations

The following structural and technical issues were identified for consideration by Scottish Government:

• how the Winchburgh risk-return sharing model would work in relation to current subsidy control rules.
• what appetite there is for Scottish Government to take on this type of risk/contingent liability either on a one-off basis or as a bundle.
• how best to develop selection criteria for supporting similar guarantees and the types of projects this would apply to.
• affordability considerations in terms of cost of guarantees and value for money for the public sector (including Local Authority borrowing) and private sector appetite to undertake projects in uncertain and high-cost construction market (particularly in relation to education and transport infrastructure.
• the resource and skills required in-house (by Scottish Government) and implications for other public sector actors (e.g. Local Authority finances; interactions with Scottish National Investment Bank and UK Infrastructure Bank); and
• the current structure of S75 Legal Agreements which leave Councils open to financial risk.

Further opportunity

• PIPAG shared the learning from Winchburgh with the group undertaking work on a potential Scottish Government Guarantee facility relating to the FM Investor Panel recommendations.
• There is the potential to further consider the application of a risk-return sharing approach to other sites across Scotland, based on the critical success factors and key learning points identified by the Winchburgh SLWG. This could be based on a number of defined scenarios (e.g. major housing, mixed-use and rural housing projects). The paper is to be shared with the Housing Investment Taskforce to inform the relevant workstreams being taken forward by that group.
• Aim to incorporate findings into planned work for the Infrastructure Investment Plan to aid delivery of NPF4 National Developments and Place-Based Investment.

C.2. Additional Research: Data in Infrastructure

This workstream looked at data in infrastructure and opportunities and challenges relating to data sharing and use in infrastructure planning. The main point resulting from meetings are below:

Current initiatives

Current initiatives in data sharing include the following:

• Improvement service (supported by HoPS) have developed a spatial planning hub of (largely public) planning and environment datasets for authorities. There is no charge for local government data and the intention is to move towards a consistent approach.
• SEPA’s Scotland’s Environment web is a hub for environment information such as blue and green infrastructure (which has relevance to PIPAG). The is an opportunity for wider key agencies groups to work together to create a single hub of data to support local development plans.
• CoSLA are working to improve economic and social data.
• Scottish Government Chief data officer is working to facilitate inter-operability and open data.
• SFT are a keeper and publisher of datasets (construction pipeline tool, data on electric vehicle investment, 4G coverage, digital estate etc). Internal work on datasets held to explore how they can be made more open and there is scope for PIPAG to lead on coordinating this.
• Work on place tech innovation lab and the data strategy as part of the SG Digital Planning programme.

Issues and Opportunities

• Various data hubs and unrealistic to bring all data together in one place. Opportunity lies in better sharing of data and openness.
• Data extracted and stored around infrastructure should be for the public good and the public sector should be willing to share that data.
• Consideration needs to be given to the volume, format and cost of data being stored.
• Data sovereignty and legal jurisdiction.
• Data’s value in relation to carbon performance.
• Data has a half-life and decays over time.
• Interest in how key gaps in data could be filled.
• Further work needed to address consistency between data sets.
• Smart buildings and designing in data collection. Minimum standards for smart buildings.

Next steps

• Highlight the findings from this discussion by feeding back to the advisory group and raise some questions / challenges for data holders to consider further.
• PIPAG could encourage the Scottish Public Sector to produce a data directory which makes public what data is available from which organisations and how to access it.
• PIPAG should also raise identified gaps with reference group members.
• PIPAG could also encourage sharing of best practice and innovation in the use of data for planning, infrastructure and place.
• To take this to the next level, there is also scope for PIPAG to consider further the extent to which the planning process, or another regulatory mechanism, can ask explicitly what data assets will be designed.