The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Caroline Jones and amendment 2 in the name of Darren Millar. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

The next item is the debate on the national development framework and I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motion—Julie James.

Motion NDM7392 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes the National Development Framework, laid on 21 September 2020.

2. Recognises the substantial engagement and consultation over the last four years which have contributed to the National Development Framework.

3. Agrees that the framework for four regions and the policies in the National Development Framework provide leadership to planning authorities and others in shaping and making good places.

4. Agrees the first National Development Framework provides a firm basis for positive strategic planning decisions which tackle climate change, encourage decarbonisation and promote well-being.

5. Agrees that publishing a National Development Framework will help support a strong recovery from Covid-19.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week, the draft national development framework and changes I proposed to make to it were laid with the Senedd to allow Members to scrutinise them for a period of 60 days. In accordance with the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, section 3, I will have regard to any resolution passed by the Senedd and any recommendation made by the Senedd committees during the Senedd's consideration period when I publish the first national development framework next February. 

When that time arrives, the title 'national development framework' will be replaced by a new name, 'Future Wales: the national plan 2040'. This new name is much clearer about what we're trying to do. It gives a very positive vision for how development will make Wales a better place by 2040. The new name was suggested by young people from the Children in Wales organisation, and it is for these young people, our future generations, that we will have to deliver a fairer, greener, healthier and more sustainable country. 

We have scheduled this debate early in the scrutiny period to introduce the main changes to Members and to help claw back some of the time we lost due to COVID-19. Two Senedd committees—the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, and the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee—have already undertaken detailed inquiries into the draft plan. I am very grateful to both for their reports, and I have written to the respective Chairs with my response, indicating how their comments have shaped the changes we are making. 

I will speak in more detail shortly about the changes that I'm proposing to the draft plan, but first I would like to quickly highlight the journey to this point. There's been a participatory plan-making process, and I would like to place on record my gratitude to the thousands of organisations and individuals who have attended events, written to us and contributed their views. The process has been inclusive at every stage and has involved far more than simply consulting on our ideas. We began with a blank map of Wales in stakeholder workshops. We then moved on to focus groups on the key issues and, finally, we discussed the draft plan with the public in drop-in sessions and with stakeholders at more than 75 different events. We've not been able to agree with everyone or incorporate all the ideas that were suggested, but we have listened. I'm very proud of the quality and amount of engagement that's been undertaken and, mainly, I'm proud of how much better the plan has become because of it. 

David Melding took the Chair.

To illustrate how engagement has improved the plan, I will highlight some of the main proposed changes. The rules dictate that the version laid with the Senedd is the published draft but, in reality, the changes proposed as a consequence of the consultation responses and the committee's recommendations are more important at this stage. To show how these changes will be integrated, we have published an updated working version of the plan. This has no formal status, but it does clearly show how the plan is evolving. The working version is more obviously a spatial plan than the draft. It contains more maps, more data and more graphics. It tries to convey just how varied and unique places in Wales are. This is a plan that encourages and enables creative planning, not a series of clone towns and unremarkable suburbs. 

In an ideal world, the national plan should have been the first plan written. This would have allowed local development plans to focus on creative placemaking at the local scale. Instead, LDPs have for 10 years had to carry the burden of providing all development plan policies. There will be significant benefits to LDPs from having a national plan in place: no more policies duplicated across all authorities, and the time and space to focus on proactively identifying development sites and regeneration opportunities. 

The middle tier of the development plan will be the strategic development plans. This national plan offers a clear steer on the spatial priorities for each region. Taken together with the regional economic frameworks and city deals, each region will have a full suite of strategies to help them confidently plan their region. 

A major proposed change is to switch from three regions to a four-region footprint. This involves separating mid Wales and the south-west. The feedback from within this Chamber and from stakeholders in mid Wales, in particular, was that they wanted to be recognised as a region in their own right. This brings expectations that the strategic development plan will now be prepared jointly by Ceredigion and Powys councils on the planning matters that transcend the area. 

The criticism of the regional footprint was linked to a concern that the overall strategy focused too heavily on urban areas, with not enough for rural areas. This has presented us with a challenge, because a national plan must be strategic and leave detailed matters to regional and local plans, but it must also speak to the whole of Wales. Therefore, we have developed further policies for the rural economy, as well as new spatial policies for mid Wales. We must recognise, however, that the degree and scale of change over 20 years will inevitably be different in rural areas compared to urban places. We want to support and encourage rural economies and we want good public services and a range of amenities, but we don't want development at any cost. I hope that people will recognise the balance this plan is trying to achieve.

To ensure growth is sustainable, we have added new policies on transport. The link between land-use planning and transport planning is a crucial one, and too often in the past the thought process focused on how to enable cars to get around easily and quickly. We need to promote places that are walkable, and we need to connect places by active travel in an integrated way. The transport policies are really important in helping us deliver the urban growth that the spatial strategy promotes in a sustainable way. 

The final change I want to address in detail is the policy on renewable energy. Clean green energy is vital to our sustainability as a country, as communities and as individual households. We have the raw ingredients in our landscape and climate to lead the way, and this plan reflects that ambition. The spatial policy for renewable energy has been amended. Some areas have been changed, and two have been removed altogether, but, crucially, I think we are communicating our intentions better in the revised policy. This is, again, a product of extensive engagement, and I'm confident that the revised plan will really help to energise the renewable sector here in Wales.

No debate or discussion this year is complete without, unfortunately, mentioning COVID-19. To a large degree, the make-up of where we live determined how we felt during lockdown. If you had good access to green open spaces, if there were shops nearby and if you lived in a place with community spirit, the lockdown was less stressful than it could have been. This is where this plan can help us—to make places that are resilient and better prepared for sudden health crises, and to be more enjoyable places to live during normal times.

In my foreword to the draft plan, I wrote:

'The challenge for a plan like the NDF is not necessarily to predict how Wales might change over the next 20 years, but to make sure we can build a society and an economy that is flexible and resilient, to enable all of us to benefit from the changes in a sustainable way.'

The scale of change that has come about almost overnight is remarkable, but I do truly believe this plan is fundamentally equipped to help the recovery from COVID-19. I am confident it can help with the recovery because the plan has enabling a healthy and active society as an engrained priority throughout. It strongly promotes building new places around active travel infrastructure. It has the ambition and policies to deliver world-class digital infrastructure everywhere in Wales. It contains policies that, even before COVID emerged, sought to diversify and revitalise town centres and local high streets. It says new public services like schools, colleges and hospitals should be accessible in town centres, not out of town, where you need a car to reach them. It emphasises the importance of maintaining and developing natural ecosystems.

The main strength of this plan and the changes we're proposing to it are the big priorities of this Government, and the key changes facing us all are built into the strategy and the policies. Issues like health, decarbonisation, climate change, the Welsh language, and a fair, prosperous society are woven through all parts of the document. 'Future Wales' is an important plan, and it is ambitious about the change we can achieve in Wales. The changes we have laid through the Senedd will strengthen it. I hope this debate can highlight the importance of the plan and build support for it across all parts of the Chamber. Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you, Minister. The Presiding Officer has selected two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 1 in her name.

Amendment 1—Caroline Jones

Delete all after point 1 and replace with:

Believes that the first National Development Framework should provide a firm basis for positive strategic planning decisions which tackle climate change, encourage decarbonisation and promote well-being.

Regrets the fact that, once again, the Welsh Government has opted to place too much emphasis on on-shore wind.

Calls upon the Welsh Government to redraft the National Development Framework to focus upon achieving carbon neutral energy production from a mix of off-shore wind and tidal energy.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. I formally move the amendment tabled in my name.

The national development framework should provide us with the opportunity to tackle one of the biggest threats facing our nation—that of climate change. The effects of our changing climate have been felt quite dramatically in recent years. Whilst coronavirus may be dominating the 2020 headlines, the impact of climate change has been just as dramatic. Wildfires have decimated large parts of Australia and North America. The Caribbean and southern United States have faced one of the worst hurricane seasons ever; for the first time, two hurricanes struck at once. In south-east Asia, the typhoon season saw back-to-back super-typhoons, bringing destruction and loss of life. Closer to home, the UK was battered by storms, leading to widespread flooding in many parts of Wales.

The evidence that human activity has caused lasting damage to our climate is undeniable. We cannot deny that our actions have led to an increasing global temperature, which has had a dramatic impact upon our weather systems. Years of inaction, continued carbon dioxide emissions and outright denial have meant it is too late to stop rising global temperatures. And unless we take action now, things will get much, much worse. We have to tackle carbon emissions now, and that means ensuring that our energy production and transport infrastructure is carbon neutral at the very least.

Welsh Government Ministers have accepted this, hence the declaration of a climate emergency. Unfortunately, they haven't followed it up with urgent action. The national development framework should have been a blueprint for increasing development in a sustainable way that not only benefits the people of Wales, but also addresses the threat of climate change. And once again, the Welsh Government have placed too much focus on onshore wind. Large-scale onshore windfarms are not the answer; we would have to fill every available hill with turbines, and even then we would not address Wales's energy needs—not that anyone would accept the impact of all these turbines. I would have thought that the Welsh Government would have learnt from the opposition to technical advice note 8. They are clearly unaware of the impact of onshore windfarms, as they have banned them from our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. But that is of little comfort to my region, which has, once again, been identified for a windfarm. Once again, Welsh Ministers have opted for the easy option, designating permitted development for onshore windfarms so that they can pay lip service to tackling climate change. Onshore wind cannot replace fossil-fuel generation in Wales. If they are serious, decarbonisation would be the primary goal of this framework and it would heavily focus on offshore wind and tidal generation. Tidal lagoons could meet Wales's future energy needs and a tidal barrage could meet the UK's energy needs. This is the sort of development we should be pursuing. And, yes, it would be expensive in terms of upfront cost but would be so much cheaper in the long run.

We are at crunch point—unless we take difficult decisions now, we are condemning future generations to live with an onslaught of natural disasters and famine. All development decisions we take should be focused upon ensuring that we prevent further damage to our planet. I urge Welsh Government to rethink their development framework to take this into account, and if you agree with me, please support my amendment. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

I call Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendment 2, tabled in Darren Millar's name.

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Delete all after point 1 and replace with:

Does not believe that the Welsh Government's National Development Framework will deliver a future for Wales which is prosperous, sustainable and provides equal opportunities for all of its citizens. 

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. Now, I stand to raise some concerns about the national development framework. For a start, the regional approach itself is flawed, especially when looking at north and mid Wales. Whilst the gross value added per head in Anglesey is £15,000 and in Gwynedd is £21,308, the main focus for the region is Flintshire and Wrexham, both with higher GVAs. Does the Minister not agree with me that policy 17 or policy 20 in the schedule of changes should be amended so that the whole of north Wales benefits, and, as such, primary focus could be shared between Wrexham, Deeside and the Caernarfon, Bangor and Menai straits area? 

Whilst noting the aim of policy 25 in the schedule of changes, which is to support sustainable growth and development in a series of interconnected towns across mid Wales, why not introduce a policy putting Aberystwyth on the same level as Wrexham and Swansea as the main focus for investment? This could actually help drive up investment along the west coast and through mid Wales, and provide equal opportunity for all citizens. 

Now, the voice of our residents must be heard in this plan. Policy 21 states that communities like Llandudno, Colwyn Bay and Prestatyn will be a focus for managed growth and housing. So, what assurances, Minister, can you give residents worried that policies such as 21 and 29 will not undermine their efforts to save our green fields? In fact, I believe that there are only two references to brownfield sites and developments in the whole NDF. Surely, it would be a positive move to produce a policy that gives priority to developments in such areas.

The NDF also fails our rural communities. This line in policy 4 says it all:

'The future for rural areas are best planned at the regional and local level.'

You could do better than this. Why not introduce policies that champion the saving of rural schools and facilities, improvement of B roads and access, and Welsh Government working with digital communication providers to ensure that the needs of rural areas are addressed, and utilisation of the more than 600 rivers flowing across Wales through encouraging investment in micro and small-scale hydro schemes? You claim that the NDF provides a firm basis to tackle climate change. Any green energy drive would be hampered by the grid. RenewableUK have reported that networks in Wales are not resilient. Marine Energy Wales have called for the addressing of grid capacity issues, with vital infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the 50GW potential. And even the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs has noted the need for new infrastructure to achieve decarbonisation targets.

According to policy 17, you will work with stakeholders to transition to a multivector grid network and reduce the barriers for implementation of new grid infrastructure. So, I would like more detail on this, a target for when the infrastructure should be improved, and assurances that, should new grid infrastructure be built across mid Wales, funding will be made available to put this below ground. For example, the beauty of rural Wales must be protected, and, if necessary, through the expansion or creation of national parks or AONBs. If no action is taken on grid capacity, how can you be sure that new windfarms at the pre-assessed areas for wind energy in mid Wales can connect? It is claimed that policy 17 recognises the wealth of current and emerging renewable energy technologies, so why, then, is there a presumption in favour of large-scale wind energy development? Why not all renewable energy sources? Will you change the NDF so that it really is about all of Wales, with attention given to the sea and marine energy also?

Finally, Wales also needs a stronger commitment on transport. Policy 36 notes that the South East Wales Transport Commission is advising on tackling congestion on the M4. You should just get on and deliver a relief road. This NDF lacks ambition for the whole of Wales, and, as such, I encourage you all to support the Welsh Conservative amendment. Thank you. Diolch.

I disagree with what the Minister said earlier, because the main message from me to Government on the national development framework is that circumstances now require the Government to take a step back and review the framework in light of the pandemic. Because we have reached this point, and it has taken a very long time to get to this point—I appreciate that—but that happened with barely no consideration of the long-term impact of the pandemic on our lives, and we are still learning and understanding some of those impacts, and there will be others over the next few months that we haven't anticipated. Therefore, that needs to be fully evaluated.

We know that more people will work from home and that that will mean that there will be fewer people travelling to work, and there will be more far-reaching implications for certain sectors as opposed to others in that regard. Digital infrastructure and broadband is going to be far more crucial in the future. High-density developments, of course, will now be seen as something that hastens a pandemic and, therefore, less desirable, and most certainly less desirable within planning policy. The quality of housing is more crucial than ever now from a health perspective. Access to green spaces, public parks and private gardens are becoming increasingly important. And, with less traffic, there will be more emphasis on public transport. But there are new challenges in that regard too, in terms of regaining public confidence when it comes to the management of diseases. All of these things have implications in terms of the national development framework.

And there are implications in terms of social justice too, because if the Government were to adopt a laissez-faire attitude, then I think it would intensify problems in terms of social justice. Because it's people who have the means and the wealth to work from home as an easier option who will then see rural areas as being more attractive than urban life, and that will have an impact in terms of population shift within Wales and beyond. And there are implications, as we have discussed in the Senedd recently, in terms of people being pushed out of their own communities. And the national development framework does mention the importance of mixed-age communities in rural areas. Well, that, in itself, means that we do have to review certain aspects of this. 

I have heard the Minister say that we've moved from three regions to four, and that's an improvement, of course, but the document doesn't recognise the Arfon region that Plaid Cymru has been pursuing, and which the Welsh Government has supported with a budget to develop that concept and entity. I think it's a mistake to omit that from the plan as an area that has unique, specific challenges and opportunities along the western coast, and I would like to see that corrected in the final framework. 

In terms of the north Wales region—and I'll be slightly parochial here—I do think there is an imbalance across north Wales. It's quite right that there should be a focus on Wrexham and Deeside as a growth area, but the rest of north Wales, over to Bangor, Caernarfon and Holyhead, is designated with a sub-regional role to support that growth area in the north-east. Now, I'm not quite sure how practical that is. Shouldn't we be focusing on the growth of north-west Wales itself, rather than it being a sub-region to north-east Wales? And, of course, reference is made to Wylfa in the document. Well, that element has substantially changed now with the uncertainty about the development there and, clearly, that is something that the Government would have to respond to. I know that some people will be eager to ensure that Wylfa still happens, but I do think that this framework does have to reflect the possibility that we will need to look at alternative developments in order to ensure that we're not always just waiting for something that may never happen.

More broadly speaking, I am pleased that wind energy and solar technology are separated, but I'm still concerned about this spatial approach that has been put in place, which, as I've raised before, is not on firm foundations and which will mean that less than 5 per cent of the areas that are pre-assessed—. Only some 5 per cent of the pre-assessed areas will be able to be developed in reality.

I still have some questions, but no time, of course, to pursue things such as the broader vision for rural areas and the Welsh language within the affordable housing scheme. I would have liked to have talked more about that. I welcome and thank the Government for the opportunity to have this debate. I'm slightly disappointed that it's happening so soon after the new development framework was laid, because it is a substantial document and having to debate it just days after it was laid is slightly unfair, I think. But I am pleased that the climate change committee will be scrutinising it in more detail and that, hopefully, on the back of the report of that committee, we can have a further debate here in the Senedd in order to discuss some of the more detailed issues that I would want to see the Government putting right and changing before I can support the national development framework.

I generally welcome the national development framework proposals. The changes proposed greatly improve the draft. As Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, I'm pleased that the Welsh Government accepted 47 of the committee's 50 conclusions, although again disappointed that 22 of them were in principle only. And as Llyr Gruffydd said, we'll come back with further suggestions, I would imagine, later on after we've had a further chance to look at it.

Significant changes that are consistent with the committee's conclusion include: clearer links to other Welsh Government documents, such as 'A Low Carbon Wales', the transport strategy, and the 'Wales Infrastructure Investment Plan'; providing more detail about how the NDF will be monitored and reviewed; strengthening the NDF in terms of responding to climate change, for example, by including a new policy on flood risk management; and greater emphasis on the criteria-based approach to renewable energy developments.

The four-region model is a huge improvement on the three regions, which included a giant mid and west Wales, which had places that have nothing in common whatsoever. The Swansea bay region is now a national development framework region and that is hugely beneficial to the area and to its future economic development. And I'm also sure that those in Powys and Ceredigion, where they have the mid Wales growth deal, are also pleased with the change to create the mid Wales region rather than being tacked on to outer Swansea.

Regional policy is important in Wales and we need to develop all of Wales, not just one small part of it. I believe that it is important that we develop a coherent regional policy. We need to ensure that Welsh Government services stay within the regional framework. I think, now we've got these four regions, can we start thinking in terms of these regions rather than every Minister having their own little set-up?

The plan has three national growth areas, three regional growth areas, and four regions with their own strategic development plans. I think that can work. Swansea bay development will be driven, at least in part, by the universities, and I again ask for the economic strategy, which I know is not part of this, to promote high-skill and high-value employment based upon the research carried out at the universities and the graduates coming out of it.

Cities have, historically, driven growth within a region, but will that be true of the post-COVID economy, where more people will be working from home? We know we have two types of villages: the commuter villages and the rural economy villages. Seven years ago, a study was done on Rhossili, a rural village on the Gower peninsula, which I am sure the Minister knows well. Whilst it might be thought that tourism and agriculture would be the main employers in this area, it was found that over a third of the working population living in that village worked in education, mainly at the universities.

On housing within the plan, each region has its own allocation for new housing by 2039. These numbers need to be kept under constant review. Also, the distribution within each region, as well as between regions, needs to also be under review, because if people are going to work more from home, the need to have people travelling into cities and living on the outskirts of cities will reduce. I welcome that 48 per cent of new homes across Wales are to be affordable homes during the first five years. I would, however, prefer the term 'affordable' to be replaced by 'council' or 'registered social landlord provided' housing.

I welcome the natural resources policy that identifies the key priorities, risks and opportunities to achieve the sustainable management of natural resources, including addressing the climate change emergency and reversing biodiversity decline. If those two things can be done, this would be a success, because I have serious concerns about the decline in biodiversity and I have very serious concerns about the effect of climate change and the effect on weather. Anybody who's over 50 years of age will have noticed how the rain comes much less often but much stronger than it ever did before. It is setting out specific policies that: safeguard areas for the purposes of improving the resilience of ecological networks and ecosystems, identifying areas for the provision of green infrastructure and to secure biodiversity enhancement; ensure resilient location and design choices by promoting a sustainable growth strategy as well as ensuring that consideration of natural resources and health and well-being form part of site and design choices; and, consider the decarbonisation of the economy.

Finally, I look forward to the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee looking at this in more detail. I believe this is a very good document. Our challenge is to make it a better document and to make it work for the people of Wales.

Thank you, Minister, for this statement today. The work involved in the development of this framework is self-evident—[Inaudible.] Sorry, there's something in the background.

The work involved in the development of this framework is self-evident, and I send my congratulations to your staff for bringing this forward in such challenging times. The framework is a wide-ranging and comprehensive document and it makes sense that development and planning cascade from Government to regions and finally to be more locally focused at authority level. I do, though, get a strange sense of déjà vu here: another lengthy consultation, another weighty tome of warm words about future generations, the homes that Wales needs, ecosystems and the climate change emergency. In the mix, as usual, is sustainability, active travel, town centres first, et cetera. All of these phrases are very well worn and appear in some form or other in a lot of Welsh Government consultations. It does, though, make perfect sense to divide the country up into regions and for planning to take place on this basis.

I never saw the point—and still don't—of an international convention centre being built in Newport and now I believe there is another one planned for central Cardiff, with all the travel issues that may entail, when north Wales and possibly Wrexham would greatly benefit from such a venue. And while I applaud many of the sentiments behind this approach, why will this approach work when the local development planning process was not taken up by every local authority in a timely or meaningful manner? And let's look at the local level: despite Labour's manifesto pledge in 2016, to—and I quote—

'seek to create stronger, larger local authorities', you have done no such thing despite consultations and commissions and there is still a 22-way bun fight for the spoils, which rather flies in the face of regionalisation. So, how will that work? 

The document covers several areas, and due to time constraints I'll limit my remarks to just a couple of areas. Housing: it seems to me that the public sector holds many cards in this area. It has land, brownfield sites, defunct buildings—all the more so now that public sector workers are asked to stay at home—and your own staff administer the social housing grant and the public sector in Wales can call upon innovative financial schemes. So, at risk of repeating verbatim my remarks from last week's debate on second homes, why do you need a development framework to give everyone permission to do what they already can do?

Wales is a small and very beautiful country, and while I can see merit in looking at sustainable energy and heating schemes across the country, I'm disappointed once again to see that wind farms remain in the mix. These are quite simply blots on the landscape and the seascape and no one ever seems to factor in the massive decommissioning costs in terms of money and carbon. Plus the fact that you won't get a windfarm in my valley, as we've already seen them off. We have a site in north Wales right for a new, clean nuclear power station and much of the legwork has already been done for tidal power schemes, so what other forms of energy generation did you consider and then discount, and what was the reaction of those living locally to these priority areas?

I see that once again in the Welsh Government document, 'town centre first' features. Will you undertake here and now to make sure that the Welsh public sector starts to really channel this? The Welsh Government's own flagship buildings in north Wales, Merthyr and Aberystwyth fall well short of the mark of being located close enough to town centres to make any sort of real difference to town centres, especially now. And Wales's newest hospital near Cwmbran, while it looks absolutely magnificent, is not particularly easily accessible, especially for visitors, and nowhere near a town centre or district that will benefit from its opening. So, my final question to you, Minister, is: will the public sector in Wales, including the Welsh Government, lead by example here, or will it be another case of do as I say? Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Minister. I've enjoyed reading this latest iteration, which will culminate, as you say, in the 'Future Wales: the national plan 2040'. As Mike Hedges has said, whose committee and another committee have been following this in detail—as I have from the backbenches—it is a real step forward. It's developed a lot of the themes that were picked up earlier and has incorporated into what I think is a much more readable plan. But my overriding feeling is that, ultimately, it's not just that the devil is in the detail, but the devil is in the implementation of this as well, because I think you've got all the right things in here and it does pull together the various Welsh policies.

So, let me just first of all touch on what I definitely welcome. I definitely welcome the fact that this is running—to pick up Llyr's point earlier on—this is running alongside and being informed by the piece of work that Jeremy Miles is doing, which is building back that green economic recovery post COVID. I think, Llyr, this definitely needs to inform this piece of work, to make it a live piece, a live document going forward, and I think that's where the five-yearly review comes in as well. This shouldn't be a stick it out there and it's stuck then until 2040. This needs to be regularly informed and reviewed.

I welcome—despite the scepticism of other people—the fact that this is deeply shot through and underpinned by the well-being of future generations Act. That is a critical difference of what we're doing in Wales from other places, but again, the devil comes in the detail and the implementation. The fact that this is co-produced, the fact that this is built upon the pillars of looking after this and future generations, both inter- and intra-generational focus, is very, very welcome indeed. It's a different way of thinking, and I will not resile from repeating that, but what we now need to see is that made good with the various policies that flow from this. I welcome as well the fact that the integrated sustainability appraisals are part and parcel of the approach throughout this document, and I very much welcome and I pick up on what the Minister has said here: it just shouts out because of the way the changes have come through in this since the last iteration, the co-production, the engagement with people—not just committees here, but the wider Welsh public—where it screams out in the latest September 2020 version that we now have in front of us.

I definitely, definitely would applaud the focus on strategic placemaking, because this is critical: the idea of having places that are walkable and liveable places with mixed uses, with green infrastructure being part and parcel of the way you develop that placemaking, both locally and within a town and within a street, even, and the idea that within that placemaking, you also have plot developments set aside for people; that it's not just the big placemakers, the big companies and developers, it's others can come in and self-develop their own plots within areas for house building and so on.

I do, despite the sceptical tone of others, welcome the focus that is on 'town centre first' policy. For too long, quite frankly, we've lived in this strange context where we promote out-of-town development come what may, and we've seen the hollowing out of our towns. Now, we already faced the battle before we got to COVID, so I really welcome it, but, again, it's making it stick. The devil is going to be in the detail and the application of making this 'town centre first' policy really stick. And in all the town centres—so, market towns in mid Wales, as well as Valleys towns as well, strip Valleys towns that run along one street, making them vibrant parts of the community once again, instead of taking it out.

I really welcome the focus, I have to say, on nature-based solutions to flood management and coastal erosion. We've been saying this for decades, I was saying it when I was in Government in the UK Government, in terms of the shift we had to make, the seismic shift in the way we address these issues away from an over-reliance on built solutions, which are sometimes necessary, to a much greater reliance on natural solutions. I'm not sure, David, how much time I've got left, but I'm going to keep on—

Twenty seconds.

Oh, in that case, one thing: can I ask you very much, please, to focus on the issue of grid capacity? It's too expensive to actually develop existing grid capacity. I don't have trust in Ofgem that they can actually use their pricing mechanism under the UK Government to actually do greater grid connectivity. So, whether, frankly, it's wind, PV, offshore, onshore or any other sort of one, unless we have those grids connected, then we're not going to get it done. So, that's my appeal to you, Minister.

Thank you. And the final speaker before the Minister replies, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Chair. I just wanted to make a few comments on energy, specifically the interaction or lack of interaction between the ambition for renewable energy onshore and offshore. May I say, first of all, that I'm pleased to see the revised document turn its back on the idea of allowing huge wind turbines across Anglesey? In reality, the Anglesey landscape would have made it almost impossible to get planning permission for those kinds of turbines that were recommended in the first draft. Anglesey is very flat and there's a population across the island, and you shouldn't be building these 250m wind turbines in that kind of landscape, which is higher than the highest point on Anglesey. So, common sense seems to have prevailed there.

But as a representative of an island, I spend much of my time looking out to sea and considering the potential of that marine environment, and I can't quite understand how a document that is so important, the national development framework, shouldn't include the potential for offshore energy. There are excuses being referred to as to why there is no reference to marine energy, and that it's the national marine plan that deals with that, and that the NDF is focused on terrestrial issues. But the reality is that the marine plan is very ambiguous and vague on its ambition in terms of marine energy. We can see huge potential off Anglesey with Morlais and Minesto and also further wind energy developments to the west of the current developments off the northern coast. 

The national development framework does specifically mention creating 70 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources. All well and good, but if we're only looking at onshore, then what about marine energy? If we had your onshore and offshore teams talking to each other, then surely we could create 100 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources, and our seas would produce most of that energy.

There are very specific reasons why this is important in my constituency. We've heard mention of Wylfa and the fact that that development has been paused. I want to see—and it makes sense—offshore wind energy developments off the coast of north Wales, to the west of the current ones, are served from the port of Holyhead, rather than Mostyn, which has done very well in serving the other windfarms. The development framework needs to be very specific in saying, 'Right, there are marine wind energy developments here that could bring us real benefits onshore in areas such as Anglesey'. So, speak to each other, both teams, the onshore and the offshore. We could get a better framework for the future in doing so.

The Minister to reply to the debate.

I'm unmuted now, hopefully. Thank you very much, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to thank all Members very much for their contributions to this afternoon's debate. The range of views expressed today is a reflection of just how wide-ranging this plan is and the breadth of challenges it will help us to meet over the next 20 years. 

In overall terms, to address contributions, 'Future Wales' will help us achieve decarboniastion and address the twinned emergencies in our climate and biodiversity. 'Future Wales' will also drive up standards of development and help to deliver placemaking. With it, this generates healthy, active communities and the conditions for a diverse vibrant economy of local businesses. And indeed, 'Future Wales' addresses national priorities such as affordable housing and renewable energy, and empowers regions and local authorities to decide the scale of development appropriate to their area and the detailed locations for development.

Coming back to a few of the very specific comments made by Members this evening, decarbonising energy will be a key part of delivering our climate goals. We must decarbonise in a way that improves well-being in Wales through a managed transition supported by investment and innovation.

The national development framework only relates to onshore developments. The climate change crisis means action onshore and offshore, and 'Future Wales' and the marine plan together address energy and reflect the energy hierarchy as set out in 'Planning Policy Wales'. Both plans recognise that there are a number of opportunities to generate renewable energy across a variety of technologies, both onshore and offshore, which will be maximised to help the targets.

It's worth saying at this point, I think, Deputy Presiding Officer, that of course this is part of a suite of documents. As many Members did say in their commentary, it is very essential to read this together with a range of other plans. This is not a one-size-fits-all plan. A number of Members have made contributions about what it should contain, and I haven't time to go through them all, but many of them are of course contained in other sister documents to this particular document. 

I also just want to emphasise that the national development framework recognises the importance of smaller towns, especially in north Wales, allowing for local and regional plans to add that detail. I do not believe local communities want central Government to plan their futures. It is right and proper that local and distinctive rural issues are best dealt with at the local level to reflect the different characteristics of places across Wales. We do not want cloned towns and areas; we want our local communities to have a say in what their local communities look like. This is not about central government saying how that should work. 

In terms of the grid, which several people raised, we are working with the UK Government, Ofgem, distribution network operators and National Grid, who are responsible for the grid across the UK, to ensure they deliver an energy system that enables the low-carbon transition in Wales. I recognise the comments many Members have made, which is why we're working with them. 

I terms of delaying the plan some more, the important things such as climate change were important before the pandemic and, if anything, they're more important now. So, we don't want to see any further delay in this. We are having this debate at the start of the 60-day period. I am very much looking forward to continuing to debate it through that period. 

Many Members also mentioned digital communication. So, just to point out, there is a new policy supporting digital communication in the plan. We also have a 'town centre first' policy for the public sector, in response to points a number of other colleagues made, and we are working specifically with marine plan colleagues, especially on the offshore/onshore interface. But, the national development framework does not deal with offshore; that's for the marine plan. We also, of course, have very specific policies on areas such as Holyhead and other important ports. 

Acting Deputy Presiding Officer, I don't have time to go through all of the individual contributions that Members made, but the next step for this plan is now in the hands of this Senedd. It has 60 days, up to 26 November, to set out its views on the changes I have proposed and on the emerging final plan. I understand the climate change committee certainly intends to set time aside to gather evidence and I'd be very happy to go into more detail on the proposed changes with them over the next couple of months. 

Once I have received the Senedd's views, I intend to make quick progress towards finalising the plan. I sense that there is a real expectation and anticipation amongst developers, local authorities and communities for this all-important top tier of the development plan system to be completed and put into practice as soon as possible. So, my intention is to publish 'Future Wales: the national plan' in February. At that point, I will also lay out how I have taken the Senedd's views on board. I genuinely hope that this early debate will help Members to take the opportunity to read the emerging plan and the changes we've made since last summer to strengthen it. A 20-year plan is a big opportunity to shape our country and to make good on our promises of a fairer, greener, healthier and more prosperous country. Diolch.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I defer all voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

There will now be a break of five minutes before voting time takes place. IT are on hand to support any Member who needs help during that time.

Plenary was suspended at 19:56.

The Senedd reconvened at 20:02, with the Llywydd in the Chair.