« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
1b - NOTE OF INTERVIEW WITH HOMES FOR SCOTLAND
Client: | Scottish Executive Development Department |
|---|
Project: | Research into Effectiveness of Housing Land Audits |
|---|
Venue: | Homes for Scotland |
|---|
Date: | Friday 23 February 2007 12:45 |
|---|
Attending: | Neil Martin, Turley Associates
Robin Holder, Turley Associates
Blair Melville, Homes for Scotland
Allan Lundmark, Homes for Scotland
David Horsfall, Homes for Scotland
Marie-anne McGowan, Homes for Scotland (Aberdeenshire)
Donald Ritchie, Homes for Scotland (Fife & Tayside)
Derek Lawson, Homes for Scotland (Lothian & Borders)
Bruce Walker, Homes for Scotland (Central)
David Jewell, Homes for Scotland (West)
Michael Crawford, Homes for Scotland (Lothian & Borders) |
|---|
1. The Aberdeen / Aberdeenshire approach is a good benchmark, although it does appear to take some time to produce. Liaison meetings chaired by an independent party (solicitor) a response to the previous efforts being seen as "too confrontational" and too much influence from the Policy team on what should be a technical process. Chair acts to arbitrate / mediate between parties and identify an agreed position. Draft Audit shows information for last 10 years (Completions) and planning history. There is then a separate analysis report that ties the Audit back to the Development Plan.
2. Concern that sites sometimes stay on an Audit for a number of years despite being challenged - sometimes very poor information contained "Owner unknown". Disputed sites appear backing an Audit the following year.
3. Some queries over how "useful" the Audit is - not always used in Appeals - a "black art" of consultants.
4. Degree of apathy over the usefulness of the Audit process - often the figures shown are "aspirational" provided by the sales manager - too much ego and there is a need for honest and genuine information.
5. Perhaps Audit should be undertaken as an independent / objective exercise possibly by external consultants [ NM - who is the client - who approves the output?].
6. How should the Audit process be "measured"? How can / should the completion rates achieved be monitored and action taken when these fall below the planned growth projections. Should there perhaps not be a process where failings in land supply (actual vs requirements) are identified and corrective actions advocated by the SE through the Plan formulation process or other means (Direction?). Involvement of SEDD at tri-partite meetings / reporting process on "performance"?
7. The benefit of seeking to plan for 7 years is that there are 2 years to "sort things out" and therefore only years 3 to 7 are taken as the 5 year land supply.
8. Lack of consistency of data - sometimes too reliant on computer generated results and often poor involvement of "other" developers (non HfS) and landowners.
« Previous | Contents | Next »