In this consultation on housing delivery we are strongly against the introduction of a new “presumption in favour of housebuilding on unallocated land” and we would like to see incentives and attention being focused on faster delivery of social housing or community-led housing. We note that a Public Interest Led Development approach is much needed as recommended by the Scottish Land Commission.
The website page for the consultation is here – https://www.gov.scot/publications/accelerating-home-building-scotland-consultation-penalties-incentives-speed-up-housing-delivery/
Question 1 & 2: Fiscal and other measures to encourage delivery
Option 1: Introduce fiscal measures to tackle inactivity or slow build-out.
1) Could fiscal incentives offering relief to other charges help to accelerate build-out rates? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
APRS agrees with the context set out in the consultation document under “A plan-led, infrastructure first approach” and is strongly against the introduction of a new “presumption in favour of housebuilding on unallocated land” as this failed to prevent the current housing problem in the first place, and would lead to cases being contested in the courts rather than keeping the focus on supporting the speedier build-out of allocated sites. NPF4 already provides a mechanism for bringing more land into the pipeline if allocated land is being built out faster than expected, and this is intended to incentivise faster building in a planned way. Furthermore, introducing an interim measure similar to a presumption would drive a coach and horses through the plan-led system and the fragile public trust in the value of engaging with the planning system without there being a community right of appeal. There are clearly difficulties with trying to accelerate build out rates when many volume housebuilding companies are focused on maintaining profit rather than meeting need. APRS would like to see incentives and attention being focused on faster delivery of social housing or community-led housing (or PILD) rather than seemingly including all-tenure housing at all price-points.
The measures suggested in Option 1 look complex to set up and hard to get right in terms of fairness and effectiveness. There is a danger that they could bog the planning system down in additional, time-consuming and unproductive bureaucracy, the exact opposite of what is being sought. The consultation document mentions Land Value Capture, and It is unclear to APRS why this is not being pursued by the Scottish Government, building on the work of the Scottish Land Commission.
APRS shares the view of the Scottish Land Commission that a public interest approach to housing delivery is needed, in which the public sector takes the lead to ensure that enough homes are built – particularly in rural Scotland – and that the full range of housing needs is met. Public sector leadership is needed to address market failure and in recognition that ‘place’ is a public good. APRS calls on the Scottish Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission’s report, Land for Housing: Towards a Public Interest Led Approach to Development.
a) Which charges / taxes / levies could the incentives be applied to? Please explain your answer.
b) Should relief be in the form of full exemptions or variable rates? Full exemptions / variable rates. Please explain your answer.
c) Could a tax impact differently on different types of land owners? Please explain your answer.
d) Please provide any evidence of how fiscal measures linked to other charges would impact development finance to influence built out rates.
2) Should we introduce a tax on sites which have been allocated for residential development and/or have permission for homes, but are not being built out as expected, as set out in option 1? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
a) Should this apply to allocated sites, sites with permission, or both? Allocated sites/Sites with permission/Both. Please explain your answer.
b) How should the tax be calculated? Please explain your answer.
c) Who should be required to pay the tax? Please explain your answer.
d) Should the tax operate as a local or a national tax? Local tax/national tax. Please explain your answer.
e) How should any income be used? Please explain your answer.
f) Please provide any evidence of how a tax connected to sites allocated or permitted not being built out would influence build-out rates.
Option 2: Monitor build-out rates and intervene where these are unreasonably slow.
3) Should we bring forward powers for reporting on development progress and powers to intervene where it is considered to be unreasonably slow, as set out in option 2? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
APRS considers that the increased bureaucracy involved in the monitoring and sanctions proposed in Option 2 is more likely to slow housing delivery down than speed it up. Instead of acting on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations on a public-sector led, public interest approach to housing delivery (see our answer to Q1), the Scottish Government has chosen to trawl through initiatives in England, Ireland and Wales in an attempt to identify a package of measures which might encourage housebuilders to bring forward developments. They neither look convincing individually nor as a package. A few extra sticks and carrots with which to prod or cajole reluctant developers are not going to be as effective as the public sector leadership which the Scottish Government appears to be shying away from. (eg see SLC, Land for Housing: Towards a Public Interest Led Approach to Development).
a) Should this include creating a legal framework for reporting on development progress? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
b) Should there be a power for planning permission to be revoked, without compensation being payable, where reporting demonstrates that progress is unreasonably slow? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
Given that planning permissions are time limited anyway, it is unlikely that the threat of revocation would be very effective in persuading housebuilders to deliver developments on which they have gone cold. It would seem more likely to bog planning officials down in unproductive work.
c) How would the pace of development be set and agreed – for example how would reasonable-ness be measured? Please explain your answer.
d) Please provide any evidence of how reporting on development progress would influence build-out rates.
Option 3: Reduce procedural time and costs for SME developers.
4) Should we bring forward legislation to amend the development hierarchy, to enable us to introduce more streamlined planning processes on planning applications for smaller sites, as outlined in option 3? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
The Government should not bring forward legislation to amend the development hierarchy in order to introduce more streamlined planning processes on planning applications for smaller sites.
The concern seems to be that, on occasion, small developers have found the environmental burdens imposed on them too onerous, contributing excessively to development costs. But good placemaking and the enhancement of biodiversity are considerations that should apply at all scales of development, small as well as large. Paragraph c) of NPF4 Policy 3 already states clearly that measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development. So planning policy already supports a ‘culture of proportionality’. If there is concern that some planning authorities and their consultees are seeking to extract disproportionate place-making or biodiversity benefits from small developments, then, as part c) of Question 4 suggests, the Scottish Government should provide more explicit advice on proportionality.
a) How many categories should be defined by the development hierarchy, and what size of development should these cover? For example, four categories that define major, medium, small and very small developments.
The case for such a change has not been made. The categories of householder, small and major applications should remain.
b) What are your views on, and do you have any evidence relevant to whether creating more categories in the development hierarchy might have an overall effect of speeding up or slowing down build-out of housing?
APRS is not aware of any evidence that creating more categories in the development hierarchy would speed up the delivery of housing and considers it unlikely.
c) What are your views on whether we should review and rationalise policy requirements in NPF4 for smaller housing sites, or introduce a new rules based policy for smaller housing sites?
APRS neither favours any change in the policy requirements for smaller housing sites nor the introduction of a new rules-based policy for such sites.
Biodiversity conservation and enhancement are not, as is implied in the consultation document, “unnecessary costs” to be avoided. There is ever starker evidence of the impacts of losing nature on people’s wellbeing, and the nation’s economy and security. Also, the NPF4 requirements are still bedding in – especially for Policy 3 given the Scottish Government and NatureScot guidance remained draft for so long – developers and communities are still understanding it.
d) Do you think that further advice on planning application information requirements would support faster delivery of housing on smaller sites? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
If the concern is that some planning authorities or their consultees are seeking disproportionate environmental benefits from small housing developments, the Scottish Government should issue more explicit guidance on proportionality. If the concern is that information on biodiversity is too complex and the requirements too onerous then we would suggest the government adequately resources NatureScot to produce the long-promised revised and illustrated version of the ‘Developing with Nature’ guidance for local developments and gives assistance to demonstration or exemplar projects.
Biodiversity enhancement needs to be mainstreamed and become the norm in development. If the current system of expecting SME builders to deliver this is failing then can the Scottish Government identify the problem areas and ensure they are addressed – that could be for instance the public sector providing baseline biodiversity information and enhancement proposals in certain circumstances.
e) Do you think there are any further options that creating more categories in the development hierarchy might open up, further to those outlined in option 3? /No/. Please explain your answer.
Creating more development categories is only likely to add complexity for no appreciable gain.
f) Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SMEhousebuilders? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
This measure would have a dis-benefit to the public if reducing “procedural time and costs” means removing the biodiversity and placemaking requirements on smaller developments – although it is not clear how small the sites they are talking about are (but potentially up to 49 homes).
We doubt that diverting resources to tinkering with the planning hierarchy would bring more benefit than focusing on delivering the new LDPs.
Option 4: Diversify the output from deliverable land.
5) Do you think that encouraging more diverse housing outputs across the pipeline of deliverable housing land would increase the pace of build-out? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer.
APRS supports the encouragement of more diverse housing outputs and delivery mechanisms. It shares the Scottish Land Commission’s view that housing associations and community-led initiatives have a vital role to play in delivering new homes in rural areas. A shift to public sector house building is overdue and necessary if we are ever to address the affordability problem with housing.
The Scottish Government has indicated that it supports the cohousing model, where residents design and manage their neighbourhood collectively. However, communities and local authorities have expressed concern that at present there is no clear delivery vehicle to support the build and transfer of management of cohousing developments. The Scottish Government should provide a clear mechanism for the delivery of cohousing initiatives across Scotland.
a) Should we use legislation to require a diversity of housing types and tenures on sites above a certain threshold? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
Such legislation will take time to draw up and implement, whereas public-sector land assembly could achieve the same result.
However, we do think that the same emphasis on diversity and placemaking should be considered in the current roll out of Masterplan Consent Areas (MCAs), where this is being used to accelerate housebuilding. The Scottish Government’s guidance on Masterplan Consent Areas (2025) suggests an innovative and collaborative approach that can encourage a diversity of delivery mechanisms for housing including self-build and custom build. It also suggests that MCAs can deliver high quality places that take account of community needs and uphold environmental standards. They are intended to allow local authorities to take a leadership role in the planning of high-quality places, rather than reacting to applications put before them. However, concerns are already being raised that they are perhaps being used to circumvent the development plan and push single developer-led housing on unallocated greenfield sites.
25. They are a flexible placemaking tool, grounded in and responding to a place, and how it may change to meet local needs and outcomes.
b) Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
c) Please provide any evidence of how increasing diversity would influence build-out rates.
Further options
6) Do you have any other suggestions for measures which could use levers available, or which could be put in place through the planning system, to deliver more homes at pace?
One of the major public landowners in Scotland is Forestry and Land Scotland. APRS believes that there is potential to create a substantial number of new woodland crofts and homes with workspaces on the national forest estate. In an article entitled From ruination to regeneration: re-peopling Scotland’s public forests in the Spring/Summer 2025 issue of Reforesting Scotland(Issue71), Professor Douglas MacMillan and Euan Stevenson argue that as many as 3,000 new woodland crofts could be created on Scotland’s forest estate.
Such measures could help deliver new and more diverse housing options from a wider range of sources.
a) Please provide any evidence of how these potential measures would influence build-out rates.