The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey 2002 - Statistical Bulletin ENV/2003/1

10 Reuse of vacant and derelict land

10.1 The tables and charts in this section relate only to sites (or parts thereof) which were brought back into actual use. Sites removed from the survey for definitional reasons or due to naturalisation are not included here: details of these sites are given in Annex Table B and Annex Table C.

Table 18: Derelict land reclaimed and vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, by local authority area, 2002 ^1,2

1 Figures may not sum due to rounding
2 The figures for Aberdeen City, City of Edinburgh, Moray, North Ayrshire and the Scottish Borders are not included as they did not participate in the 2002 survey.
3 The figures for Highland are for sites brought back into use since 1993, the last time they completed the survey.

10.2 Table 18 shows that a total of 684 hectares (547 sites) were reclaimed or brought back into use since the previous survey, including vacant sites that were previously derelict and excluding those sites removed for definitional reasons or due to naturalisation or those with an unknown new use. As with Table 17, this refers to land brought back into use since 2001, except for Highland, in which case the figures refer to sites brought back into use since 1993. 293 hectares of the land brought back into use was derelict land that was reclaimed, of which 32 per cent was in North Lanarkshire (93 hectares), 24 per cent was in East Ayrshire (71 hectares), and 9 per cent was in Highland (26 hectares). Of the 391 hectares of vacant land which was brought back into use, 40 per cent (158 hectares) was in Highland, and 16 per cent (63 hectares) was in Glasgow City.

10.3 Table 19 shows that for sites brought back into use, the most common source of funding was through the private sector (42 per cent). The source of funding was unknown on 37 per cent of sites and public sector funding accounted for 13 per cent. Glasgow City had the greatest area brought back into use by public funding (37 hectares).

Table 19: Sources of funding used for vacant and derelict land brought back into use since the previous survey, by local authority area, 2002 ^2,3

1 Mixed public and private sector funding or partnership
2 The figures for Aberdeen City, City of Edinburgh, Moray, North Ayrshire and the Scottish Borders are not included as they did not participate in the 2002 survey.
3 The figures for Highland are for sites brought back into use since 1993, the last time they completed the survey.

10.4 Table 20 shows the known sources of public sector funding for sites brought back into use. Local Authorities were the most common source of public sector funding, assisting in part or all of 9 per cent of the area of vacant and derelict land brought back into use. Scottish Enterprise or Local Enterprise Companies provided funding for part or all of 8 per cent of the area of vacant and derelict land brought back into use.

Table 20: Source of public sector development funding used for vacant and derelict land brought back into use since the previous survey, 2002

1 Where multiple sources of funding were used for a single site, the site is included more than once in this table

10.5 Table 21 shows the contamination status of existing vacant and derelict sites and those brought back into use in 2002. In 2002, 49 derelict sites (28 per cent of total land by area) brought back into use, covering 116 hectares, were either suspected (16 per cent) or known (12 per cent) to have contamination compared to 58 per cent of existing vacant and derelict land which is known or suspected to be contaminated.

Table 21: Contamination status of existing vacant and derelict sites and those brought back into use since the previous survey, 2002

1 The contamination status shown here refers to the status of the sites when they were included in the survey. Land may be decontaminated, or tested and found not to be contaminated, before being brought back into use.
2 Unknown values are excluded from the calculation of percentage values.

10.6 The new use of sites, or parts of sites, that were reclaimed or brought back into use (excluding sites removed for definitional reasons) is shown in Table 22.

Table 22: Reclaimed derelict and vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, by new use, 2002 ¹

1 Figures may not sum due to rounding

10.7 Chart 7 shows the distribution of new uses for vacant and derelict land brought back into use since the previous survey. The most common new use for derelict land was for residential development, with 28 per cent (82 hectares) of the land area being reclaimed for this purpose. The second most common use for derelict land was for recreation and leisure, for which 19 per cent (56 hectares) was used, followed by mineral activity, for which 14 per cent (42 hectares) was used. The most common new use for vacant land was for residential development, with 50 per cent (194 hectares) being used.

Chart 7: Distribution of main new uses for vacant and derelict land, 2002

10.8 Using the data in Table 22, it is possible to calculate that the average size of reclaimed derelict sites was 1.6 hectares. Sites reclaimed for residential development were an average of 0.9 hectares, compared to 6.2 hectares for recreation and leisure and 4.7 hectares for mineral activity.

10.9 The average size of vacant sites brought back into use was 1.1 hectares. Sites used for residential development were an average of 1.0 hectares, and those used for other general industry were 0.8 hectares in size.

10.10 Table 23 shows that the distribution of site size classes for those sites brought back into use is similar to that for extant sites (i.e. those which remain vacant or derelict).

Table 23: Distribution of size of extant sites and sites brought back into use since the previous survey, 2002 ¹

1 Figures may not sum due to rounding

10.11 Table 24 shows the dates when vacant or derelict land was first identified for existing sites and sites brought back into use.

Table 24: Date when vacant or derelict land was first identified; extant sites and sites brought back into use since the previous survey, 2002

1 Unknown values are excluded from the calculation of percentage values

10.12 Overall, 48 per cent of the sites brought back into use have lain vacant or derelict since before 1990 compared to 61 per cent of all existing sites indicating that sites brought back into use tend to be younger. For urban sites, the distribution of dates when sites were first identified is similar between existing sites and sites brought back into use. For rural sites, 49 per cent of existing sites were identified before 1985 compared to only 28 per cent of sites brought back into use.

10.13 Table 25 shows the relationship between the previous use and new use for those sites brought back into use since the previous survey. In the majority of cases, the new use of sites is not the same as the previous use. However, of the 62 hectares of vacant and derelict land where the previous use was residential, 50 hectares were brought back into use for residential development (81 per cent). Of land brought back into use for mineral activities, 40 of the 42 hectares had previously been used for mineral activities.

Table 25: Previous use against new use; sites brought back into use since the previous survey, 2002 ^1-3

1 Figures may not sum due to rounding
2 The figures for Aberdeen City, City of Edinburgh, Moray, North Ayrshire and the Scottish Borders are not included as they did not participate in the 2002 survey.
3 The figures for Highland are new sites identified since 1993, the last time they completed the survey.

10.14 Table 26 shows the relationship between the preferred and the new use for those sites brought back into use since the last survey. Overall, for 326 hectares (48 per cent) of the 684 hectares of land brought back into productive use, the class of primary preferred use was the same as the new use to which the land was put.

Table 26: Preferred use against new use; sites brought back into use since the previous survey, 2002 ^1-3

1 Figures may not sum due to rounding
2 The figures for Aberdeen City, City of Edinburgh, Moray, North Ayrshire and the Scottish Borders are not included as they did not participate in the 2002 survey
3 The figures for Highland are new sites identified since 1993, the last time they completed the survey.

« Previous | Contents | Next »