The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Statistical Bulletin ENV/2004/1 Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey 2003

10 Reuse of derelict and urban vacant 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 urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, by local authority area, 2003 ^{1, 2}

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding
2. The figures for Argyll and Bute, Moray, Scottish Borders and the Shetland Islands are not included, as they did not participate in the 2003 survey

10.2 Table 18 shows that a total of 579 hectares (445 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. 308 hectares of the land brought back into use was derelict land that was reclaimed, of which 18 per cent was in North Lanarkshire (55 hectares), 15 per cent was in Glasgow City (46 hectares) and 12 per cent was in Edinburgh City (36 hectares). Of the 271 hectares of urban vacant land, which was brought back into use, 20 per cent (54 hectares) was in Glasgow City, and 17 per cent (46 hectares) was in North Lanarkshire.

10.3 Table 19 shows that for sites brought back into use, the most common source of funding was through the private sector (54 per cent). The source of funding was unknown on 13 per cent of sites and public sector funding accounted for 12 per cent. Glasgow City had the greatest area brought back into use by public funding (21 hectares).

Table 19: Sources of funding used for derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, by local authority area, 2003 ²

1. Mixed public and private sector funding or partnership
2. The figures for Argyll and Bute, Moray, Scottish Borders and the Shetland Islands are not included, as they did not participate in the 2003 survey

10.4 Table 20 shows the known sources of public sector funding for sites brought back into use. Scottish Enterprise or Local Enterprise Companies 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. Local Authorities provided funding for part or all of 7 per cent of the area of derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use.

Table 20: Source of public sector development funding used for derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, 2003

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 derelict and urban vacant sites and sites brought back into use in 2003. In 2003, 69 derelict sites covering 167 hectares, were either suspected (31 per cent) or known (17 per cent) to have contamination compared to 60 per cent of existing derelict and urban vacant land which is known or suspected to be contaminated.

Table 21: Contamination status of existing derelict and urban vacant sites and those brought back into use since the previous survey, 2003

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. Chart 6 shows the distribution of new uses for derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey. The most common new use for derelict land was for residential development, with 38 per cent (118 hectares) of the land area being reclaimed for this purpose. The second most common new use for derelict land was agriculture, for which 12 per cent (37 hectares) was used, followed by business class, for which 10 per cent (31 hectares) was used. 51 per cent (138 hectares) of urban vacant land was brought back into use for residential development.

Table 22: Reclaimed derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, by new use, 2003 ¹

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding
2. Excluding manufacturing
3. Excluding passive open space
4. Unknown values are excluded from the calculation of percentages

Chart 6: Main new uses for derelict and urban vacant land, 2003

10.7 Using the data in Table 22, it is possible to calculate that the average size of reclaimed derelict sites was 1.7 hectares. Sites reclaimed for residential development were an average of 1.4 hectares, compared to 4.6 hectares for agriculture and 10.3 hectares for business class.

10.8 The average size of urban vacant sites brought back into use was 1.0 hectare. Sites used for residential development were also an average of 1.0 hectare, as were those used for other general industry.

10.9 Table 23 shows that the distribution of site size classes for those sites brought back into use and 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, 2003 ¹

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding

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

Table 24: Date when derelict or urban vacant land was first identified; extant sites and sites brought back into use since the previous survey, 2003

1. Unknown values are excluded from the calculation of percentage values

10.11 Overall, 52 per cent of the sites brought back into use have lain derelict or urban vacant since before 1990 compared to 59 per cent of all existing sites. For rural sites, 66 per cent of existing sites were identified before 1990 compared to 71 per cent of sites brought back into use.

10.12 Table 25 shows the relationship between the previous use and new use for 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 derelict and urban vacant land where the previous use was residential, 41 hectares were brought back into use for residential development (66 per cent).

Table 25: Previous use against new use; sites brought back into use since the previous survey, (hectares) 2003 ^{1, 2}

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding
2. The figures for Argyll and Bute, Moray, Scottish Borders and the Shetland Islands are not included, as they did not participate in the 2003 survey

10.13 Table 26 shows the relationship between the preferred and the new use for sites brought back into use since the last survey. Overall, for 303 hectares (52 per cent) of the 579 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 (hectares), 2003 ^{1, 2}

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding
2. The figures for Argyll and Bute, Moray, Scottish Borders and the Shetland Islands are not included, as they did not participate in the 2003 survey

« Previous | Contents | Next »