The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

1c - NOTE OF INTERVIEW WITH RENFREWSHIRE, WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE AND GLASGOW CITY COUNCILS

1. Post 1996, Strathclyde Region's responsibility for the HLA passed to the 8 LAs in the SP area (Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, South Lanarkshire, North Lanarkshire, East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire & Glasgow) co-ordinated by the Stucture Plan Core team: A standard methodology was set out at that time. Each LA prepares its own HLA separately following this common guidance and regular Housing Topic Group meetings are held to discuss progress/ issues. SP Core Team then produce an annual monitoring report for the SP area and HMAs. There was a feeling with the group that there is a need for revising and updating the original guidance notes, given changes in personnel and evolution of approaches (post meeting note - this is now underway)

2. Glasgow meets annually with housebuilders but most other authorities liaise with builders via correspondence.

3. West Dunbartonshire considered that previous tri-partite meetings have not been particularly useful given that the major builders had a limited interest in the area. The most effective way to engage all the builders was via correspondence with HfS.

4. Question on market forces - considered there was limited time to engage effectively or knowledgeably by housebuilders. In GCC the progress of non-housebuilder sites reflects track record.

5. Some "Rules of Thumb" applied with non housebuilder sites - 2 years post marketing of Local Authority disposal sites to site start - but reflective of local circumstances.

6. On disputes it was recognised that the programming of the majority of sites is not disputed.

7. Glasgow - HfS typically query over 100 sites out of a total of 400-500, although, by the end of the process, very little is disputed. In 2005 only 2 sites with a total capacity of 100 units were disputed.

8. Renfrewshire - around 10% are queried initially, but eventual dispute is quite often small (Nil in 2006).

9. West Dunbartonshire - HfS usually query around 50% of the total land supply. At the end of the negotiation process in 2006, 16% of the land supply was disputed. (often initial queries reflect a lack of local knowledge). If a site is not in the hands of a builder it is rarely accepted as effective in West Dunbartonshire, although this is not the case elsewhere.

10. Also common comment from HfS was to not accept non-member sites without necessarily all detailed information.

11. On HLA analysis, the Structure Plan team compile the HLAs from the 8 LAs and prepare an annual monitoring report.

12. Only 2 authorities have affordable housing quota policies (East Renfrewshire & East Dunbartonshire) - but all 8 Audits distinguish tenure. There were some issues however in terms of managing and capturing information on changes (i.e. movement of site to RSL - as some movement to shared ownership/ homestake can occur very late in the process - even after the dwelling has been completed).

13. On external relationships, there was perhaps a lesser direct role for Scottish Water in preparation of the Audit (their role is more important when at implementation stage). Given there is a lesser acute affordable housing issue, Communities Scotland's role is more so directed to providing input on their funding programme for RSLs.

14. Any information on differences in house type requires information to come through planning application or HfS. Needs better information from the builders, particularly on a site where there are frequent changes to the layout. A summary of the house types for each site to accompany each detailed application would reduce the LA workload - as the builders already have this information.

15. On small sites, the audit excludes sites of less than 4 and assumes outputs at levels of 50% of sites between 4 and 9 until they are under construction when the total capacity is programmed.

16. There was some discussion on the differences between audit process and NB2 process - different definitions of completion used and no consistent information on start date. Our count was for complete and occupied, therefore site visits were essential (backed up in some urban areas by sasines data for flatted developments, if necessary).

17. RH/ NM asked the LA view on including only sites in house-builders control in the audit. LA view that significant delay can occur on sites owned by builders (Post-meeting analysis of 2001-06 output in Glasgow was provided. It shows that over 80% of the non-delivery of output from sites in the 2001 supply was on sites in developers' hands).

« Previous | Contents | Next »