On 12 May, RTPI Scotland submitted a response to the Scottish Government's consultation on the the Draft Infrastructure Strategy 2027-2037. Read the response below.

About the RTPI

At the Royal Town Planning Institute (the RTPI), we champion the value of planning in building thriving places and communities. With over 27,000 members worldwide, we support planners at every stage of their career: raising professional standards, shaping planning policy, and proudly awarding chartered status, the highest professional accreditation in UK planning.

For over a century we have empowered planners to deliver positive impact: creating healthy, inclusive, economically and environmentally sustainable places. As the voice of the profession, we advocate, support, and lead with purpose, professionalism, and passion.

1. Do you agree with the scope and role of the Infrastructure Strategy?

Yes.

RTPI Scotland broadly supports the scope and role of the Infrastructure Strategy as set out in the consultation paper.

We agree that it’s role should be as part of a broader framework, which sets out the long-term aspirations and approaches for infrastructure delivery as a foundation upon which future spending reviews, budgets and infrastructure projects/programmes should be based. We believe such an approach has the potential to deliver an overarching framework that can embed the necessary flexibility to be responsive to shifting economic and financial pressures.

We also support the intention for the Strategy to take a place-based approach over a 10-year lifespan, with a 5-year refresh cycle. This has the potential to align well with local development plans (LDPs) which are central to achieving a place-based approach and which also have a lifespan of 10 years.

A place-based approach to infrastructure delivery is essential to maximise the opportunity and impact of existing and proposed assets that meet the needs and enhance the resilience of the local communities they serve. For the Infrastructure Strategy to achieve this outcome, it will need to have a strong relationship with Scotland’s Development Plan – i.e. NPF4 and the LDPs that are now in the process of being prepared by local planning authorities across Scotland. Chapter 6 of the consultation paper acknowledges that LDPs “can from the basis to co-ordinate infrastructure funding and phasing” and NPF4 states that LDPs “should align with relevant national, regional and local infrastructure plans and policies”. However, the consultation paper does not clearly address the relationship between this proposed Infrastructure Strategy (and the infrastructure framework as a whole) and the LDPs that are now in the process of being prepared, including how the anticipated timelines for the strategy’s publication will impact on the work that local planning authorities are currently doing to adopt new-style Local Development Plans by the May 2028 deadline.

2. Do you think the proposed framework, linking the 30-year Needs Assessment, 10-year Infrastructure Strategy, Spending Reviews and annual Budgets will support improved strategic planning and delivery?

Agree.

As previously stated, we support the proposed approach to adopt an overarching framework that links the 30-year needs assessment, 10-year infrastructure strategy, spending review and annual budgets. We also fully support a place-based approach to infrastructure planning, funding and delivery.

To fully achieve this, however, there is a need to address how this Strategy will work together with Scotland’s Development Plan (NPF4 and the LDPs), which is the foundation of and integral to achieving a place-based approach to infrastructure delivery.

3. Do any elements of the Infrastructure lifecycle need to be strengthened to promote more effective infrastructure planning and delivery?

Yes.

RTPI Scotland broadly agrees that the infrastructure lifecycle set out in the consultation paper addresses the key lifecycle stages for an individual project.

We would welcome further details on the ‘Evaluation and Learning’ stage of the lifecycle. In particular, what indicators will be used to appropriately and accurately measure the impact of a project to ensure that the evaluation stage has a meaningful and positive impact on future planning and improvement outcomes?

In addition, whilst the lifecycle is useful when treating infrastructure projects as isolated assets, we do not believe the lifecycle as it currently stands will achieve the place-based objectives of this consultation paper. To achieve place-based outcomes, the lifecycle should not be applied to each infrastructure asset in isolation. It must consider where a project sits within the bigger place-making picture. This will require, for example, broader collaboration not just with other public sector providers, but with a variety of other stakeholders who will be impacted by the infrastructure asset’s purpose, location and design to ensure that the asset can achieve broader place-based outcomes beyond that of its immediate purpose and function. For example, designing infrastructure to achieve biodiversity enhancement in accordance with Policy 3 of NPF4 and to further support the local living and blue and green infrastructure objectives of NPF4 (to name just a few).

In addition to the above, the Business Case Development for a project should not just be about alignment with other programmes and projects, but also with the policy objectives of NPF4 and the relevant LDPs, as well as with the existing spatial fabric of the place which it will form a part. For infrastructure projects to take a truly place-based approach, the business case should not just be centred on the asset’s primary purpose, but also on its broader potential to enhance the function, design, liveability and biodiversity of a place.

The above are just a few examples of where we believe the place-based approach to infrastructure delivery could be better embedded in the strategy’s infrastructure lifestyle. In our view, this is necessary to support an approach to infrastructure delivery that works for the benefit of whole places and communities.

4. In what areas could changes to governance or planning processes across the public sector improve the impact of the investment hierarchy?

Strategic alignment, collaboration, business case development, evaluation and learning, lifecycle planning.

Spatial planning has a significant role to play to ensure we are taking a place-based approach to infrastructure delivery. It is our view that the investment hierarchy must have greater regard to Scotland’s spatial planning framework to deliver the necessary place-based outcomes. Scotland’s Development Plan (NPF4 and the relevant LDP) will be critical to support the objectives of the Infrastructure Strategy which, along with its other responsibilities, assists in determining future infrastructure need. This is not currently adequately recognised in the investment hierarchy, which is concerning. To achieve a place-based approach that aligns with Scotland’s Development Plan, the timing of the strategy’s publication will be important to ensure that it can be taken into account during the LDP preparation process in a way that does not hamper or cause delay to this process – which is currently underway and at varying stages across Scotland’s local planning authorities.

In addition to the above, for larger, cross boundary and strategic infrastructure, RTPI Scotland has previously highlighted the important role that Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) can play to ensure the coordinated and place-based approach to infrastructure delivery. We are aware of certain local authorities who are charging ahead with RSSs, despite a lack of Scottish Government guidance. It will be important, as with the LDP, for any future RSS to have regard to and help facilitate the outcomes of any future Infrastructure Strategy, which in turn must support the outcomes and objectives of NPF4 to achieve a place-based approach. The consultation paper states that guidance on the preparation and content of RSS will be published ‘in due course’.

Whilst we are fully supportive of such guidance being prepared, we recommend this be conducted in consultation with local planning authorities, particularly those who have already commenced work on their RSS, to ensure that the guidance can support this work rather than causing potential confusion and conflict.

In addition to the above and as previously stated, we would welcome further details on the ‘Evaluation and Learning’ stage of the lifecycle. In particular, what indicators will be used to appropriately and accurately measure the impact of a project to ensure that the evaluation stage has a meaningful and positive impact on future planning and improvement outcomes?

5. Do you agree that enabling net zero and environmental sustainability, driving economic growth, and building resilient places continue to be the right outcomes to guide infrastructure investment over the next decade?

Strongly agree.

6. Are the three proposed enablers, public assets, place-making, and private investment, sufficient to deliver the Strategy's outcomes? Are there other enablers we should consider instead/additionally? Please specify.

Yes.

Broadly speaking, RTPI Scotland supports the proposed enablers set out in the consultation paper. However, we note that the consultation provides only a brief summary of each enabler. This summary does not capture all the nuances of how the enablers intersect and interact with each other. Nor does it capture the entire repertoire of mechanisms, strategies and approaches that are already available to deliver each of the enablers and outcomes. It is important that the enablers set out in the Strategy are not set out in a way that is too limiting, or which fail to capture their most critical properties that will help to deliver the place-based outcomes sought by the Strategy. For example, the ‘place making enabler’ of ‘creating thriving communities’ talks about joint planning and co-operation by everyone involved to achieve a ‘good understanding of local needs and circumstances’ but does not make any reference to the Place Principle (referred to once throughout the entire consultation paper in Chapter 6).

The Place Principle was formally adopted by the Scottish Government and COSLA to create a shared understanding of place and to provide a shared context for place-based work. It is our view that embedding the Place Principle into any future Infrastructure Strategy will be integral to the delivery of place-based outcomes. Whilst the language under the placemaking enabler appears to support the Place Principle’s intention, it would benefit from direct reference to ensure that this principle is firmly embedded into the rationale of the strategy’s enablers. A single passing reference (as in Chapter 6 of the consultation paper) will not achieve this. In addition, whilst the reference to NPF4 under the placemaking enabler is positive, this represents only half of Scotland’s Development Plan. No reference is made to the important role of LDPs and other supportive spatial planning tools and mechanisms that are essential to deliver positive place making and place-based outcomes.

More broadly, we note that the consultation paper as a whole appears to cherry pick aspects of Scotland’s planning system that could support its delivery but does so in a manner that is haphazard and does not take a consistent approach that firmly establishes the vital role that spatial planning will play in delivering its place-based outcomes. This will need to be addressed in the final strategy if it is to have meaningful impact.

7. What mechanisms or approaches should the Infrastructure Strategy adopt to ensure that cross-cutting priorities, such as housing delivery, regional economic development, and natural infrastructure are systematically embedded in investment planning and decision making?
Please specify.

As previously submitted, we are pleased to see that it is the intention of the Strategy to take a place-based approach to infrastructure delivery. This aligns with NPF4’s infrastructure first principle. We are concerned, however, that infrastructure first has fallen to the wayside since NPF4’s adoption. This Strategy presents an opportunity to put the infrastructure first principle front and centre as part of its place-based approach to infrastructure delivery. However, despite this, ‘infrastructure first’ is only mentioned a handful of times in the consultation paper, almost in passing in relation to the paper’s references to NPF4 and local living. It does not appear to have been recognised as integral to the delivery of place-based outcomes which, in our view, is a missed opportunity and a concerning oversight.

In addition to the above, it is also worth highlighting that whilst we support strong alignment between the infrastructure strategy and Scotland’s Development Plan, there are inconsistencies between how “infrastructure” is defined in the consultation paper as compared to NPF4. NPF4 specifically defines infrastructure for the purposes of applying the infrastructure first principle as infrastructure related specifically to communications, transport, water management, energy, health and social care, education, green and blue infrastructure and play and recreation spaces.

This definition covers a lot of ground but does not capture all types of infrastructure that have been included in this consultation paper and, notably, does not include housing. This has the potential to create a disconnect between the Infrastructure Strategy and Scotland’s Development Plan that is concerning. RTPI Scotland fully support the broader definition of infrastructure as set out in this consultation paper. In our Planifesto, we specifically call for housing in all its forms to be recognised as critical infrastructure. As such, we would welcome a broader definition of the infrastructure first principle within an amended NPF4 that aligns with the consultation paper’s definition of infrastructure, in order that the infrastructure first principle can be more fully embedded and play a central role within the final Infrastructure Strategy.

In addition to the infrastructure first principle, there are a number of other policy mechanisms and approaches that can help to deliver place-based approaches to infrastructure delivery, but which have not been adequately recognised within the consultation paper. To name just a few: community wealth building, town centre first approach, local living, the Place Principle are all integral to delivering place-based outcomes. These are all encompassed within the policies of Scotland’s Fourth National Planning Framework, but the important role of this Framework to assist in delivering place-based infrastructure outcomes has not been fully embraced in the consultation paper. Whilst it does acknowledge NPF4’s role in guiding place-based priorities, the paper does not fully address how the Infrastructure Strategy and Development Plan will/should interact and work together to deliver their mutual place-based objectives.

8. Are there any findings from the Scottish Futures Trust Needs Assessment (perhaps from drivers of change, cross-cutting themes, or enablers) that we should more fully integrate into this 10-year Infrastructure Strategy? If yes, please provide details.

It is our understanding that the Infrastructure Strategy is intended to form part of a broader infrastructure framework. It is intended to be supported by and to support delivery of the 30-year Needs Assessment. It is not intended to supersede the Needs Assessment. It is important that the infrastructure framework be interpreted in its whole form, and not cherry picked from to suit a particular infrastructure programme or project. As such, we do not believe that the Infrastructure Strategy’s role is to repeat the content of the Needs Assessment.

Notwithstanding the above, it would be beneficial to identify where the links are between the two documents, where the Infrastructure Strategy supports the Needs Assessment and vice versa. This would make it easier to see the relationship between the two documents, and how they will work together in a collaborative and joined up manner to support infrastructure delivery in Scotland.

9. Do you support the proposal that infrastructure investment is more directly driven by the priorities of places across Scotland?

Yes.

10. Are the proposed principles, national spatial priorities and place partnerships, the right ones to guide a place-based approach? Are there other principles we should consider? Please specify.

We agree with the two overarching principles that form the basis of a place-based approach:

• Aligning infrastructure investment with national spatial priorities
• Place partnership and collective working

In particular, we are pleased to see recognition that the priorities of the Infrastructure Strategy should align with NPF4. We would have liked to have seen this acknowledged earlier and more consistently throughout the consultation paper and hope to see this embedded as a core element of the final Infrastructure Strategy itself, with broader links made to the wider Development Plan.

We also agree with the consultation paper that there must be stronger partnership working across sectors and organisations. However, the consultation paper does not address how this can be achieved in practice. Instead, the paper states: ‘Stronger partnership working across sectors and organisations could transform the way we plan and deliver infrastructure. This strategy aims to promote this as a collective endeavour rather than the responsibility of any single organisation’.

We agree that it should be a collective endeavour. However, we fear that if it is left to each sector and organisation to interpret how best to achieve this, it could result in a piecemeal, tick box exercise that fails to have the necessary impact to achieve truly place-based outcomes. Taking a place-based approach across sectors, scales and disciplines is hugely complex and resource heavy and will require proactive leadership, clear governance mechanisms and resourcing to be successful. We are concerned about the lack of clarity in the consultation paper as to how this will be achieved in practice with only vague mention of ‘exploring how we can build new, more place-based collaborative government structures to provide a more direct line of sight between national, regional, local and community priorities’. This, in our view, is a weakness of the consultation paper and we would welcome further details based on clear evidence, as to how this can be achieved in practice. Without a clear evidence driven approach, we foresee a fragmented (albeit well intentioned) approach being taken by the many organisations involved in delivering Scotland’s infrastructure that could see them working at cross purposes in contradiction to the objectives of the final Infrastructure Strategy.

RTPI Scotland’s Planifesto, launched in November 2025, calls for infrastructure-led development with long-term investment in infrastructure first. To achieve this, the Planifesto calls for the creation of an infrastructure delivery body to coordinate and direct infrastructure investment and growth. This type of body would be best placed to drive forward the objectives of the Infrastructure Strategy and overarching infrastructure framework in which it sits, as well as creating the necessary conditions to foster collaboration across sectors, and to ensure a consistent direction of travel that achieves the place-based objectives of the strategy.

11. Do you agree with the Scottish Government's proposal to empower communities to play a more active role in infrastructure decision making? What mechanisms would best support meaningful community involvement and help maximise local social benefits? Please specify.

Yes.

The consultation paper rightly cites Local Place Plans (LPPs) as an existing mechanism which can empower communities to play an active role in infrastructure decision making. LPPs were introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and are being prepared and adopted across Scotland. Whilst we agree that LPPs have the potential to influence LDPs and wider infrastructure investment, it is important to acknowledge that their take up has not been equal across Scotland. There have been concerns expressed about the skills and expertise required to prepare LPPs that have, perhaps, disincentivised some communities who are not as well placed in terms of expertise and resources from taking up the opportunity to prepare one. Although there have been some informal analyses undertaken as to the direction of travel and take up of LPPs, there is no national programme in place to track the status of LPPs or to monitor and analyse the effectiveness of this mechanism and process. As such, it is difficult (and no doubt too early) to say how effective LPPs have been across Scotland in having influence over community empowerment in decision making in practical terms. Before we can confidently rely on existing mechanisms (such as LPPs) to deliver place-based infrastructure outcomes for local communities, we first need to establish a way to monitor and evaluate their effectiveness across Scotland.

12. Do you believe the current landscape of local and regional partnerships (e.g. Community Planning Partnerships, Regional Economic Partnerships, Regional Adaptation Partnerships) provides an effective framework for delivering place-based infrastructure investment? Please explain your answer, including any suggestions for improvement of existing structures.

Yes.

There is most certainly potential to use existing partnership mechanisms to deliver place-based infrastructure outcomes. Existing local and regional partnerships are well established and there are certainly cases where they have proven effective. However, there does not appear to have been any detailed analysis undertaken as part of this consultation to understand if such partnerships could work effectively together in a coordinated manner at both the local and regional scales to deliver the place-based outcomes of a future Infrastructure Strategy.

As previously submitted, we are concerned that if existing mechanisms are relied upon to deliver the Strategy objectives without a clear direction, we run the risk of varying approaches being taken that fail to deliver a coordinated outcome. It is for this reason that we see the benefit of an infrastructure body to take a coordinating role to ensure a consistent direction of travel that achieves the place-based objectives of the Strategy. Such a body should also have a monitoring function to assess the effectiveness and impact of such partnerships to achieve the outcomes of the Strategy and, where appropriate, to spearhead improvements where necessary.

13. Are there additional sectors or opportunities that should be considered for strategic investment to support economic growth and maximise opportunities for longer-term growth?
Please specify.

No comment.

14. To make the most of the strategic opportunities in renewables, housing, and natural capital , what will the economy need from our infrastructure to grow and thrive up to 2037? Please specify.

We agree that infrastructure is vital for a growing and thriving economy. The right infrastructure in the right places can support businesses, facilitate job creation, enhance productivity, further attract private investment, and improve the health and wellbeing of communities and enhance the natural environment. To ensure these benefits are maximised, a whole system holistic approach must be taken that recognises not only the economic benefits of well-planned and maintained infrastructure, but also the accompanying social and environmental benefits over the short, medium and long-term. To ensure well-planned infrastructure that can deliver the best place-based outcomes for future (as well as existing) generations we need to deliver the Infrastructure Strategy in a manner that looks well beyond its 10-year lifecycle. It is not simply about growing a thriving economy up to 2037, but rather implementing the Strategy over the next 10 years to deliver long-term outcomes that can endure well beyond the Strategy’s lifespan.