Accelerating home-building in Scotland: Summary of consultation responses

Option 4: Diversify the output from deliverable land

Question 5: Do you think that encouraging more diverse housing outputs across the pipeline of deliverable housing land would increase the pace of build-out? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 74 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is provided in Table 13.

Many respondents referred to The Letwin Report, and highlighted diversifying tenures is likely to increase absorption rates which would lead to higher build-out rates, with less viability concerns. Others mentioned that NPF4 already allows for 25% affordable housing, and others commented the outcomes of diversifying housing outputs is not clear.

Of those respondents who answered ‘yes’, many also suggested that The Letwin Report highlights how mandating diverse tenures would help build-out rates. Others commented on how this approach could meet NPF4 goals including placemaking and broaden an appeal of a site to a larger range of people.

Of the respondents that answered ‘no’, many had concerns that this would overlap with existing NPF4 policy on affordable housing, which could lead to a more restrictive market. Others commented that this approach would not act as a lever for accelerating build-out rates.

Of the respondents who answered ‘unsure’, many stated that this would be unlikely to increase build-out rate and could risk viability, while others said that it could help maintain a steady pace of build-out. Other comments included that this option could help build-out rates but it would be contextual to specific local issues. A number mentioned that it should be encouraged but not mandated and that this option would be hard to enforce.

Question 5a) Should we use legislation to require a diversity of housing types and tenures on sites above a certain threshold? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 68 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is provided in Table 14.

Many respondents highlighted the need for market evidence, the need to ensure buy-in from developers and that any measures would require being piloted first.

Of those respondents who answered ‘yes’, many suggested that this measure would work with careful management, with others suggesting that it should be applicable only to larger, viable sites. Others also suggested that this would help provide a mandate to ensure delivery of mixed tenure housing developments.

Of the respondents that answered ‘no’ and ‘unsure’, many had concerns that legislation should not be the default option, when options and tools like Masterplan Consent Areas (MCAs) and LDP policies provide a mechanism for mixed tenure housing. Others also suggested that LDPs already cover locational context, that national legislation does not cover, and that any national framework would not provide the flexibility that is needed to account for local circumstances.

Question 5b) Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 61 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is provided in Table 15.

Many respondents highlighted that SME developers would benefit from greater access to larger sites. Others noted that, while this measure could create viability challenges in some circumstances, it could also reduce risks for smaller developers, particularly those specialising in custom-build housing, niche delivery models or wheelchair-accessible homes. Respondents suggested that it could also encourage greater partnership working and collaboration in the delivery of new housing.

Of those respondents who answered ‘yes’, many suggested that the greater diversity of tenures will allow for SME builders to have a greater opportunity to be involved in the delivery. Others suggested that if this measure allowed for larger sites to be divided and SME developers take forward sections of the delivery, then it would benefit them.

Of the respondents that answered ‘no’ many suggested that it would be unlikely to benefit SME developers as they typically deliver smaller sites, which would not reach a threshold to require diverse tenures. Others suggested that whilst it could benefit SME developers if there were to be parcelled sites, it would require parts of these larger sites to be set aside, which could risk delays in delivery.

Of those respondents who answered ‘unsure’, many respondents suggested that it would be unlikely to benefit SME developers due to most of them operating on smaller sites, unless they partner with larger sites. Other suggested that if it was enforceable, it would lead to benefits, and others stated that benefits were unclear.

Question 5c) Please provide any evidence of how increasing diversity would influence build-out rates

A total of 43 respondents answered this open question and provided comment.

A number of respondents referred to The Letwin Report, citing how it shows that with increased absorption through mixed, diverse tenures, build-out rates increase. Others commented that while they had limited evidence, this measure is likely to support build-out rates on smaller sites, with some mentioning stronger market areas only being able to support this approach. Others noted that it won’t help delivery speed but could help increase accessible housing options, potentially supporting the housing market as different houses become available.