The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

2. OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES

Introduction

2.1 This section gives an overview of the responses that were received to the consultation. It considers who the responses came from, who was not represented in the response, and gives general comments on the responses.

Who replied to the consultation?

2.2 In total, 237 replies were made to the consultation. However, three of these included replies from organisations and individuals which confirmed that their response was part of an earlier shared submission. One further response stated that the respondent had no comment on the consultation paper. These four responses have not been counted in the response analysis.

2.3 A total of 233 responses were therefore received to the consultation. These came from a range of organisations as well as private individuals.

Table 2.1: Distribution of Responses to the Investing in Affordable Housing Consultation Paper

2.4 As Table 2.1 shows, 41 per cent of responses came from Registered Social Landlords ( RSLs) or RSL consortia. The largest group of respondents were large urban / stock transfer RSLs (in ownership of 1000 or more units) who made up 19 per cent of the responses. Eighteen per cent of responses (43) came from Registered Tenants Organisations ( RTOs). Twenty-nine of Scotland's 32 Local Authorities submitted responses including Scottish Borders Council who made a joint submission with the Borders Housing Network. A significant number of respondents came from representative bodies, making up 11 per cent of all responses. Twelve private individuals (5%) responded to the consultation. Some organisations undertook consultation exercises in order to represent wider views in their response. For example, the Tenant Participation Advisory Service Scotland ( TPAS Scotland) held consultation sessions with tenants and the Rural Housing Service drew on feedback from their annual conference.

Who was not represented in the responses?

2.5 Although the response came from a wide cross-section of organisations and individuals with an interest in the proposals there were some notable gaps in the response sample. Three local authorities did not respond to the consultation - Dundee City Council, Fife Council and Stirling Council.

2.6 There was a limited response from private housebuilders directly involved in the development of affordable housing in Scotland. Most large (national) housebuilders did not reply to the consultation although there were responses from seven (mainly locally based) firms and relevant representative bodies including Homes for Scotland.

2.7 There were no separate responses from Community Planning Partnerships although there was a strong response from local authorities. There were no responses from academic institutions or from organisations dealing with homelessness.

The interpretation of quantitative and qualitative information

2.8 This report uses figures (and tables) showing the number of respondents to demonstrate how strongly elements of the proposals were supported or opposed. Whilst this is a useful way to see the general opinion among respondents, it has not been relied on as the main method of analysing views and developing conclusions.

2.9 In many cases responses were complex and respondents approached questions in different ways - making it difficult in some cases to categorise responses in terms of support or opposition. Because of this, a qualitative approach has been the main focus of the analysis, based on what people said and trends in views. The qualitative approach allows us to consider the merits of particular arguments and any conflicting views.

2.10 Tables have been omitted for some questions where they do not add sufficient value to the qualitative analysis.

2.11 It is also worth noting that where responses 'overlap' (for example, where the respondent has expressed support for a proposal but gone on to raise issues / suggest changes) totals will not equal 233 (the overall number of respondents).

General overview of the responses

2.12 The consultation received a large response from a range of stakeholders involved in the provision of affordable housing in Scotland. The vast majority of respondents completed the consultation questionnaire answering the prescribed questions.

2.13 There was broad support for a more strategic approach to the development of affordable housing in Scotland and respondents supported efforts to make housing investment more effective and efficient. There was also broad support for more collaborative working between those involved in the development of affordable housing and relevant stakeholders at the appropriate strategic level. Respondents were also interested in the experience of RSL development consortia already established in Scotland - and what lessons could be drawn from these examples.

2.14 Most of the consultees (from across the range of respondent groups) raised significant concerns about the proposed Lead Developer approach. Many of the respondents that were opposed to the idea of introducing Lead Developers had difficulty answering specific questions on how the proposed system would operate - for example, on the proposed routes for establishing Lead Developers (Q11) or the pre-qualification process (Q16). Of those opposed to the new approach in principle, some stated their opposition in response to these detailed questions while others considered the question separately and answered hypothetically, were the new approach to go ahead. This variation in the manner of responses makes it difficult to summarise the views on these questions succinctly.

2.15 There was widespread opposition to the idea of Lead Developers as a mandatory approach for most of Scotland. Generally, respondents felt that there are a range of models for partnership (including voluntary development consortia) that should be considered. These should be encouraged to develop organically as appropriate to local context. Respondents were particularly concerned that there was a lack of positive evidence to support the introduction of Lead Developers. There was also concern about maintaining equality within partnerships and the importance of ensuring local expertise and community involvement. Many respondents felt that there was insufficient detail in the consultation paper on how the Lead Developer approach would operate. There was also significant concern across consultees about the proposal for large (multi-authority) regions as a basis for development activity.

« Previous | Contents | Next »