« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Appendix C - Partnership Interview Topic Guides
Evaluation of the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund
Research project for the Scottish Executive Development Department
Topic Guide for Interviews with Partnership Stakeholders
Tribal has been commissioned by the Scottish Executive Development Department to undertake this initial evaluation of the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund 2004-2006.
This is the first phase of a longer-term evaluation. Given the long timescales involved in delivering outcomes, and the ongoing nature of the Fund, a more comprehensive evaluation will be carried out in future. This initial evaluation aims to assess implementation to date, and to identify a suitable framework for future evaluation of the Fund.
As part of the research we are consulting stakeholders in each of the three local authorities where the Fund has been operational since 2004. We aim to interview the main stakeholders to gain a rounded perspective on the roles different partners have played, and the effective working practices that have been developed.
We are analysing the information from the Partnership's monitoring returns to the Scottish Executive, as well as the Partnership's delivery plans and annual reports, to provide much of the background information. The interviews will supplement this information with details on the impact of the Partnership on bringing forward sites and levering funding.
We want to understand first of all the means by which sites were identified and prioritised for funding. This will of course have been influenced by the Scottish Executive's guidelines. But site selection may also have been influenced by existing strategies, site availability and complexity, the timescales of the funding, or other influences - we would like to understand their role in site selection.
We also want to investigate how partnerships found new and more effective ways of working together and how these have helped delivery. The background from which the Partnership developed may have had a strong influence both on the structures adopted, and how effective the Partnership has been
This will help us to consider how effective the Fund has been at tackling long-term dereliction, stimulating job creation and economic growth and promoting environmental justice and improved quality of life.
We will be speaking to a number of stakeholders from each of the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund Partnerships. Not all of the questions will be relevant for each stakeholder, but we aim to get full coverage through all our interviews.
Your role within the XXX Vacant and Derelict Land Fund Partnership
1. Please could you confirm you name, the organisation you work for, and your role/ job title.
Background to the development of the Partnership
2. What is the overall structure of the Partnership? What is your role in it, and in relation to wider regeneration priorities?
3. Can you describe how the Partnership developed, and what former working groups fed into the development of the Partnership, if any?
4. What involvement did you or your organisation have with the delivery of vacant and derelict land prior to the Partnership?
Benefits of Partnership working
5. What aspects of Partnership working have been particularly successful? Can you give some examples of where you feel Partnership working has helped to achieve outcomes.
6. What aspects of Partnership working do you find challenging? Are there aspects to the Partnership's way of working that could be improved? Can you give examples of how these improvements would aid delivery?
7. Are there particular barriers that the Partnership approach is particularly good at overcoming? Has it brought forward sites that would otherwise have remained derelict? If so, for which sites and how has this been achieved?
8. Would it be useful to include other organisations in the Partnership, and if so, which ones? What do you think they would bring to the table and how would this be useful?
Prioritisation of sites for VDL Funding
9. What process did you go through in prioritising sites for VDL Funding?
10. What were the criteria used?
11. What impact did the two year funding period have on the sites you prioritised?
12. Was the end use of sites a consideration in prioritisation? If so, what impact has this had on the proposed uses for sites, in seeking public funding?
Barriers to effective site delivery
13. Have there been problems in developing specific sites selected for the VDLF? If so, what stopped these sites from coming forward?
14. Have there been delays in bringing forward sites? If so, what caused these delays?
15. Has it been possible for the Partnership to work to overcome these barriers to development?
Development of alternative sites
16. What role do you have in bringing forward vacant and derelict sites over and above those receiving VDL Funding, if any?
17. What proportion of vacant and derelict sites in the Partnership area have received VDLF funding? Have those that did not receive funding been brought forward?
18. Are you aware of developers focusing their activities on sites which have received funding?
Leverage of additional funding
19. Has the partnership levered in private funding for site development/ remediation and if so, how does it relate to the level of public subsidy on individual sites?
20. What other sources of public funding have been brought in?
21. Has there been any funding from other regeneration initiatives? Or has delivery been coordinated with other regeneration programmes?
Interaction with other regeneration activity
22. How do you see your work with the VDLF fitting in with wider regeneration priorities?
Community benefits
23. Has there been any community consultation in identifying or developing sites? Was this involvement specific to the VDLF or was it based on other community consultations?
Overview
24. Are you happy with the way the Partnership is operating? Are there any improvements you would like to see in the way it develops sites?
25. Do you consider the VDLF to be an effective way of delivering sites that would otherwise remain derelict?
26. If the VDLF were discontinued, are there any other sources of funding that you could access to support projects of the type you have supported? (Please name them, if you are aware of any, and identify any possible limitations/ constraints they might entail.
Delivery of vacant and derelict land through the Partnership
Sites that have receiving Funding in the period 2004-6:
We are interested in a range of information in relation to each of the sites that have received funding. We have identified some of this information from monitoring data, and have written it up in a table. In addition, there are some questions we are interested in which have not been readily available from the monitoring data. If necessary we can pass on the table for completion after the interview. (If your involvement has been limited to some sites, which of these sites were you involved with?)
For each site we are interested to know:
27. Why had it not been developed or put to productive use? What were the barriers to development?
28. What criteria did it meet that led to it being selected for VDLF funding?
29. How was it decided what the after use for the site should be?
30. Would the site have been suitable for an economic after use if the market was there for such a use?
31. Has the project reached the end of the development cycle - i.e. is it fully occupied - or is it still under development or not yet occupied?
32. Do you think this site would have been developed or remediated without the VDLF? If so, over what time frame would you have anticipated development?
33. How long did it take to get the project on the ground, once public subsidy was available?
34. In relation to commercial properties, what kinds of companies will occupy these sites (please indicate broad sector)?
35. Which communities have benefited or will benefit from the development of the site?
36. Can you give an estimate of the number of households benefiting from site works, and its visibility from major roads or railways (and if so, which)?
« Previous | Contents | Next »