Accelerating home-building in Scotland: Summary of consultation responses

Option 2: Monitor build-out and intervene where these are unreasonably slow

Question 3: Should we bring forward powers for reporting on development progress and powers to intervene where it is considered to be unreasonably slow, as set out in option 2? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 74 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is set out in Table 6.

Overall, most respondents stated that increasing monitoring and reporting requirements on development progress would add further burden to already stretched planning authorities, and that powers to intervene where development is unreasonably slow would add additional strain. Most respondents asked for further clarity regarding the definition of “progress” and what constitutes “unreasonably slow”.

Many respondents highlighted that external factors such as infrastructure constraints, section 75 negotiations, market demand, labour and material costs and availability, access to private and development finance, interest rates, and adverse weather can stall sites. As a result, some noted that a blanket approach or national standardisation of build-out rates would not be appropriate, given variations in geographical location, site conditions, and financial viability.

Several respondents also emphasised that developments may stall due to financial constraints or changes in market conditions, and that site-specific remedies may be more appropriate than imposing blanket financial obligations on developers.

Some respondents highlighted that monitoring and reporting tools such as Housing Land Audits (HLAs) and Notices of Initiation and Completion already exist, with a number emphasising the need for more effective use of existing resources, alongside greater collaboration between key infrastructure partners, to help ensure projects do not stall. There was also support for improved reporting and transparency, particularly where this can foster collaboration, help identify and resolve issues, and provide greater transparency in the overall process.

Of those who responded ‘yes’, most supported increased measures as a tool for collaboration and problem-solving, rather than as a mechanism to impose financial obligations on developers for factors outwith their control, with many cautioning that such obligations could disincentivise development and favouring incentives over penalties to accelerate build-out rates.

Some respondents who answered ‘no’ stated that the approach is unlikely to drive meaningful change and that the delivery process should instead be streamlined. Those who responded ‘unsure’ indicated that the approach could support more accurate estimates of land supply targets. Some respondents highlighted the potential legal challenges in implementing these measures.

Question 3a) Should this include creating a legal framework for reporting on development progress? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 61 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is set out in Table 7.

Most respondents that responded ‘yes’, highlighted that a clear legal framework would provide consistency across planning authorities and allow for greater clarity and transparency. Others highlighted that a legal framework would improve reporting and could be undertaken as part of the local authorities’ Housing Land Audits (HLA).

Of the respondents that answered ‘no’ and ‘unsure’, many had concerns about the limited effectiveness of such a legal framework and the delivery challenges it could present by placing additional reporting burdens upon planning authorities. Others also commented that reporting is already undertaken through local authorities’ Strategic Housing Investment Plans (SHIPS) and HLAs and highlighted that a legal framework would risk duplicating this work.

Question 3b) Should there be a power for planning permission to be revoked, without compensation being payable, where reporting demonstrates that progress is unreasonably slow? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 67 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is set out in Table 8.

Most respondents highlighted that the revoking of planning permission would disincentivise development, noting that external factors play a crucial role in stalling sites. Additionally, most respondents asked for further clarity regarding the definition of “progress” and what constitutes “unreasonably slow”.

Of those respondents who answered ‘no’, many highlighted the implications for sites already stalled due to external factors. Revoking planning permission in such cases would cause further delays in delivery, while sites would continue to be accounted for in HLAs. Some respondents asked for a mechanism to support developers in these situations. Most also noted that increased uncertainty, changing market demands and financial constraints would make developers more cautious about selecting challenging sites, especially as developments typically only become profitable towards the final stages of delivery particularly for SME developers.

Respondents also highlighted that revoking planning permission would not address the underlying reasons why sites are stalled and would be counterproductive to the objective of accelerating home-building. They noted that it would increase the bureaucratic burden on local authorities and could lead to legal challenges.

Of those respondents who answered ‘unsure’ or ‘yes’, some suggested alternative methods, including a greater focus on delivery and tackling underlying issues.

Question 3c) How would the pace of development be set and agreed – for example how would reasonableness be measured? Please explain your answer.

A total of 56 respondents answered this open question and provided comment.

Many respondents highlighted the varied nature of projects and the need for a case-by-case approach for setting development pace. Many respondents also stated the need for flexibility due to the diversity in factors that could delay a project and the housing market differences between local planning authority areas.

Many respondents suggested the need for a national framework to ensure consistency in development pace requirements but also noted the need for development pace to be agreed by local planning authorities to allow for local planning constraints to be taken into account.

Some respondents highlighted the difficulties that could be involved with agreeing a delivery pace between developers and local planning authorities and the potential for further delays due to disagreement over timescales.

Question 3d) Please provide any evidence of how reporting on development progress would influence build-out rates.

A total of 37 respondents answered this open question and provided comment.

Most respondents highlighted that reporting on development progress would not influence build-out rates or address the underlying issues affecting delivery, as external factors continue to prevent progress. Many also stated that they are not aware of any evidence suggesting that reporting on development progress would influence build-out rates.

A few respondents highlighted that increased reporting could enhance problem solving and provide greater clarity on development progress, however, it would not directly influence build-out rates.