On 24 August, RTPI Scotland submitted a response to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee's call for views on the proposed Sustainable Development and Wellbeing Bill. Read the response below.

About the RTPI

The RTPI Champions the power of planning in creating sustainable, prosperous places and vibrant communities. We have over 27,000 members in the private, public, academic and voluntary sectors. Using our expertise and research we bring evidence and thought leadership to shape planning policies and thinking, putting the profession at the heart of society’s big debates. We set the standards of planning education and professional behaviour that provide our members, wherever they work in the world, a unique ability to meet complex economic, social environmental and cultural challenges.

1. Do you think that more needs to be done to embed sustainable development and wellbeing as primary considerations into public policymaking? Please tell us why

RTPI Scotland welcome the draft Bill. We agree that more needs to be done to embed sustainable development and wellbeing as primary considerations into public policymaking, specifically to ensure that the interests of future generations (who cannot yet speak for themselves) are given weight in public body policy- and decision- making practices. A policy objective of the Bill (as set out in the Policy Memorandum) is to safeguard the wellbeing of future generations by fostering a shift towards long-termism in public body policy- and decision-making. We fully support this objective, and note that it has been largely inspired by the Welsh Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the establishment of a Welsh Future Generations Commissioner, whose duty it is to “act as a guardian of the ability of future generations to meet their needs” and “encourage public bodies to take greater account of the long-term impact of things that they do”.

In the 2015 Wales Act, there is an emphasis placed (evident by the language used) on safeguarding and giving a voice to future generations, who currently cannot speak for themselves. We believe that this should also be one of the key objectives of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill but note that it has been given far less emphasis in the wording of the draft Bill compared to the 2015 Wales Act. This is particularly evident when comparing the duties and functions of the Commissioner. Rather than being a “guardian” for future generations, the function of the Scotland Commissioner is proposed to merely “promote the wellbeing of future generations”. This language is noticeably weak compared to the language used in the 2015 Wales Act, and throughout the Bill we are left with the impression that, despite its intention to move away from short-termism in policy- and decision-making, the Bill is unlikely to achieve this outcome if the duty to future generations is not more emphatically stated throughout.

In addition to the above, we take this opportunity to highlight that the planning system is integral to enhancing the wellbeing of Scotland’s current and future generations, both directly and indirectly, through its role in shaping places. The way that places are planned, and the impact this has on the creation of quality and accessible built and natural environments has huge potential implications on the achievement of the wellbeing ambitions set out in the proposed Bill for both existing and future generations and on our planet. In this regard, we note that the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, introduced a new purpose of planning to “manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest”. This purpose clearly aligns with the wellbeing and sustainable development objectives of the proposed Bill. Promoting and encouraging community wellbeing, as well as pursuing sustainable development are key elements of Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Scotland’s National Outcomes, which form part of the National Performance Framework (NPF).

In determining what we mean by “wellbeing” in the long-term public interest for current and future generations, we also wish to highlight the importance of acknowledging the intrinsic link between "wellbeing" and “health”. In this regard, there has already been considerable work undertaken to identify the important connection between wellbeing, health and place through the adoption of place-based approaches. An early example of this is the Good Places, Better Health strategy on health and the environment from 2008, which helped contribute to later work on connecting health, wellbeing and place, namely the Place Standard Tool and the Place and Wellbeing outcomes. More recently, Public Health Scotland has produced ‘Better Places’, a statement on how health and place-based approaches can combine to reduce inequalities in health outcomes. These are important building blocks that should inform the Bill and enhance its ability to further meaningfully embed wellbeing into the policy- and decision-making practices of public bodies in Scotland, whilst also acknowledging what is already being done by public bodies to further wellbeing through place-based health outcomes.

2. What is your view on the policy objectives of the Bill, as set out in the Policy Memorandum?

The RTPI broadly supports the objectives of the Bill - i.e. to create a statutory definition for sustainable development and wellbeing; impose a statutory duty on public bodies to consider sustainable development and wellbeing in the exercise of their functions; and to create the office of the Future Generations Commissioner. However, we believe that the following considerations would strengthen the Bill's impact under each of these objectives.

•           Objective 1 – establishing statutory definition of the terms “sustainable development” and “wellbeing”

We agree that there should be a statutory definition of "sustainable development". In our response to the previous consultation about the proposed Bill in February 2024, however, we raised concerns about simply adopting the Brundtland definition. In our view, a clear drawback of the Brundtland definition is that it takes a very human-centred approach, focusing on the needs of existing and future generations of people, without addressing environmental limits or the intrinsic value of nature. Given Scotland’s declaration of a twin nature and climate emergency, it is vital that a statutory definition of sustainable development goes beyond human needs and outcomes to also encapsulate the duty of all human beings to protect and enhance the natural environment, which is essential to achieving true sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes.

With regards to "wellbeing", we again broadly support the inclusion of a statutory definition in the Bill to support public bodies in carrying out their duties. However, we have concerns that the proposed definition set out in the draft Bill does not go far enough to capture the full meaning of this vast and multifaceted term. Rather, we would support a similar approach to that adopted in Wales and require public bodies to contribute to the achievement of wellbeing through Scotland’s National Outcomes of the National Performance Framework, which are akin to the Wales wellbeing goals. This would allow for recognition of the fluid and often intangible nature of “wellbeing”, allowing for continued review and adaptation as necessary to cater for the changing needs of Scotland and its communities over time. Taking this approach would also give the NPF and National Outcomes more prominence as Scotland’s wellbeing framework and would reinforce (rather than seek to duplicate) existing measures that are being taken to embed wellbeing in policy- and decision-making.

•           Objective 2 – imposing a statutory duty on public bodies to consider wellbeing and sustainable development in the exercise of their functions

The RTPI agrees with the principle of this objective that there should be a statutory duty on public bodies to consider wellbeing and sustainable development in the exercise of their functions. However, careful consideration should be given to the existing obligations of public bodies under other existing legislation, and what additional resources this duty might demand from them, particularly in the current climate of increasing resource pressures. For example, public bodies in Scotland already have a Biodiversity Duty and Climate Change Duty, which have clear links to the achievement of sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes. The latter duty requires public bodies "in exercising their functions, to act in a way that they consider to be most sustainable." It is essential that the Bill takes into account these existing duties to avoid unnecessary and resource-intensive duplication of efforts in regard to embedding sustainability and wellbeing into their practices. Additionally, Scotland’s NPF4 already has a significant emphasis on embedding wellbeing into placemaking and ensuring development is pursued sustainably. For example, ‘lifelong health and wellbeing’ is a crosscutting outcome of NPF4 which takes into consideration a number of policies aimed at improving wellbeing through the creation of successful places. These include, but are not limited to, providing access to good quality housing (Policy 16), safe, inclusive, and well-designed spaces (Policy 14), and a protected and enhanced natural environment (Policies 1, 2, 3, 4). In total there are 13 policies under the ‘sustainable places’ objective of NPF4, which further interact with the policies under ‘liveable places’ promoting places where people can live better and healthier lives. There will therefore be a number of cross-cutting policy areas where the Bill should support planners in their continued delivery of sustainable development and wellbeing. Another example is Policy 29, Rural Development, which has a number of principles that take into consideration the importance of the natural environment as well as supporting and enhancing the wellbeing of communities in implementing sustainable development in rural areas. The Bill should therefore operate in a manner which complements, supports and enhances the work of public bodies to achieve sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes, rather than adding an additional and disconnected layer of obligations within an already complex policy and legislative landscape.

•           Objective 3 – creating the office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Scotland

We support the creation of a Future Generations Commissioner with a clear role and mandate to safeguard the wellbeing of future generations and with an awareness of the cross-sector collaboration required to meaningfully embed sustainability and wellbeing into public policymaking. RTPI Scotland believe that the Commissioner must have a clear understanding of how the existing duties of public bodies, including local planning authorities under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and NPF4, align and intersect with the objectives of the Bill. This clarity and understanding will be crucial to avoid any unnecessary and potentially burdensome duplication of work for public bodies, including local planning authorities and statutory consultees. Furthermore, it is essential that the Commissioner sit at a strategic level, ensuring that planning bodies are taking into account wellbeing and sustainability in their decision-making, rather than intervening in specific cases or decisions.

3. Which of the following best expresses your view on Section 1, which requires public bodies to have due regard for the need to promote wellbeing and sustainable development?

Support

RTPI Scotland support the proposal set out in Section 1 of the draft Bill to require public bodies to have due regard for the need to promote wellbeing and sustainable development.

As previously mentioned, public bodies are already doing this as part of their obligations under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 to have regard to Scotland’s National Outcomes in carrying out their functions. The NPF in which the National Outcomes sit, is widely regarded as Scotland’s wellbeing framework, but we note that the NPF and National Outcomes also support the delivery of sustainable development, particularly through the Communities, Economy, Environment, and Health National Outcomes (to name just a few). An example of how planning authorities are seeking to achieve the wellbeing and sustainable development objectives of the national outcomes is evident under their obligation to “manage the development and use of land in the long term public interest” as set out in Section 1 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, as well as through the delivery of NPF4.

Consequently, we believe the framework for achieving wellbeing and sustainable development outcomes is already in place in Scotland. We would strongly support a Bill which further embeds this into public body policy- and decision-making practices, supported through the proposed functions of the Future Generations Commissioner, who we see as being strongly positioned as a guardian of the wellbeing of future generations, to proactively champion delivery of the National Outcomes and inject must needed accountability into the policy- and decision-making practices of public bodies.

4. What is your view on the definition of "public body" (in section 17 (2))? Is there a need for statutory definition of wellbeing and sustainable development?

RTPI Scotland broadly support the definition of "public body" set out in the Bill.

We agree that there should be statutory definitions of both “wellbeing” and “sustainable development” in order to provide clarity and consistency for public bodies to effectively fulfil their duties. For the proposed Bill to deliver its sustainable development and wellbeing objectives, it is important that there be clarity embedded in the Bill in relation to what is meant by both terms, to ensure the Bill's objectives are delivered with consistency, transparency and clear accountability. 

Notwithstanding the above, we draw your attention to our views regarding the proposed definitions of “sustainable development” and “wellbeing” set out in the draft Bill, which we do not believe are fit for their intended purpose.

5. What is your view on the definition of "sustainable development" (in section 2)?

As previously stated, RTPI Scotland agree that there is a need for a statutory definition of sustainable development. 

We see this as an opportunity to reassess and take stock of what we need to achieve through this term having regard to the current challenges and pressures society is facing both within Scotland, the UK and globally. This definition has the potential to have broad-ranging implications for future policy and so it is vital that we get the definition right from the outset having regard to the outcomes we are seeking to achieve through this new legislation.  When the legislation comes into force, public bodies will be relying on and basing their decisions on this definition. Furthermore, the Future Generations Commissioner will be assessing public bodies’ delivery of “sustainable development” within the confines of this definition. We also note that whilst the Bill proposes to give Scottish Ministers the power to vary the definition of “wellbeing” set out in the Bill, there is no such provision proposed for the definition of “sustainable development”. As such, it is our view that adopting a definition that is outdated, no longer fit for purpose or too narrow in scope, runs the risk of having a limiting effect on the ability of public bodies to do what is truly necessary to achieve “sustainable development” outcomes.

The definition of sustainable development proposed in the draft Bill is a variation of the commonly accepted definition set out in the UN’s 1987 Brundtland Report. In our response to the previous consultation on the proposed Bill in February 2024, it was our view that whilst the Brundtland definition has the benefit of being widely known and largely accepted, it is no longer fit for purpose. The main strengths of Brundtland are the integration of social justice (inter and intragenerational equity) and development, and the idea of meeting human needs rather than wants/aspirations. These are both consistent with the Scottish Government’s just transition principle. However, a clear drawback of the Brundtland definition is that it takes a very human-centred approach, focusing on the needs of existing and future generations of people, without addressing environmental limits or the intrinsic value of nature. We would argue that the purpose of sustainable development must  go beyond a human-centred approach that clearly addresses the need to live within environmental limits. This is particularly important given the twin nature and climate emergency declared by the Scottish Government, which needs to be reflected in the definition of sustainable development contained within the Bill.

In Wales, The Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 both aligns with, but importantly also goes beyond, the common definition of sustainable development to link it to its wellbeing goals. The term is defined in the Wales Act as “the process of improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales by taking action, in accordance with the sustainable development principle, aimed at achieving the well-being goals”. The sustainable development principle is aligned with the common (Brundtland) definition “to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. But it then goes on to detail how this can be achieved through the following five ways of working:

•           Balancing short-term needs with safeguarding long-term needs

•           Taking an integrated approach

•           Involving other persons that reflect the diversity of the population

•           Collaborating with other persons to assist meeting the well-being objectives

•           Deploying resources to prevent problems occurring or getting worse

Despite the draft Bill’s attempt to go slightly further than the Brundtland report by incorporating the term “wellbeing” into its definition of sustainable development, the impact of this relies heavily on the Bill’s definition of “wellbeing”. We are equally concerned that the definition of “wellbeing” proposed in the Bill does not go far enough and therefore (coupled with the proposed definition of “sustainable development”), will fail to have the necessary impact. Please see our below views on the proposed “wellbeing” definition for further details on this point.

6. What is your view on the definition of "wellbeing" (in section 3)?

We welcome the inclusion of a statutory definition for “wellbeing” in the Bill. Given that “wellbeing” features within the definition of “sustainable development”, it is vital that this definition is carefully crafted to ensure it achieves its intended outcomes.

We agree with the Policy Memorandum that the term wellbeing is multifaceted, making it challenging to define. Whilst we understand the desire for a clear and simple definition that can be easily understood, we are concerned that the proposed definition set out in the Bill is far too limited to have a positive impact on the delivery of sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes to the necessary extent.

The proposed definition in the Bill defines wellbeing in accordance with 6 entitlements that “individuals, families and other groups within society” are reasonably expected to have to enjoy a good quality of life. These entitlements are focused on personal dignity, freedom, health, meaningful societal participation, adequate living standards and access to nature.

We do not disagree that these entitlements are important to the attainment of wellbeing. However, we think it is important to highlight that all these entitlements are captured within the National Outcomes of Scotland’s current National Performance Framework (NPF). But, significantly, the National Outcomes go much further than these entitlements, to also encompass the collective responsibility of society to contribute to the delivery of wellbeing outcomes. For example, the “Communities” National Outcome refers to “communities that are inclusive, empowered, resilient and safe”. This goes much further than the “individuals, families and other groups” referred to in the Bill, which treats each as a separate entity (with their own competing wellbeing priorities) rather than as a collective and cohesive whole community. Setting the definition out in this way ignores the potential for communities to deliver collective (rather than individual) wellbeing outcomes that also encompasses the place-based and nature outcomes that are so vital to our collective wellbeing.

Another missing element from the Bill’s definition of “wellbeing”, that is captured in the National Outcomes, is the importance of protecting and enhancing the natural environment. The only reference to nature in the proposed definition of wellbeing is the entitlement of “access to the natural environment for health, leisure and relaxation”. This effectively treats the natural environment as a commodity for human beings to enjoy, without accounting for the reciprocal responsibility that human beings have to protect and preserve nature in order to reap the wellbeing benefits it has to offer. Given that the Bill’s definition of “sustainable development” relies heavily on this definition of “wellbeing”, we feel that it is important that the intrinsic value of nature and the duty to protect it in order to garner its wellbeing benefits is reflected in this definition.

In this regard, we bring your attention to the distinct difference between the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 in Wales, and the draft Bill. Rather than setting a simple and rigid definition of “wellbeing”, the 2015 Act requires public bodies to set well-being objectives that are to contribute to the achievement of the following well-being goals:

•           A prosperous Wales

•           A resilient Wales

•           A healthier Wales

•           A more equal Wales

•           A Wales of more cohesive communities

•           A Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language

•           A globally responsible Wales

 

We are not suggesting that the above be replicated in the proposed legislation. However, we do note that these goals are akin to the National Outcomes set out in Scotland’s NPF.

If we limit the definition of “wellbeing” to simply a series of entitlements, then we will fail to capture the complete (and complex) picture of wellbeing that requires individual and collective responsibility to be taken for each other, the places we live, and the environment that supports us.

The NPF and National Outcomes are widely recognised as Scotland’s wellbeing framework. Although they are currently under review, with an amended NPF due to be launched in the next political cycle, the 11 National Outcomes as they currently stand are still in force. The Policy Memorandum states that it is not the intention of the Bill to replace or amend the NPF, including the National Outcomes, but rather for the new public duty to complement and strengthen the existing obligations set out in the NPF. We believe that for this to occur, there needs to be a clear connection between the definition of “wellbeing” in this Bill and the NPF and National Outcomes. Currently, there is no mention in the draft Bill to the NPF or National Outcomes, rendering them as siloed mechanisms. Furthermore, with a much narrower definition of “wellbeing” proposed  for inclusion in the Bill, there is the risk that, rather than strengthening the NPF, the Bill could have a counterproductive impact on the delivery of the NPF and National Outcomes.

Consequently, instead of reducing the meaning of “wellbeing” down to the proposed series of limited entitlements, we believe that “wellbeing” should be pursued through the achievement of the National Outcomes of the NPF. This would allow for recognition of the fluid and often intangible nature of “wellbeing”, allowing for continued review and adaptation as necessary to cater for the changing needs of Scotland and its communities over time. 

We are aware that the National Outcomes are currently undergoing a review process. The Bill should not be taken forward as a siloed process to this NPF review. Instead, the Bill should be shaped having regard to the changes likely to come out of the NPF review process, and the review of the NPF should likewise be undertaken will full regard to the proposals set out in this draft Bill to ensure that the revised national outcomes are fit for purpose to act as the guiding wellbeing principles for Scotland.

7. Which of the following best expresses your view on section 4, which establishes a Future Generations Commissioner?

RTPI Scotland strongly support the introduction of a Future Generations Commissioner. If undertaken in the right way, having regard to our comments set out in this response, we believe the Commissioner has the potential to champion sustainable development and wellbeing through the National Outcomes, and deliver positive outcomes for the achievement of Scotland’s wellbeing and sustainable development objectives for current and future generations.

Notwithstanding the above, we are concerned that the language used in the Bill having regard to the Commissioner’s duties to future generations, is noticeably weak compared to the language used in the 2015 Wales Act. In the Wales Act, there is an emphasis placed (evident by the language used) on safeguarding and giving a voice to future generations, who currently cannot speak for themselves. We believe that this should also be one of the key objectives of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill but note that it has been given far less emphasis in the wording of the draft Bill compared to the 2015 Wales Act. For example, rather than being a “guardian” for future generations, the function of the Scotland Commissioner is proposed to merely “promote the wellbeing of future generations”. This is insufficient to move away from short-termism in policy- and decision-making that the Bill seeks to achieve. For the Bill to achieve this outcome, the Commissioner’s duty to future generations must be more emphatically stated.

8. Do you have views on the general function (as set out in section 5), powers, structure, and duties of the Commissioner?

We support the introduction of a Future Generations Commissioner and broadly support the general powers and functions set out in Section 5 of the draft Bill.

For the Commissioner role to have the necessary impact, it will be vital to understand its vast scope and scale. Wellbeing cuts across and through a vast array of physical, social, and cultural needs ranging from the tangible to the intangible. Any future Commissioner for Future Generations will be required to work closely with a wide range of sectors – including planning, health, education, employment, housing, infrastructure etc.

In the above regard, we believe it will be imperative for any future Commissioner to actively engage and work closely with the planning sector and Scotland’s National Planning Improvement Team (NPIT) in particular. The NPIT has introduced a National Planning Improvement Framework for Scotland’s local planning authorities that is designed to assist them in developing and implementing improvement action plans across Scotland. The performance of local planning authorities has important implications for the successful delivery of spatial outcomes on the ground that will support the current and future wellbeing of Scotland’s communities. The work currently being undertaken by our NPIT therefore has important implications on the role that local planning authorities play in delivering on the National Outcomes of the NPF and sustainable development as it is defined in this draft Bill.

Having regard to the potentially vast scope of the Commissioner’s role, a key challenge will be developing new guidance that is appropriate and works for every public body in Scotland affected by the new legislation. It will be important for the Commissioner to be aware of what is already happening and the actions that are already being taken in line with facilitating sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes, including through the National Outcomes, if this Commissioner role and its outputs are to have meaningful impact.

If the definition of “wellbeing” is pursued through the National Outcomes (as we believe it should be), the Future Generations Commissioner would provide the National Outcomes with a physical champion to support their delivery by public bodies and to enhance awareness, accountability and scrutiny. If the Commissioner’s role is to champion the narrow definition of “wellbeing” set out in the draft Bill, we believe it will reduce the Commissioner’s potential overall impact and create a confusing two-tier system whereby the National Outcomes are considered to be of far lesser importance compared to the much narrower statutory definition of “wellbeing” that is currently proposed.

Notwithstanding the above, we agree that the Commissioner must be independent of government to ensure they can play a meaningful role in assessing the performance of parts of the Scottish Government and its agencies without the risk of conflicts of interest (both real and perceived).

We also believe that the Commissioner role should be:

•           supportive (rather than critical) to support continuous improvement towards achieving Scotland’s wellbeing outcomes through continuous assessment, supporting improvement, and sharing good practice.

•           responsible for the cross-sectoral and cross-governmental review and monitoring process to ensure monitoring is consistent and fit for purpose, identifying and highlighting successful actions as well as those actions that have not had the desired impact.

•           transparent - achieving our wellbeing objectives will require a whole-nation collaborative effort and it is vital that all stakeholders (including individuals and communities) understand the role that they play in relation to supporting the work of the Commissioner as well as how the Commissioner can support them. 

In addition to the above, we also believe it is essential that the Commissioner sits at a strategic level to ensure that public bodies (including planning authorities) are taking into account wellbeing and sustainable development objectives in their policy- and decision-making processes. The Commissioner must not become involved in individual cases or planning decisions. This is the practice followed by the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, who cannot intervene in planning decisions. In our view, it is important that Scotland’s Future Generations Commissioner take this same approach, with planning decisions left to qualified planners and elected members who have undergone the mandatory training that is to be introduced in accordance with the requirements of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019.

9. Taking account of the Bill's Financial Memorandum, what is your view on the financial implications (i.e. likely costs and savings) of the Bill?

We agree with the Financial Memorandum, that the Bill will likely incur costs on local authorities. In completing this costing exercise, the Financial Memorandum seems to limit these costs to the staff time required by local authorities to familiarise themselves with the legislation and incorporate the duties of the Bill into their processes. There doesn’t appear to be clear details of the costs likely to be incurred as a consequence of the Commissioner’s other functions. For example, it is acknowledged in the Memorandum that there will likely be “minimal costs” for local authorities who are subject to an investigation, but little detail is given as to what these will be.

In our response to the previous consultation on the proposed Bill in February 2024, we submitted that for any future wellbeing and sustainable development legislation to have meaningful impact on the ground, it must not place additional duties upon already pressured public bodies, including local planning authorities, without first undertaking a robust resourcing assessment and strategy that clearly demonstrates how the objectives of the legislation can be achieved within the current resourcing and budgetary climate. This is particularly crucial given the findings of our 2023 Resourcing the Planning Service research which highlighted falling planning expenditure, a reduced workforce at its lowest level in five years, and an ageing workforce with employees aged 50+ representing 39.6% of the total.

For this future legislation to have positive and meaningful impact on the ground, it is vital that it be supported by an adequate resourcing strategy or action plan, clearly identifying the role of each public body (including local planning authorities and statutory consultees), the actions required by them (existing and future), timescales for those actions, and the associated costs in terms of staff, time, training, tools etc.

RTPI Scotland fully support the intentions of the Bill. However, it will be important for this new legislation to recognise, and work collaboratively with, the existing duties by which public bodies are already subject, and which already have an impact (both directly and indirectly) on delivering sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes. Planning in particular must be seen as a mechanism to deliver the objectives of the Bill through the place-based efforts of the planning profession to deliver the National Outcomes, the purpose of planning set out in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the Biodiversity Duty under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, and climate change duties under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (to name just a few). It would be undesirable for any aspect of this new legislation to unnecessarily duplicate (even partially) work that is already being undertaken by public bodies. As such, it will be important for the new Commissioner to work collaboratively with other bodies and sectors to ensure a holistic approach is taken to deliver the sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes of the Bill. One example is the National Planning Improvement Team, whose work has important implications for the successful delivery of spatial outcomes on the ground that will support the current and future wellbeing of Scotland’s communities.

10. Do you have any other comments about the Bill?

As we have previously submitted, planning is integral to supporting and delivering sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes. These principles are clearly set out in the purpose of planning as established by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and underpinned by NPF4 which includes policies to deliver sustainable places that take into consideration the needs of existing and future communities as well as the current and future wellbeing of the natural environment by placing the twin crises of climate and nature as planning’s top priority. The attainment of sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes have important spatial implications, for which the planning system has a responsibility through the delivery of such national planning policy principles as the Town Centre First Principle, Infrastructure First, the Place Principle, and Local Living and 20-minute Neighbourhoods (to name a few).

RTPI Scotland believe that the above can only be accomplished through the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill by recognising the National Outcomes of the NPF as Scotland’s wellbeing framework and embedding these into the statutory definition of “wellbeing” in the Bill. This, in turn, will require the Bill to be taken forward in close alignment with the current review of the NPF and National Outcomes, and for careful consideration to be given to how they will (and should) interact.

In our response to the Scottish Parliament’s consultation on the National Outcomes review in July 2024, we submitted that there is potential for the National Outcomes to do more to embed the Place Principle and recognise the importance of collaboration that cuts across all the Outcomes of the NPF. One example of how this could be done is through the “Communities” National Outcome - which is centred around the quality and character of place. The Place Principle clearly has a central role to play in achieving the “friendly, vibrant and cohesive communities” envisaged in this Outcome, but reference to the Principle is noticeably absent, resulting in an unacceptable policy disparity at the national level. There is real potential for the Place Principle to be given prominence through both the NPF review and this Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill, but only if their mutual dependence is recognised, and they are not treated independently from each other. This approach would also help to make the vital connection between the outcomes of the Bill and the actions that are already being undertaken by public bodies to achieve sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes through their work to deliver the National Outcomes of the NPF. This is vital to ensure that the Bill complements and supports, rather than duplicates or unnecessarily adds to, the functions and duties of public bodies to achieve sustainable development and wellbeing outcomes.