Accelerating home building consultation P&CCPB - 17 03 26
Renfrewshire Council · 17 March 2026
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 17 March 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
OFFICIAL ___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 17 March 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Accelerating home-building in Scotland consultation ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The Scottish Government has issued a consultation paper titled ‘Accelerating home-building in Scotland’ setting out fiscal and planning measures that could be introduced to encourage the faster build-out of homes. The measures include providing relief or supplements to taxes to encourage faster build-out; monitoring build-out rates and intervening when these are considered to be slow; reducing procedural times and costs for small and medium builders; and diversifying house types and tenures on housing sites. 1.2 The proposed Council response to the consultation is set out in Appendix 1 and summarised in paragraph 4.6. It supports some of the suggestions included in the consultation paper but raises concerns about the practicalities of implementation and associated resource issues. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board: • Approve the consultation response set out in Appendix 1 ___________________________________________________________________
Page 2
OFFICIAL 3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Government declared a national housing emergency in May 2024 and has subsequently published a Housing Emergency Action Plan and a Planning and the Housing Emergency Delivery Plan. 3.2 The ‘Accelerating home-building in Scotland’ consultation paper was published on 5 February 2026 as a starting point for discussion about possible measures that could be deployed to accelerate the build-out of housing in Scotland. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, future action may include primary and/or secondary legislation. Legislative changes would not be feasible until the next session of the Scottish Parliament. 3.3 The consultation closes on 30 April 2026. 4. Accelerating home-building in Scotland consultation – content and proposed response 4.1 The consultation paper sets out a range of potential incentives and penalties which could be deployed to overcome barriers to housing delivery. These are set out under the following four options. Option 1: Introduce fiscal measures to tackle inactivity or slow build-out 4.2 This option considers introducing relief or supplements to taxes, such as the Scottish Building Safety Levy or Land and Buildings Transaction Tax to stimulate or speed up delivery where build-out is not progressing at pace. Another aspect considered is charging Council Tax on all properties in a project after planning permission has been secured and/or development commenced, whether they have been built or not. Option 2: Monitor build-out rates and intervene where these are unreasonably slow 4.3 This option considers extending powers to manage the pipeline of deliverable housing land, by for example requiring reports to be submitted to planning authorities such as a build-out statement and annual report of development progress, with linked powers to cease planning permissions after a fixed deadline or where the planning authority considers progress to be unreasonable. Option 3: Reduce procedural time and costs for small and medium enterprise (SME) developers 4.4 This option considers refining the development hierarchy in order to enable the planning process for smaller housing sites (more commonly developed by SMEs) to be varied. The current development hierarchy consists of major developments of 50 houses or more and local developments of 49 houses or less. Through introducing more categories, it is suggested that planning applications for smaller sites could be fast-tracked; the planning application requirements for smaller sites could be rationalised to allow applications to be
Page 3
OFFICIAL brought forward more quickly and at a lower cost; and advice could be provided on planning application requirements for different sizes of proposals, setting clearer and more streamlined expectations. Option 4: Diversify outputs from deliverable land 4.5 This option relates to increasing the mix of types and tenures of homes on housing sites. It sets out that there may be scope to develop existing requirements further to shape how sites are appraised and selected for allocation in local development plans, and how delivery expectations are then specified. The goal would be to ensure local development plans allocate sites to accommodate as wide a range as possible of sizes, types and tenures of development. Legislation could be brought in to require sites above a fixed threshold to offer a diversity of housing types and tenures. Proposed consultation response 4.6 The proposed response to the consultation is set out in Appendix 1. It includes the following points: • The fiscal incentives suggested to accelerate house building appear complex to introduce (requiring primary and secondary legislation) and to apply, with uncertainty over who they would apply to and when they would apply. • Some measures proposed could be counter-productive by resulting less sites being brought forward for housing development. • The suggestion of a vacant land tax is of interest and could have a broader impact through being applicable to land allocated not just for house building. • Any tax introduced should be a local tax, which is set and administered locally. • Income from such tax should be used to help accelerate housing development e.g. to deliver affordable housing or infrastructure that would support housing development across a range of sites. • It is not clear whether bringing forward powers to require developers to report on development progress would be beneficial. It could increase bureaucracy without any resultant increase in delivery. • It would be disproportionate to revoke an unimplemented planning permission if if progress is considered unreasonably slow. However, powers to revoke an implemented consent which is not being progressed should be a consideration • Changes to the development hierarchy to enable more streamlined planning processes for planning applications for smaller housing sites should be considered. • Encouraging/requiring a more diverse range of house types across development sites could increase the pace of build-out of houses on that site, as the houses built would be accessible to a wider range of
Page 4
OFFICIAL buyers/renters. However, legislation requiring this would be disproportionate and inflexible, and either stronger planning policy or guidance would be a better approach. Implications of the Report 1. Financial – some of the proposals set out in the consultation would provide an income to the Council e.g. introducing Council Tax on homes that have not been built but have planning permission. The consultation paper states that the purpose of any fiscal measures would be to stimulate build-out rather than raise revenue. The consultation paper also states that there is potential for revenue to be used to fund infrastructure and other interventions to de-risk sites, improve viability and therefore speed-up build-out. 2. HR & Organisational Development – some of the proposals set out in the consultation paper would have a resource impact on the Council’s planning service as they would require increased monitoring of housing development. 3. Community/Council Planning – None 4. Legal – some of the proposals sets out in the consultation would require primary and secondary legislation to be introduced to the Scottish Government. 5. Property/Assets – some of the proposals set out in the consultation would impact on Council-owned land and Council housing developments. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights – The report does not relate to a policy or proposal of Renfrewshire Council. 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – None. 13. Children’s Rights – None. 14. Cosla Policy Position – Not available at time of writing the report. _______________________________________________________ List of Background Papers Accelerating home-building in Scotland consultation paper - Accelerating home building in Scotland - A consultation on incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery
Page 5
OFFICIAL Appendix 1: Proposed Renfrewshire Council response to the Accelerating home- building in Scotland consultation paper ___________________________________________________________________ Author: Alan Williamson, Strategy & Place Manager, alan.williamson@renfrewshire.gov.uk, 07811 053968
Page 6
1 OFFICIAL Respondent Information Form Accelerating home-building in Scotland A consultation on incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery Please Note: this form must be completed and returned with your response. Please indicate how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular, whether you are content for your response to published. If you ask for your response not to be published, we will still take account of your views in our analysis but we will not publish your response, quote anything that you have said or list your name. We will regard your response as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly. To find out how we handle your personal data, please see our privacy policy at the bottom of the page. By submitting your response to Scottish Government you agree to our privacy policy. 1. What is your name? Alan Williamson 2. What is your email address? Your email address will never be published. Your email address will be used if you give permission below to be contacted again in future about this consultation. Alan.williamson@renfrewshire.gov.uk 3. Are you responding as an individual or an organisation? Individual ☐ Organisation ☒ 4. What is your organisation? If responding on behalf of an organisation, please enter the organisation's name here. Renfrewshire Council Appendix 1
Page 7
2 OFFICIAL 5. The Scottish Government would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference: Publish response with name ☐ Publish response only (without name) ☒ Do not publish response ☐ Information for organisations only: The option 'Publish response only (without name)' refers only to your name, not your organisation’s name. If this option is selected, the organisation name will still be published. If you choose the option 'Do not publish response', your organisation name may still be listed as having responded to the consultation in, for example, the analysis report. 6. Do you consent to Scottish Government contacting you again in relation to this consultation exercise? Yes ☒ No ☐ 7. I confirm that I have read the privacy policy and consent to the data I provide being used as set out in the policy. You can view the privacy policy here: Privacy - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) I consent ☒
Page 8
3 OFFICIAL Questionnaire Question 1 Could fiscal incentives offering relief to other charges help to accelerate build-out rates? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. The fiscal incentives suggested to accelerate build-out appear to be complex to introduce, some involving primary and secondary legislation, and to apply, with uncertainty over who they would apply to and when they would apply. They would add regulatory burden to builders and planning authorities with no guarantee of effectiveness and could, in fact, be counter-productive, through preventing housing sites being brought forward. For this reason, reliefs for meeting planned delivery timelines are likely to be more effective than charges/levies/taxes for slower than expected delivery. Question 1a Which charges / taxes / levies could the incentives be applied to? Please explain your answer. The consultation paper refers to the Scottish Building Safety Levy, Land and Buildings Transaction Tax and Council Tax. These would appear to be the main charges/levies/taxes that could be used to influence house building delivery. The suggestion of a vacant land tax is of interest and would have a broader impact than just house building through being applicable to vacant/derelict land identified for a range of uses, including environmental uses. It could be targeted at land in the vacant and derelict land register and at the owner of the site, and applied until the land is removed from the register. Where the tax is not paid, a charge could be put over the land to enable payment at the time of a future sale, and ultimately to enable compulsory sale/purchase. The tax would need to be commiserate to the eventual end use of the site i.e. the tax for vacant sites eventually being developed for houses for sale would be set higher than the tax for sites being brought into environmental use. Question 1b Should relief be in the form of full exemptions or variable rates? ☒ Full exemptions ☒ Variable rates
Page 9
4 OFFICIAL Please explain your answer Variable rates including up to full exemption would provide flexibility. Question 1c Could a tax impact differently on different types of land owners? Please explain your answer. The premise of the question is not clear. Question 1d Please provide any evidence of how fiscal measures linked to other charges would impact development finance to influence built out rates. Renfrewshire Council does not hold any evidence in relation to this question. Question 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. For such a tax to be effective i.e. to have an impact on build-out rates, it would have to be set at a level high enough to achieve this. However, such a level of tax may be counter-productive and prevent sites being brought forward for allocation/ planning permission. There is therefore a risk a negative impact on housing delivery associated with this suggestion. Question 2a Should this apply to allocated sites, sites with permission, or both? ☐ Allocated sites ☐ Sites with permission ☒ Both Please explain your answer. If such a tax is introduced, it would be logical for such a tax to be applied to both allocated sites and sites with planning permission. However, a consequence of this is that speculative planning applications that can ultimately contribute
Page 10
5 OFFICIAL towards housing delivery may not be brought forward, and likewise land that might otherwise have been promoted through the LDP process may not be. For sites with planning permission, there is the complexity of sites not being deliverable until certain conditions are discharged. Some pre-commencement conditions can be complex and take significant time to be met, raising the issue of whether a tax would kick-in from when planning permission is granted or when certain conditions are discharged. If the latter, then the discharge of conditions could be delayed to avoid tax. Question 2b How should the tax be calculated? Please explain your answer. If such a tax is introduced, the tax should be calculated based on site area if site is at the allocated or planning permission in principle stage or calculated based on number of units if detailed planning permission is in place. Question 2c Who should be required to pay the tax? Please explain your answer. The clarity on who should be required to pay the tax varies depending on circumstances. For an allocated site, the responsible party could be the landowner or the organisation that has promoted the site for allocation. However, a site can be submitted for allocation without landowner permission or based on an option which may not last as long as the allocation. In these circumstances, it may not be clear who should be required to pay the tax. For sites with planning permission, the tax could be linked to the organisation that made the planning application. However, an applicant’s interest in a development site may end during the period that a planning permission is extant. There are therefore practical difficulties associated with the application of such a tax. Question 2d Should the tax operate as a local or a national tax? ☒ Local tax ☐ National tax Please explain your answer.
Page 11
6 OFFICIAL If such a tax is introduced, the tax should be set and administered locally. A local tax can be introduced more easily than a national tax, and local setting of the tax would allow for differences in the housing market across the country to be reflected. Question 2e How should any income be used? Please explain your answer. If such a tax is introduced, the income should be used to create a fund to help accelerate housing development e.g. to support affordable housing development or to contribute towards infrastructure that would support development across a wider area. It would not seem appropriate to use income associated with under-delivery on one site to directly fund issues contributing to under-delivery on another site. Question 2f Please provide any evidence of how a tax connected to sites allocated or permitted not being built out would influence build-out rates. The Council does not have specific evidence to offer in relation to this question. Question 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. There could be value in planning authorities having these powers available for circumstances when development is considered to be progressing unreasonably slow. However, there would be difficulty associated with planning authorities determining when progress is unreasonably slow. There is a risk of increasing bureaucracy and resource issues associated with closely monitoring delivery rates on sites, with potentially no resultant increase in delivery. Question 3a Should this include creating a legal framework for reporting on development progress? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Page 12
7 OFFICIAL ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. As no legal framework currently exists for planning authorities to require developers to report on development progress, then a legal framework would have to be created. Question 3b 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. It would be considered disproportionate to revoke an unimplemented planning permission if progress is considered unreasonably slow. Planning permission, unless implemented, only lasts 3 years so it would be unreasonable to revoke planning permission based on slow build-out in such a short period. However, consideration could be given to delivery issues when a permission is sought to renew a planning permission, although development plans do not make this a consideration at this time. For sites where planning permission is implemented and therefore permanently extant, the revocation of planning permission without compensation should be a consideration. Sites such as these, because they have planning permission, can be continually carried forward in housing land audits and planning permissions, despite there being no certainty of the development being delivered. This ultimately introduces uncertainty into the planning system. This matter could be resolved by the revocation of planning permission in these circumstances. However, there would be difficulty associated with sites where progress is made on a stop/start basis. Planning authorities may be reluctant to use powers of revocation owing to concerns over this being challenged and associated costs. Question 3c How would the pace of development be set and agreed – for example how would reasonable-ness be measured? The housing land audit could offer the reporting tool through which the pace of development can be set and agreed, as least for some developments where there is a builder attached. There are various factors that will affect a site’s build-out rates. Planning authorities are unlikely to have insight to most of these and are therefore dependent on a builder’s advice on the likely build-out rate of a site and the
Page 13
8 OFFICIAL reason why this is not being achieved. Planning authorities are unlikely to have the knowledge or means to challenge a builder’s view on why a site is not meeting expected build-out rates. Question 3d Please provide any evidence of how reporting on development progress would influence build-out rates. The Council does not have specific evidence to offer in relation to this question. Question 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 suggestion is supported in principle, in that it would be appropriate to apply the requirements of development plan policies proportionately depending on the size of the development. However, it is not clear how amending the development hierarchy in isolation would result in the introduction of more streamlined planning processes. It would need to be accompanied with changes to NPF4 indicating how different hierarchies of development are to be assessed, and/or accompanying guidance setting this out. Also, the information required in support of a planning application will often relate to the nature of the site, not just the size of the site/development. For example, a small site of significant ecological interest or with a complex flooding/drainage background will still need to have its issues addressed comprehensively regardless of the site size, or the size of the development. Question 4a 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. A possible model is: Very small - 1-3 homes Small – 4-9 homes Medium – 10-49 homes Major – 50+ homes
Page 14
9 OFFICIAL Question 4b 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? Creating more categories in the development hierarchy could potentially speed up planning processes by reducing the amount of information required to support, and be assessed in relation to, planning applications. However, speeding up the planning process does not necessarily mean that the build-out of housing will be speeded up. Question 4c What are your views on whether we should review and rationalise policy requirements for smaller housing sites, or introduce a new rules based policy for smaller housing sites? This has been addressed under Question 4 above. Question 4d 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. While this would be welcome and may speed up the planning process, it would not necessarily result in faster delivery of housing on smaller sites. Question 4e 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? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 4f Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? ☒ Yes ☐ No
Page 15
10 OFFICIAL ☐ Unsure Please explain your answer. Many SME builders will not have in-house planning expertise and may rely on consultancy support for planning applications which can be expensive, thus affecting the viability of schemes, or just appear too complex, meaning schemes do nor progress beyond initial site identification and design. Question 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. There is weight to the argument that the availability of a more diverse range of house types across a development site will broaden the appeal of the site to a wider range of buyers/occupants thus increasing the pace of build-out. As an example, the inclusion of social rented or MMR housing on a site in an area where there is a demonstrable demand will result in the quick uptake of these houses. Anecdotally, there often seems to be demand from older people in larger homes to move into smaller homes, for which there is a limited supply in some areas and, in the same areas, are often not provided on new-build sites. Similarly, the provision of a limited range of houses (e.g. 4 bedroom detached) will cater for a more limited market of buyers/occupants. Question 5a 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. Legislation seems disproportionate and could be inflexible. A more proportionate measure would be strengthening planning policy/guidance to require a diversity of housing types and tenures on sites above a certain threshold. This would also be quicker to introduce and could be varied easier than legislation.
Page 16
11 OFFICIAL Question 5b Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. If SME are delivering smaller sites, they are unlikely to be above the size threshold that would require greater diversity to be required. For smaller sites, it is less likely that the provision of diverse house types will have an impact on build-out and may impact on viability as there would not be the scale of development to support less profitable house types. Question 5c Please provide any evidence of how increasing diversity would influence build-out rates. Please explain your answer. The Council does not have specific evidence to offer in relation to this question. Question 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? Where a S42 application is sought, any new permission issued should have the same expiry date as the original consent. This would stop applicants seeking to amend conditions purely to extend the lifetime of the consent without real intent to commence delivery. Question 6a Please provide any evidence of how these potential measures would influence build- out rates. The Council does not have specific evidence to offer in relation to this question.