Consultation on Affordable Rented Housing: Analysis of Consultation Responses

Analysis of consultation responses to a Scottish Government consultation "Affordable Rented Housing: Creating flexibility for landlords and better outcomes for communities". The report summarises the key themses and highlights the range of views expressed.

14 Summary and Conclusions

Key Issues / Implications for Policy

14.1 This report has provided an analysis of the responses to the Scottish Government's consultation on affordable rented housing, based around ten proposals. The table below provides an indication of overall feedback to the consultation, setting out the responses to the quantitative questions relating to each of the ten proposals.

Scottish Government Consultation on Affordable Rented Housing
Proposal Yes No Not sure
Number % Number % Number %
Proposal 1 (n=365) 208 57 59 16 98 27
Proposal 2 (n=353) 128 36 155 44 70 20
Proposal 3 (n=350) 232 66 43 12 75 21
Proposal 4 (n=208) 25 12 171 82 12 6
Proposal 5 (n=344) 217 63 58 17 69 20
Proposal 6 (n=352) 266 76 14 4 72 20
Proposal 7 (n=345) 291 84 13 4 41 12
Proposal 8 (n=350) 281 80 20 6 49 14
Proposal 9 (n=346) 214 62 55 16 77 22
Proposal 10 (n=190) 76 40 32 17 82 43

* Note, a negative answer to this question indicates support for the Scottish Government's proposal

14.2 Feedback was positive across most of the proposals. For instance, more than 50% of respondents supported the implementation of most of the proposals (proposals 1 & 3-9). The exceptions to this were proposal 2 (considering an applicant's income when deciding on priorities for housing) and proposal 10 (allowing the use of Short SSTs to let intermediate rented housing), both of which received 40% support or less.

14.3 For the proposals where there was less support (2 & 10), the level of support varied by respondent group. For instance, for proposal 2 there is a greater level of support amongst landlord and landlord representative groups than for tenants who were concerned about the effect the proposals might have on communities in particular. For proposal 10 there was greater support from landlord representative groups and 31% of landlords who responded said they would use the flexibility, although a large percentage of respondents were unsure about the proposal.

14.4 There are some limitations with regards to the analysis - for instance some respondents could have been counted twice if providing information at the regional events and via the questionnaire. In addition, no weighting was given to responses from groups as apposed to individuals.

14.5 A number of improvements or issues were suggested for each of the proposals which should be taken on board by policymakers in taking forward these proposals. These vary by proposal as set out in this document, although there were some common themes, which include the need for greater clarity in certain instances; some of the difficulties with investigating issues such as previous antisocial behaviour, income and homes; the potential impact on other areas of legislation; and the need to ensure that a consistent and fair approach is maintained despite granting greater flexibility for landlords.

14.6 There were some variations in responses by respondent group. Landlords and landlord groups were the most supportive of the proposals reflective of the greater flexibility which it would provide for them. Tenant groups, individuals or other groups tended to be less supportive, in part due to some potential negative impacts for tenants and particular groups. There were exceptions to this however, including:

  • Proposal 4 regarding living rooms and overcrowding, where responses were similar across the groups;
  • Proposal 6 regarding consideration of antisocial behaviour where the proportion of tenant groups was similar to those of landlords and landlord groups (although the proportion of individuals supportive was lower);
  • Proposal 7 regarding short SSTs where the proportion of individuals supportive was lower than landlords and landlord groups but tenant groups were similar;
  • Proposal 9 where individuals and tenant groups were more supportive of initial tenancy proposals than landlords or landlord groups.

14.7 Whilst over 50% of these groups were still in favour of most of the proposals in taking forward policy, attention should be given to the full written responses by organisations representing groups, such as older people, those with disabilities, the homeless and victims of crime / domestic violence, who have highlighted some of the potential negative effects on particular groups. These groups include younger people, older people, disabled people, the homeless and people with mental illnesses as discussed in more detail in chapter 12.

14.8 This report provides an analysis and collation of the overall themes and trends emerging from a review of all of the individual responses. It is recommended that these are taken into account when developing the proposals further, and where appropriate more detailed information is sought by reviewing the full responses provided by particular groups or individuals.


Email: Alix Rosenberg

Back to top