« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
1d - NOTES OF INTERVIEWS WITH EDINBURGH, EAST LOTHIAN, MIDLOTHIAN, & WEST LOTHIAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Client: | City of Edinburgh, Midlothian Council, West Lothian Council and East Lothian Council |
|---|
Project: | Research into Effectiveness of Housing Land Audits |
|---|
Venue: | City of Edinburgh Offices |
|---|
Date: | Tuesday 7th March 2007 |
|---|
Attending: | Neil Martin, Turley Associates
Robin Matthew, East Lothian Council
Alistair Harvey, City of Edinburgh Council
Jo McClure, Midlothian Council
Steve Lovell, West Lothian Council |
|---|
1. The purpose of the Audit was viewed as monitoring Structure Plan Policies with limited application beyond that. Audit prepared by a combination of Planning Policy officers and Research & Information officers.
2. The team acknowledged that whilst they have limited exposure to "other" audits, a working group had been established to look into joint working / reporting arrangements as part of future city/region planning approach. Conclusions from that were that each Authority was working to a similar basis (i.e. PAN 38) and whilst there may be different procedures between authorities, it was possible to tie the individual audits across the city/region together in an over-arching report.
3. Different approaches to recoding completions were noted but the key is to record them in a consistent manner year to year. There are also different systems utilised across Edinburgh and the Lothians that have evolved from a generally common start point.
4. The individual databases that underlie the information contained within the Audit have more information than is presented, however, a significant volume of information is nevertheless provided within the published document. The information that is (or could be) within the database is only as good as that which is made available, i.e. if the planning application does not break down a proposal to 2, 3 and 4+ bedroom units, that information cannot be recorded.
5. Some site history information if collated but it generally tends to only be the most up to date position.
6. In preparing the Audit, the team seeks to present as realistic a position as possible and "deal with policy implications later". The recognition is that any "tricks" with programming etc would be found out the following year. There are clear rules of engagement between the Authorities and stakeholders and evident in the limited numbers of disputed sites that remain at the end of the preparation stage.
7. Information received from stakeholders is "taken as read" even when these may be aspirational sales targets. If these are appearing to be wide of the mark, will become evident the following year.
8. Difficult to know how best to deal with "artificial manipulation" of market, i.e. block of 40+units "complete" but only 20 marketed. May be an issue of housing market as a whole (i.e. sales will not match supply - over supply of flats) and/or may be active decision of housebuilder to protect sale prices. Need for further thought on how this could/should be recorded as the supply is there although not supplied - perspective is that the HLA should record point where units are completed not where they are passed for sale - HLA and planning system not well formed to address market forces.
9. Some rules of thumb have evolved - key elements to programming are whether a site is under the control of a housebuilder, whether it has consent and whether it is under construction. This is further refined given the stage of application / consents (Planning, RCC, on-site, completion, occupation).
10. CEC assume that small sites will take at least 2 years to progress from emerging to first completions, up to 4 years on larger sites.
11. SEDD used to attend stakeholder meetings but their involvement may be less relevant / necessary given the improved understanding of definitions etc. Limited input when they did attend.
12. Scottish Water attends quarterly meetings with LAs and that information feeds into programming assumptions. Communities Scotland is important to confirm funding availability on AH sites.
13. The Audit identifies the AH proportion on sites although some caution about programming beyond 3 year funding period without comfort that funding "would become available". Starting point would be base Policy requirement and any negotiated differences would appear in updated Audits. Housing Services do record types of AH provided and it maybe that their information could be better aligned with HLA (i.e. whether RSL, shared equity etc).
« Previous | Contents | Next »