The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3. Local Authority Response

Policy context for the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund bids

3.1 Each of the local authorities drew up bid documents, or local delivery plans, which included information about the national and local policy context from their perspective. The local authorities generally used this as an opportunity to explain the approach that they were taking, and the priorities they had identified for the Fund in their area.

National policies

3.2 The local delivery plans for North Lanarkshire and Glasgow both identified a number of national policy documents that provided strategic direction to their proposals. In relation to economic development, these included:

• The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland (2000)
• Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks (2001)
• Scotland - A Global Connections Strategy (2001)

3.3 In relation to regeneration, these included:

• Building Communities in Scotland; Closing the Gap (2000)
• The Cities Review Building Better Cities 2003: Delivering Growth and Opportunities

3.4 The delivery plans identified a number of ways in which the proposals would meet the objectives of these policies. In reviewing the progress that has been made through the VDLF, it is clear that it has facilitated progress towards some of the national priorities.

3.5 The focus on physical infrastructure and its role in closing the opportunity gap in terms of economic opportunities was identified in the Framework for Economic Development in Scotland. A number of projects in Glasgow and North Lanarkshire have improved the physical infrastructure locally. In particular, the Nova Technology Park site and the Ravenscraig housing site are clear examples (see case study notes in Appendix A).

3.6 The Enterprise Network has identified its key objectives as growing business connectivity and skills. The form of support given to each of the partnerships by their Scottish Enterprise partners reflects this objective. While the Scottish Enterprise Network is no longer focused on remediating vacant or derelict land as such, it is supportive of the outcomes where these relate to major strategic developments, such as the Nova Technology Park and developments at Ravenscraig.

3.7 The aim of improving Scotland's global connectivity and its wider external image have been enhanced through the VDLF in bringing forward some key strategic sites which will improve Scotland's competitiveness, particularly in the field of high technology industries (e.g. Nova Technology Park and High Street/ Duke Street sites in Glasgow).

3.8 The focus on the needs of communities identified in Building Communities in Scotland; Closing the Gap has most clearly been the focus of the VDLF in Dundee, where many of the projects have been linked into existing well structured regeneration initiatives for specific local communities, such as Stobswell and Hilltown.

Local policies

3.9 The three partnerships had each developed different policies and practices for the development of vacant and derelict land prior to the VDLF, and this is reflected in the policies they referred to in their delivery plans.

Glasgow

3.10 In Glasgow increasing the take up of vacant and derelict land is a strategic focus for economic development, with the aim of providing opportunities for business. There are a number of sites where this has been achieved, or is anticipated over the short to medium term. In particular, the Nova Technology Park, the Cambuslang Investment Park and High Street/ Duke Street site will further this objective.

3.11 The delivery of vacant and derelict land is also highlighted in the Glasgow City Council City Plan and the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan, both of which provided a clear steer on the potential of sites identified in the delivery plan. The development or improvement of sites so they no longer blight their locality has been effectively achieved on the majority of sites brought forward through the VDLF, particularly those that are now ready for, or under, development, such as the Shuna Street/ Hugo Street and Camlachie Phase 6 sites.

3.12 Glasgow City Council City Plan was also identified as providing guidance in the delivery of the VDLF. One of the aims of the City Plan was to bring forward 800ha of vacant and derelict land by 2005. The Plan was also used to determine the end use for sites being brought forward through the Delivery Plan. The VDLF has contributed to the Glasgow's achievement of very high levels of brownfield reuse, which is both a national and local objective.

3.13 The VDLF also contributed towards area-based regeneration initiatives, by focusing on sites which complemented and synergised with the existing proposals. The delivery plan identifies these as:

• Completion of the M74 Motorway
• Housing Stock Transfer
• Clyde Waterfront
• Clyde Shipyards Task Force Report
• Clyde Gateway

3.14 The sites brought forward through the VDLF are more focused on some of these objectives than others. In particular, several sites are close to the areas to benefit from completion of the M74 and Clyde Gateway proposals, e.g. Cambuslang Investment Park.

North Lanarkshire

3.15 The VDLF has clearly delivered sites which relate closely to the objectives of North Lanarkshire's economic strategy Changing Gear Towards 2010. In particular, there has been progress made in:

• Improving the quality of the environment (e.g. Kelvin Valley Community Woodland and Carradale Street sites).
• Assisting businesses to meet their location and property needs (e.g. Luggie Glen Business Park and Airdrie Business Centre).
• Projects which have the potential to improve Lanarkshire's image - e.g. Ravenscraig and an innovative building at Airdrie Business Centre.

3.16 A number of local strategic documents focus on the remediation of vacant and derelict land as being an objective in its own right. These include the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan, the North Lanarkshire Strategic Development Framework, and North Lanarkshire's draft Economic Regeneration Framework. The remediation and development of the sites through the fund therefore contributes to this policy objective.

3.17 The development of strategic locations and enhancing the physical and built environment are further objectives in the Economic Regeneration Framework which have been brought forward through the VDLF. In particular, the Ravenscraig site and Boots and Mill Street sites in Airdrie could be considered to be of strategic importance. In addition, the priority of North Lanarkshire's Housing Strategy to 'promote community regeneration' has been supported by certain projects - for example Gowkthrapple and Greengairs.

Dundee

3.18 The VDLF has been influenced by the statutory development framework, which prioritises the delivery of sites for family homes and for employment uses, as identified in the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan 2002. The Fund has for example delivered sites in Stobswell for a range of types of residential development, and improvements at Dunsinane Industrial Estate.

3.19 The priority for high quality, mixed tenure residential areas is identified in the Finalised Dundee Local Plan Review (2003). The projects in Stobswell and Hilltown in particular are working towards these aims. The Local Plan also has a policy of demolishing existing poor quality tenemental housing, which has been the focus of three projects.

3.20 The City Vision is a key document for the regeneration of Dundee City, and identifies the areas most in need of remediation and renewal. Improvements in Stobswell are a key element of this vision, and the VDLF has therefore played a major part in the delivery of these objectives.

3.21 The focus on Stobswell, and subsequent identification of sites in Hilltown and Whitfield linked into plans for housing renewal identified in the Local Housing Strategy 2004-9. The joint working with Communities Scotland though the VDLF has therefore facilitated the delivery of some of their strategic objectives, as well as meeting the needs of local communities. The demolition and renewal of poor quality tenemental stock is also identified in the Local Housing Strategy.

3.22 Sites within Stobswell were identified in a Stobswell Study, which analysed the issues evident facing this neighbourhood, and presented wide-ranging proposals. Some of these proposals have been delivered through the VDLF, such as the former Stobswell works site on Dura Street (see case study notes in Appendix A).

The Partnership approach

3.23 Our consultations with each of the partners in the three partnership areas revealed significant differences in the way these partnerships have been working in terms of the lead role and influence of different partners. There was however a good deal of similarity in the structure and management of the partnerships.

3.24 The three partners identified for the Fund were the local council, the local enterprise company, and Communities Scotland. Without exception, these three partners were involved in each area, at varying levels. In each area there was a management group, which agreed overall priorities in terms of strategy and sites. This group of senior managers then delegated the implementation of projects to officers. The relationships between officers and the way they worked varied between partnerships, and the set up in each partnership is described below. However, there was generally one (sometimes two) officers involved in project implementation within each of the partner organisations. These officers generally worked closely with their counterparts in the other organisations, and working relations were generally identified as positive.

3.25 Officers in all three partnerships were keen to stress that support from management and agreement between organisations at a management level made it much easier for them to work together, and towards common goals, even if their overall priorities varied.

3.26 When asked if they would have found it useful to have had other partners within the partnership, there was a general consensus that additional partners would slow down a process that was already stretched. They also suggested that more partners would make strong joint working more difficult, as more priorities would pull the partnership in different directions. However, they were keen to work with other partners on a site specific basis.

3.27 Only one tentative suggestion was made in relation to appropriate additional partners. This was that Scottish Water had a strong influence on the deliverability of sites and so on informing decisions and priorities - projects were not pursued if there was no prospect of future water capacity for the site. Another partner suggested that to effectively tie area based regeneration with site delivery, it might be useful to include other community planning partners, but if site delivery is considered the prime objective, then the present, limited partnership was considered more appropriate.

3.28 There was a shared view that the local authority was the most appropriate lead partner for administrative reasons, partly because of their existing role with regard to issues of vacant and derelict land, and partly for tax reasons, as works they undertake are exempt from VAT. Some partners also suggested that they would find it more difficult to gain access to alternative funding from within their organisation for the remediation of vacant and derelict land if there was a perception that they had control over the VDLF funding.

3.29 There is an issue as to the nature of the involvement of Communities Scotland where the development funding role for social rented housing has been allocated to the local authority, and Communities Scotland is then involved primarily in relation to community regeneration, as opposed to the support for the development of social housing. This issue is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Glasgow

3.30 In Glasgow the Council and Scottish Enterprise Glasgow ( SEG) were the lead partners, with Communities Scotland playing a more subsidiary, supporting role. This may reflect the fact that the initial bid was drawn up largely by the officer within SEG. Glasgow City Council ( GCC) was able to supply much of the site information that was required in developing the bid, and therefore also took on a significant role from early in the partnership. The lead officer within GCC is within the Land and Property Development Department, which has responsibility for bringing forward vacant and derelict land, particularly that which is in the Council's ownership. They also maintain the Vacant and Derelict Land Register, and are therefore aware of sites across the city.

3.31 There were regular meetings between the management team and between officers from all three partner organisations, with occasional management attendance at officer's meetings. There was also regular and effective communication between officers within SEG and GCC. They both felt that the high quality of their working relationship and the open nature of the partnership were crucial to efficient and effective project implementation.

3.32 The Communities Scotland officer was supportive where possible, and provided any information required as promptly as possible, but was generally less involved in project implementation. This officer would have liked to have had a greater understanding of the issues and sites being delivered. However, Communities Scotland's role in Glasgow is different from in the other two areas, as the social/affordable housing funding role has been allocated to GCC, who coordinate housing investment.

3.33 The Communities Scotland role is therefore much more strategic in its approach, and their capacity to be directly involved with delivering sites is limited. Their capacity to be directly involved in the VDLF partnership is therefore limited. Communities Scotland have supported the various decisions relating to project delivery, and are in general supportive of the direction the Fund has taken.

3.34 Despite this, there may be scope for Communities Scotland to play a greater part in how the Fund is prioritised, and in particular how its delivery can serve broader regeneration policy and work towards the strategic objectives for housing investment in Glasgow. In particular, this may create active links between vacant and derelict sites and the priorities identified in the local housing strategy and in the regeneration outcome agreement.

3.35 GCC and SEG officers were generally positive about the role that Communities Scotland have played, and felt that making rapid decisions was facilitated by having fewer key partners. They also commented that when asked, Communities Scotland were generally prompt and helpful in their responses.

3.36 The Glasgow partners have subsequently commented that Communities Scotland whilst generally supportive, has not been active in project identification or project management, mainly because Glasgow's social housing investment role is allocated to the Council. Nevertheless the Partnership worked successfully with two housing associations during VDLF 2004-06 to assist in delivery of social rented and special needs housing and has continued that approach into the current round of VDLF with six such projects. The partners state that Communities Scotland's role will continue to be reviewed in the light of further rounds of funding and any eligible projects they themselves bring forward for consideration or support as part of a partnership approach.

3.37 SEG have taken a lead role with two of the projects - both major strategic economic development sites (Cambuslang Investment Park and Nova Technology Park). As lead partner for these projects, they undertook works, but invoiced GCC for any costs which the Fund was to cover. Their role in other projects was generally more limited, with GCC taking the lead role.

3.38 Despite the limited number of projects that they have direct involvement in, SEG have been key partners from the start of the Fund. They developed the initial bid document, and have been involved in reviewing delivery on other sites and in agreeing decisions with GCC about changes in funding or project delivery.

North Lanarkshire

3.39 In North Lanarkshire the partnership was the most balanced between the three partner organisations. As with Glasgow, there was a management team ('steering group') which agreed priorities, and officers were then responsible for taking these forward ('implementation group'). These groups met separately, though the lead officer from the implementation group also attended the steering group.

3.40 Lead partners were identified for each of the projects, and these were split between the three partners, though Communities Scotland only had a lead role in two of the projects. While this effectively spread the work load, and ensured that all partners had an involvement in and commitment to the Fund, there were some initial issues to be overcome in relation to different financial management systems across the different organisations. This made the administration of the Fund during the first year more challenging, but the subsequent year was less problematic.

3.41 One of the significant differences between the North Lanarkshire partnership and those in operation in other places was the involvement of officers from different departments from North Lanarkshire Council ( NLC). Officers from planning, economic development, roads, and protective services departments are all involved in attending meetings, if relevant projects were being discussed. This facilitated the early identification and resolution of site issues, such as road constraints, contamination issues, planning restrictions etc. The lead officer within the Council was within the Special Projects team, which was also responsible for maintaining the Vacant and Derelict Land Register and the Contaminated Land Register.

3.42 The mixture of specialists involved in this partnership means that when complex issues arise they can be effectively addressed, and possible solutions discussed. This has been particularly important in bringing forward major regeneration sites, particularly those with mixed uses, such as Gowkthrapple.

3.43 The partners had been working closely together prior to the development of the VDLF. The longevity of the partnership together with existing research and strategy for vacant and derelict land helped to facilitate an effective, rapid response to the need to identify sites for the Fund.

3.44 The sharing of information between partners was identified as an effective way of ensuring funding was suitably prioritised. It enabled partners to identify sites that they should not fund, as well as those suitable for funding. For example, one site was initially suggested for funding by Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire following an approach by the landowner. However, the land had already been sold by NLC at reduced cost, to cover the cost of site remediation. Thus in this instance, joint working avoided double-subsidising delivery of this site.

3.45 This sharing of information was also considered useful in enabling a broader perspective on the opportunities available on different sites. For example, the site at Gowkthrapple had been identified by Communities Scotland for comprehensive housing regeneration. However, the involvement of other partners has led to the inclusion of community and employment considerations in developing the site, thus creating a more sustainable community.

Dundee

3.46 The Dundee partnership developed from existing links made through the community planning network. The partners were already familiar with the strategic priorities identified for the city through this planning process, and working in partnership towards these goals was therefore easier.

3.47 The nature of the sites that were agreed - predominantly housing - meant that Dundee City Council ( DCC) and Communities Scotland had a more dominant role in the partnership than Scottish Enterprise Tayside. The sites for economic after uses that were identified for the programme were all smaller scale, and were not sites which Scottish Enterprise considered to be of strategic importance. They were, however, keen to exploit the opportunities which the partnership provided for increasing access to training and employment for local residents. This led to the development of a rehabilitation and NEET training centre in Rattray.

3.48 The Partnership is also promoting a construction industry project in Tayside, to support people into employment in the construction sector. The aim is to link unemployed people into construction jobs where training will also be provided. SET are coordinating this scheme, and can use public sector construction contracts (such as those funded through the VDLF) as a means of securing training and employment in construction. Information was not readily available relating to the number of such positions that have been secured through the VDLF alone, as the information held does not relate to specific funding streams.

3.49 The DCC officers took the lead in terms of administering and managing the fund. Communities Scotland were involved with the housing association developments, and the delivery of these sites was also managed by DCC, with input as required from Communities Scotland. The importance of the Council's role was increased by the fact that they owned many of the sites for reclamation. Their role as project managers included providing virtual quarterly site visits to other partners, so they were kept up to date with progress.

3.50 The lead role of the Council is further supported by the fact that they are the developers for ten of the 26 projects identified to come forward in the 2004-06 Fund. They also owned or part-owned 14 of the project sites prior to them being remediated.

Good practice

3.51 Elements of good practice in programme management and delivery which were evident from across the partnerships were:

• Use of existing strategies and plans to guide the choice of sites to be addressed.
• Agreement between the management of different organisations, so that they can give appropriate support to officers in delivering projects.
• Delegation of projects to different partners as appropriate, for project implementation - thus spreading the work load and ensuring that partners maintain a commitment to the partnership.
• Involvement of wider local authority departments in meetings, where relevant sites are under discussion, to ensure as much information is taken into consideration as possible, so that sites can be appropriately prioritised.
• Strong working relations between partners, with a high level of trust that each partner will effectively fulfil their role.
• Keeping partners informed of progress on all sites, so that their involvement in the partnership is maintained. This can be through quarterly meetings, though the more innovative example of virtual site visits provides another means of keeping partners up to date, while not requiring them all to attend meetings.
• Including all partners in decisions about changes in programme spending.

3.52 The partnership worked effectively to foster good working relationships between partner organisations, and during consultations there was generally very positive feedback from all partners regarding their involvement. This was generally maintained even when there were changes in staff, though these transitions were supported by the fact that the original members of staff were generally still involved in the organisation and able to provide guidance and assistance once they had moved onto their new post.

Strategy adopted by the Partnerships

3.53 Each partnership drew upon their knowledge of vacant and derelict sites, their own policy context, existing partnership arrangements and interpretation of the Scottish Executive's priorities for the VDLF and from this, developed a range of different strategies for prioritising and delivering sites through the VDLF.

3.54 In Glasgow, a key element of their strategy was to focus on sites which had no other funding source. Thus, some major regeneration sites were avoided while at the same time aiming for complementarity and synergy by delivering sites on the edge of some of these regeneration areas. The Executive has however encouraged Glasgow City Council to identify sites within the Gateway footprint for their 2006- 2008 delivery plan.

3.55 Glasgow chose not to focus on the delivery of public sector housing, as this was considered to be eligible for other sources of funding. The Glasgow delivery plan identified a number of issues which they aimed to address:

• Sites for economic development.
• Remedial works to facilitate market delivery.
• Greening programme.
• Site information to facilitate marketing and development of sites.
• Surface water management analysis and techniques on greenspace sites and those found to be unsuitable for development.

3.56 There was also a significant emphasis on social justice issues. Sites were located in close proximity to regeneration areas; 29 of the 33 sites identified in the delivery plan were within four of the eight former Social Inclusion Partnership areas in Glasgow.

3.57 The partnership also focused particularly on identifying the potential of sites which had been vacant and derelict for a long time - 58% of sites were long term derelict or vacant (i.e. since 1985 or before).

3.58 Many sites required site investigations to be carried out in order to assess ground conditions. The longer term aim was for these sites to be remediated through future phases of the VDLF, assuming that costs were found to be above those that the market could address.

3.59 This decision was taken on the clear understanding that funding may not be available beyond 2006. Alternatively, site investigations might prove that the site could be delivered through the private sector without the need for further subsidy. These site investigations were not considered by Glasgow to be 'studies', and the 10% limit of spending on 'studies' was not considered to apply. However, in practice spend on studies and site investigations amounted to less than 10% of their total spending, and only minimally over 10% of their grant,

3.60 To balance this, the partnership was also aware of the need to bring forward sites for which they already had a clear understanding of the potential for development. These were generally sites which had been identified for development before, but which had not been taken forward because of the cost of remediation.

3.61 As with the other partnerships, Glasgow considered it important to identify more sites in their delivery plan than they anticipated being able to bring forward, so that there was scope for progress to stall on some sites, without jeopardising the overall delivery of sites through the Fund.

3.62 Glasgow had an existing Derelict Land Strategy (1997), which had been developed by a Vacant and Derelict Land Working Group in the mid-1990s. Although this strategy was somewhat out of date when the VDLF was introduced, and although it covered only derelict sites, the knowledge of sites and their constraints provided useful background for the decision making process.

3.63 In North Lanarkshire, an existing framework for the identification of sites for the VDLF was used. This was based on a Derelict Land Strategy developed through a partnership between Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire, North and South Lanarkshire Councils and Communities Scotland. This identified the priorities for North Lanarkshire as:

• Town Centres
• Regeneration Projects
• SIPs
• Transport Corridors

3.64 Lanarkshire's Greening Framework also informed site prioritisation. An initial review of all vacant and derelict sites led to the identification of 24 clusters of sites. There were then tested against the strategic priorities identified above, to refine the number of sites down to 12 clusters, and 65 sites. Following consultation with other partners, the priority clusters were revised, to include 15 clusters and 67 sites. The final stage of the screening process was to consider the deliverability of sites.

3.65 The aim of the North Lanarkshire strategy is to use the treatment of derelict land as a catalyst for:

• Economic development on unproductive sites, thus generating measurable economic outputs as well as property assets.
• Removing blight where it is clearly having a negative impact on the image of an area, and is likely to restrict its future economic development.

3.66 The distribution of VDL Funding aimed to achieve this through an equitable distribution of the Fund to projects that addressed housing, environmental, social and economic issues.

3.67 In prioritising sites, North Lanarkshire also took into consideration the availability of match funding from partners. They prioritised sites where leverage of funding from other sources was possible, in order to maximise the impact of the VDL Funding.

3.68 All three partnerships took into consideration the deliverability of sites within the two year timescale in their prioritisation of sites. Where they varied was in relation to the proportion of sites that were anticipated to be delivered within the timescale, and the proportion which would require further information and remediation before development could be anticipated. This related in part to their interpretation of the Scottish Executive's guidelines in terms of the proportion of the Fund that could be spent on 'studies', as discussed above.

3.69 In Dundee the partnership developed its strategy from existing priorities identified through community planning. This led to an initial focus on a very restricted area (Stobswell). Dundee were asked by the Executive to put forward a wider geographic spread of projects (beyond the Stobswell area) and in particular to include more sites that were on the SVDLS register. They therefore revised the initial proposal, to include a number of other sites in other areas across the city. The new sites selected were for the most part also in clusters.

3.70 The community planning partners had already agreed that, following their activities in Stobswell, (which included housing and regeneration initiatives beyond the VDLF), they would move on to focus on Whitfield and Hilltown. It was therefore decided that the VDLF should start to take forward sites in these areas, in order to progress the emerging plans in these areas. In addition to these areas, they identified sites for landscaping and open space, which would balance out the focus on residential neighbourhoods, and which would have a significant impact on their surrounding communities.

« Previous | Contents | Next »