7. DirApp - Final - 280426 combined Accelerating Home Building consultation report plus Appendix 1 - 31.03.26
North Ayrshire Council · 28 April 2026
Back to Cabinet — 28 April 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 28 April 2026 Cabinet Title: Consultation Response: Accelerating Home Building Purpose: To seek Cabinet approval of the proposed response to the Scottish Government consultation on accelerating home building. Recommendation: That Cabinet approves the proposed consultation response at Appendix 1. 1. Executive Summary 1.1 The Scottish Government is undertaking a consultation on options aimed at helping to increase the rate at which homes are built on sites that have been identified for housing development. ‘Accelerating home building - incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery’ was published on 5 February 2025; the consultation period is open until 30 Apri 2026. Four options are identified by the consultation: the introduction of fiscal measures to tackle inactivity or slow build-out; intervening where build-out rates are unreasonably slow; reducing procedural time and costs for SME developers; and diversifying outputs from deliverable land. 1.2 The proposed response to the consultation (Appendix 1) considers that options presented in the paper to introduce fiscal penalties, new reporting duties, and the revocation of consents could serve as a disincentive to housebuilding, inadvertently making development less attractive or viable. This could be felt more keenly in areas like North Ayrshire, where development viability can be more marginal. Adhering to the established principle of a ‘plan-led’ planning system and supporting the preparation and adoption of a new generation of local development plans is considered a more appropriate way for the planning system to contribute to the acceleration of home building, enabling the allocation of new sites. 2. Background 2.1 The Scottish Government declared a national housing emergency in May 2024. To inform the planning system’s response, the ‘Planning and the housing emergency delivery plan was published in November 2024. One of 23 actions within the delivery plan is to “identify mechanisms to stimulate the build-out of housing sites with planning permission, in line with a plan-led approach”. The 2025 Programme for Government noted that this could include land assembly, build-out rates and fiscal measures. The ‘Accelerating home building - incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery’
Page 2
consultation paper is seen as a starting point for a discussion about possible measures that could be deployed to accelerate the build-out of housing in Scotland. 2.2 Several factors influence the number of homes which are built each year. Although land-use planning can often be cited as the primary reason for delays, following a grant of planning permission significant other barriers to delivery often remain. In mid- 2024, the Scottish Government made a high-level estimate that planning permission was in place for at least 164,000 homes across Scotland which had not yet been built. For context, there were 18,347 homes completed across the country in the year to the end of September 2025. 2.3 The key factors influencing development rates are broadly summarised within the paper as: absorption rate, viability and business choices. This essentially concerns the profitability of a site based on cost and market assumptions around returns; risk and liability for the public sector, a theory that the more land that has planning permission in place, the more reluctant some local authorities may be to support additional applications, particularly where substantial existing consents are not being built-out, due to the potential additional infrastructure costs and risks to associated resource budgets; and capacity and motivation of the applicant. Planning permission may be sought but without clear commitment to progressing development in the foreseeable future. 2.4 Taking account of research, solutions from elsewhere in the UK and current data, the consultation considers a range of potential incentives and penalties which could be deployed to overcome current barriers to housing delivery. The four options are summarised below, alongside the proposed summary response. Option 1: Introduce fiscal measures to tackle inactivity or slow build-out 2.5 Option 1 proposes using fiscal incentives and/or penalties to speed up the build‑out of housing sites by linking tax reliefs or additional charges to whether development progresses within an agreed timeframe. This could include applying relief or supplements to taxes such as the Scottish Building Safety Levy or Land and Buildings Transaction Tax, introducing taxes on allocated or consented sites that are not brought forward, or adapting models used in England and Ireland to encourage landowners to release or develop land more quickly. The consultation asks whether fiscal incentives or taxes would accelerate build‑out rates, which charges should be targeted, whether relief should be full or variable, who should pay any tax, how it should be calculated, whether it should operate nationally or locally, how revenues should be used, and what evidence exists on how such measures affect development behaviour. 2.6 The proposed response recognises that financial incentives could, in theory, support quicker build‑out rates where viability is the core constraint, but stresses that development rates are influenced by wider factors including developer capacity, utilities, infrastructure, and market conditions. The introduction of new taxes or levies on allocated or consented sites, is not supported. Aside from the complexity of establishing new fiscal measures and defining reasonable timescales for development, such measures could distort markets and further undermine viability in marginal areas. Alternative, targeted approaches to address site‑specific constraints are considered more appropriate than broad fiscal tools. Option 2: Monitor build-out rates and intervene where these are unreasonably slow
Page 3
2.7 Option 2 explores strengthening powers for planning authorities to monitor development progress and intervene when construction is significantly slower than expected, including enhanced reporting requirements, build-out schedules, completion notices, and potentially revoking planning permission if progress remains unreasonably slow. Drawing from recent reforms in England, the proposal considers extending existing Scottish powers to require regular reporting, enable deadlines for completion, or cease permissions that remain inactive. The consultation seeks views on whether to introduce these powers, whether a legal framework for progress reporting is needed, whether permissions should be revocable without compensation where progress is too slow, how “reasonable” progress should be defined, and any evidence on how greater reporting and oversight might influence build-out rates. 2.8 The creation of new reporting or intervention powers are not supported. The proposed consultation response notes that extensive monitoring already exists through quarterly returns to the Scottish Government, Housing Land Audits, and established engagement with landowners and developers. A reasonable build-out rate will vary widely by site and will change over time, making standardised targets unworkable. Additional reporting requirements, or powers such as revoking planning permission, are viewed as increasing administrative burden, complexity, and risk—potentially slowing delivery rather than accelerating it. Option 3: Reduce procedural time and costs for SME developer 2.9 Option 3 aims to make it easier and cheaper for SME housebuilders to bring forward small sites by reducing planning burdens, simplifying requirements, and potentially expanding the development hierarchy to introduce more tailored, streamlined processes for small and very small developments. Possible changes include fast-tracking smaller applications, simplifying national policy requirements, providing clearer advice on information requirements, and developing rules-based policies specifically for small sites. The consultation asks whether legislation should amend the development hierarchy, how many categories it should include, whether creating more categories would speed up delivery, whether policy requirements should be rationalised or replaced with rules-based approaches, whether clearer guidance on information requirements would help, what additional opportunities such categorisation might create, and whether these changes would particularly benefit SMEs. 2.10 While acknowledging the important role SME developers can play in delivering new homes in Scotland, particularly on smaller sites, the proposed consultation response does not support amending the development hierarchy or introducing streamlined processes for smaller sites, arguing that the current system already allows proportionate and pragmatic handling of planning applications. It emphasises that North Ayrshire already delivers among the fastest determination times in Scotland and that planning is not the primary barrier for SMEs, which instead face challenges relating to finance, skills, and capacity. The Council argues that the focus should be on raising planning performance standards nationally and supporting SME capability, rather than creating new tiers or “fast-track” processes. Option 4: Diversifying outputs from deliverable land 2.11 Option 4 recommends increasing the diversity of housing types and tenures delivered on larger sites to improve market absorption rates and thereby accelerate build-out, drawing on research showing that homogenous tenure mixes slow delivery. This could involve strengthening existing NPF4 requirements, influencing site selection in LDPs, or introducing legislation requiring mixed-tenure development above a defined
Page 4
threshold, ensuring broader housing choice and partnership-based delivery. The consultation asks whether greater diversity would increase build-out rates, whether legislation should mandate diversity on larger sites, whether SMEs would benefit from such diversification, and what evidence exists on how mixed tenure and varied housing types influence delivery pace. 2.12 The proposed response supports the principle of diversified housing types and tenures as part of creating mixed, sustainable communities but is cautious about using legislation to mandate specific mixes on sites. It considers local development plans are the more appropriate mechanism for guiding diversity, allowing flexibility to respond to local housing needs and site-specific circumstances. While SMEs may benefit from opportunities to deliver specific products on larger, de-risked sites, the response notes that more evidence is needed to show that increasing diversity would directly accelerate build-out rates, even though it remains supportive of a diverse pipeline overall. 2.13 The consultation response concludes with a call to allow the new development planning system, introduced by the 2019 Planning Act, to be afforded the opportunity to achieve the aims of its formulation and for new LDPs to allocate genuinely deliverable housing land to support the acceleration of home building in Scotland. Reference is made to our own Adopted Local Development Plan as an example of a whole system, plan-led approach to promoting new development in North Ayrshire and delivering new homes at an increased rate. 3. Proposals 3.1 It is recommended that Appendix 1 is approved by Cabinet as the Council’s response to the ‘Accelerating home building’ consultation. 4. Implications/Socio-economic Duty Financial 4.1 The proposed response underlines the Council could not support any proposed fiscal land use planning measure which would have a detrimental financial impact to local authorities. Human Resources 4.2 None. Legal 4.3 None. Equality/Socio-economic 4.4 None. Climate Change and Carbon 4.5 None.
Page 5
Key Priorities 4.6 The consultation is directly relevant to the key activity of increasing the number of homes in North Ayrshire through a mix of private and social developments and bringing empty buildings back into use under the Council’s strategic aim to transition to a wellbeing economy, delivering prosperity, wellbeing and resilience for local people. Community Wealth Building 4.7 None. Islands Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) 4.8 None. United Nations Rights of the Child (UNCRC) 4.9 None. Consumer Duty 4.10 None. 5. Consultation 5.1 The Planning Service has sought the views of colleagues in the Housing and Regeneration services in preparing the consultation response. DAVID W. HAMMOND Executive Director (Communities & Housing) For further information please contact Alistair Gemmell, Strategic Planning Manager, on 01294 324021. Background Papers Appendix 1 – Draft NAC response to ‘Accelerating home building - incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery’ consultation
Page 6
Appendix 1 – Draft NAC Response Accelerating home building - incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery: consultation 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. Any incentive that makes delivering housing less expensive/more profitable could support and accelerate the build out of sites with planning permission. In practice, however, there are many factors that influence development rates. Some of these are highlighted in the consultation paper. Not all these reasons relate to viability, costs and market assumptions around returns. The capacity and motivation of applicants, including their approach to risk, is identified as a key issue in North Ayrshire, historically, alongside issues with utilities providers; speeding up these and other statutory consents could help unblock sites and improve pace where developers are willing and able. On some sites incentives will not be required, while on others the level of incentive required to make the site viable – or to prompt faster build-out rates – may be substantial. Accordingly, alternative approaches to supporting the commencement of consented sites and increasing built-out rates which more directly address the issue or issues effecting viability on any given site would be a more appropriate solution than establishing new fiscal measures and all the complexities this would entail. a) Which charges / taxes / levies could the incentives be applied to? Please explain your answer. The consultation paper highlights the Scottish Building Safety Levy (SBSL) and Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) as examples of charges, taxes or levies incentives could be applied to. The SBSL is not expected to be introduced until April 2028, subject to Parliament approval, and has a very specific purpose to provide funding for Scotland’s Cladding Remediation Programme. LBTT is paid by house purchasers. While a reduction or waiving of this tax would have the effect of reducing the cost of buying a new home, and consequently may improve affordability for buyers and increase demand, it would not be a direct incentive to developers to increase build rates. North Ayrshire Council could not support any fiscal measure which would have a detrimental financial impact to local authorities. One approach could be to increase planning application fees for housing developments, with a partial rebate when the development is completed. This may act to reduce speculative applications, enabling the planning system to focus on proposals most likely to deliver new homes, while incentivising construction. b) Should relief be in the form of full exemptions or variable rates? Please explain your answer. Whether the relief should be full or variable will be dependent on the specific charges, taxes or levy under consideration. The more pertinent question is at what level incentives would be
Page 7
set. This would determine whether relief should be in the form of full exemptions or variable rates. Variable rates would allow for flexibility in the application of the approach but would add complexity. c) Could a tax impact differently on different types of land owners? Please explain your answer. Further clarity is required on this question, as it is unclear what ‘types’ of tax, and landowners, this question refers to. Nil response. d) Please provide any evidence of how fiscal measures linked to other charges would impact development finance to influence built out rates. We are not aware of any relevant evidence. 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. No. Taxing sites which have been allocated for residential development and/or have permission for homes but are not being built out as expected is not supported. A taxation regime could be a significant disincentive to housing development, both in North Ayrshire and nationally. Any proposal – such as fiscal penalties, new reporting duties, or revocation of consents as proposed elsewhere within the paper – have the potential to distort or destabilise local housing markets, which are shaped by national economic conditions and local market realities. These proposals may inadvertently make development less viable, particularly in marginal markets such as North Ayrshire, where viability challenges, developer capacity and external infrastructure constraints already significantly influence build-out rates. a) Should this apply to allocated sites, sites with permission, or both? Allocated sites/Sites with permission/Both. Please explain your answer. Notwithstanding that introducing a tax is not supported, it would be unreasonable to apply a tax, effectively retrospectively, to sites allocated within existing Local Development Plans and extant planning consents. b) How should the tax be calculated? Please explain your answer. Taxing sites which have been allocated for residential development and/or have permission for homes but are not being built out as expected is not supported. c) Who should be required to pay the tax? Please explain your answer. Taxing sites which have been allocated for residential development and/or have permission for homes but are not being built out as expected is not supported. d) Should the tax operate as a local or a national tax? Local tax/national tax. Please explain your answer. Taxing sites which have been allocated for residential development and/or have permission for homes but are not being built out as expected is not supported. e) How should any income be used? Please explain your answer. Taxing sites which have been allocated for residential development and/or have permission for homes but are not being built out as expected is not supported.
Page 8
f) Please provide any evidence of how a tax connected to sites allocated or permitted not being built out would influence build-out rates. We are unaware of any evidence that demonstrates 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. No. Local planning authorities already monitor private sector housing starts and completions on a site-by-site basis via quarterly NB2 returns to the Scottish Government. Other tenures are also monitored within the scope of Scottish Government’s quarterly housing statistics publication. Annually, planning authorities engage with landowners and developers in the preparation of Housing Land Audits, to gather information to inform future programming of completions on sites which form the housing land supply. In this context, it is not considered that specific powers for reporting on development progress or imposing reporting requirements on developers are either necessary or would speed up housing delivery. What is a ‘reasonable’ build out rate will be different for regional area and respective site, based on a wide range of factors such as site abnormals and infrastructure requirements; house-types; developer capacity; and market conditions, and is therefore be difficult to establish and agree with the relevant developer. What is ‘reasonable’ may also change over the course of the development, and include impacts from external factors. Furthermore, revoking planning consents is considered unlikely to accelerate housing development, and the threat of doing so is unlikely to be a factor in encouraging timely completions. Rather, the possibility that planning permissions may be ceased represents an additional risk that may inhibit development, particularly for ‘difficult to develop’ sites and/or in marginal market areas. Overall, the ‘powers’ referred to in the question are thought more likely to increase the administrative and regulatory burden on planning authorities, potentially at the cost of the ability to support delivery; increase timescales, complexity, potential for conflict and risk to developers, all of which would have the opposite impact to that desired. a) Should this include creating a legal framework for reporting on development progress? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer. No. It is our view that a legal framework is not required to underpin reporting on development progress. This effectively already occurs via quarterly NB2 returns. 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. No. The revocation of planning consents where build out rates that do not meet artificially set levels is not supported, due to the increased burdens; timescales; complexity; potential for conflict; and risks such an approach would introduce into the planning system and delivery of housing in Scotland.
Page 9
Taking away consents would increase timescales for bringing development forward and increase the risk of stalled sites. c) How would the pace of development be set and agreed – for example how would reasonable-ness be measured? Please explain your answer. What is a ‘reasonable’ build out rate will be different for each site, depending on factors including the developer; infrastructure requirements; site conditions and local housing market. We envisage the expected pace of development would need to be proposed by the developer themselves and agreed with the planning authority. d) Please provide any evidence of how reporting on development progress would influence build-out rates. We are unaware of any evidence that supports the premise that 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. Any amendment to the development hierarchy is not supported. It is important that the development management regime remains robust if it is to deliver on the wider aspirations of the Scottish planning system beyond just housing delivery, as defined by NPF4 and relating to climate change; biodiversity; health and wellbeing; delivering an inclusive wellbeing economy and placemaking. Within existing statutory requirements, local planning authorities already have discretion to adopt a commensurate and pragmatic approach to dealing with all applicants, in relation to the information required to be submitted and the interpretation of policy. This also extends to areas where discretional charging is imposed by planning authorities, for example in relation to pre-application advice and discharging conditions. North Ayrshire Council has chosen not to impose such charging to support development within the area. Our overall approach has still enabled us to maintain the quickest determination times for major and local housing developments (7.9 weeks and 6.7 weeks respectively in 2024/25), while determining 100% of applications with a processing agreement within agreed timescales. SME developers can play an important role in delivering new homes in Scotland, particularly on smaller sites, but face a number of challenges relating to capacity, access to finance and expertise. Thriving SMEs are more likely to support local communities (rather than shareholders) and have a clear role in supporting community wealth building approaches. Collectively, our focus should be on supporting SME house builders by building their capacity; access to development finance and skilled workers; and to navigate the statutory requirements in relation to all the consents required to deliver development; it is not considered the answer lies in ‘fast -tracking’ planning applications – all planning applications should be determined as quickly as practically possible. In Dreghorn, North Ayrshire, the support received from North Ayrshire Council’s planning department has been acknowledged by the developer of eight bungalows. Axius Group are quoted as saying “from the start of the process… their open, pragmatic approach demonstrates a strong commitment to encouraging investment in the area – an attitude that,
Page 10
if adopted more widely, could help stimulate much-needed housing development across other council regions." The planning system plays a vital role in consenting development proposals that will enable new homes to be built as part of sustainable, liveable and productive places, in accordance with a plan-led system. A more appropriate focus would be on making sure that planning performance standards are met across the country, including by ensuring planning departments are adequately resourced and other barriers to performance are address through appropriate action plans. 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. North Ayrshire Council consider the existing three categories – National, Major and Local – are sufficient, for the reasons set out in the response to Question 4(b) below. 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? Creating more categories in the development hierarchy would add unwelcome complexity to the system for both developers and communities. All applications - regardless of scale – must be determined on their own merits and accordance with the development plan unless material consideration indicate otherwise, with appropriate opportunities for community consultation. North Ayrshire Council’s view is that increasing the existing development categories (national, major and local) would not have any impact on speeding up build-out of housing and would compromise the integrity and efficacy of the existing categories. 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? The evidence presented in the consultation paper on the number of homes with planning permission which have not yet been built indicates that the planning system is consenting an adequate sufficiency of homes and the key issues relate to the subsequent implementation of these permissions. North Ayrshire Council does not support amendments to NPF4 prior to the first generation of new-style LDPs coming on stream, or the introduce a new rules-based policy for smaller housing sites without clearer evidence that such changes would be beneficial and therefore required. A new generation of LDPs, informed by NPF4 and new Local development plan guidance, underpinned by a new process (including Evidence Reporting and Gate Check), are expected to play a significant role in accelerating home building through allocations and, where required, policies that reflect local and regional circumstances. It is important that the ethos of a plan-led planning system in Scotland is upheld. Furthermore, Masterplan Consent Areas (MCAs) offer the opportunity to promote site assembly and frontload planning consent as an incentive to investment in and support the development of smaller sites. 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.
Page 11
Yes. Further advice on planning application information requirements would always support applicants – landowners and developers – to navigate the planning system and obtain consents more efficiently; creating greater consistency between planning authorities would support developers operating in more than one planning authority area. This may support faster delivery of housing on smaller sites, where these sites are ‘shovel ready’ and consent is the only impediment to delivery. North Ayrshire Council’s position on steadfastly maintaining the provision of free pre- application advice for all categories of development should be noted. This position is being maintained, in general to achieve excellence in customer service and efficiency in decision making, but also specifically to receptively respond to development proposals and to support these where appropriate. It should also be noted that positive feedback on this position has been received from all housebuilders operating in North Ayrshire, and by Homes for Scotland. 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? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer. Unsure. No other options obvious. f) Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer. No. As noted above, North Ayrshire Council considers that the focus should be on supporting SME housebuilders more widely, rather than introducing a ‘more streamlined’ planning processes on planning applications for smaller sites. More fundamentally the number of SMEs operating nationally, and particularly in areas out with the Central Belt, has not recovered to the levels existing prior to the 2008 financial crisis. 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. Unsure. Encouraging more diverse housing outputs across the pipeline of deliverable housing land is supported regardless, in the context of delivering mixed communities. Developers are generally building family homes that don’t provide enough flexibility for ageing and accessibility requirements. In North Ayrshire, there are a number of owner- occupiers on our housing waiting lists as the private sector can’t meet their needs. 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. No. This would not work in practice, could not be enforced and would be unresponsive to local or regional housing need. Rather than legislation, it is considered that LDPs could be more prescriptive as to the diversity of housing types and tenures on sites, with appropriate mixes established through the development planning process controlled via development management. b) Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.
Page 12
Yes. It is possible that SMEs could be offered greater opportunities to construct particular types or tenure of homes on larger sites which are ‘derisked’ by volume housebuilders. 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? While acknowledging the impetus to ‘do something’ within the realm of the planning system to deliver more homes at pace in the context of a housing emergency, further evidence is required which highlights the specific problems that are within the scope of the planning system to address. Evidence presented in the consultation paper highlights that, in mid-2024, planning permission was in place for at least 164,000 homes which have not yet been built; based on the annual completion rate of 18,347 homes in the year to the end of September 2025, this represents an 8.9-year supply of consented housing land. This would indicate that the planning system is currently delivering an adequate number of consents. Housebuilders consider this number to be lower once deliverability is factored in, and that gets to the crux of the matter – deliverability and viability. The planning system is delivering an adequate number of consents, however, not enough of these sites are being implemented by landowners and developers. Further research is needed on the reasons for this in order to find appropriate solutions and to take proportionate and meaningful action to increase housebuilding. Scotland’s most recent round of planning reform, despite commencing over ten years ago, is still effectively in its infancy. It is less than three years since the commencement of new development planning regulations and every planning authority in Scotland is expected to have a new style LDP in place by May 2028. This new system must be afforded the opportunity to achieve the aims of its formulation and for new LDPs to allocate genuinely deliverable housing land. a) Please provide any evidence of how these potential measures would influence build-out rates. In the preparation of our adopted Local Development Plan (LDP2), North Ayrshire Council worked proactively with the development industry, through Homes for Scotland (HFS), to take an approach that jointly looked to stimulate the housing market in North Ayrshire. LDP2 sought to allocate proven effective sites, which were backed by builders with a track record, in order to have a transformational impact on the housing sector by stimulating demand and demonstrating that land values and sales rates in the region could prove viable and thereby promote other interests. The collaboration included jointly refreshing the housing land audit, to truly understand the scale of the land supply that could be realistically considered deliverable; capturing market intelligence rather than rigid defence of historic allocations; and a new approach to site assessment that focussed on deliverable sites with a clear delivery programme and site details.
Page 13
Seven additional housing allocations were approved by Council in April 2018 and submitted to Examination in October 2018. Five sites were supported by the Examination which reported in July 2019. The Local Development Plan was adopted in November 2019. Even prior to the adoption of the Local Development Plan, attention turned to supporting housing developers to bring forward planning applications that would allow them to move quickly to develop newly allocated sites. For example, planning permission was granted in December 2019 for two of these sites, in accordance with the newly adopted LDP. By March 2025, this approach had delivered 258 new homes, with a further 737 under construction. Overall, private sector housebuilding has increased from an average a 169 per annum in the six years to March 2019 to an average of 240 in the six years since. Contributing to this 42% increase are other, long-established sites which are now coming forward as housebuilder interest and confidence in North Ayrshire has grown. Our latest Housing Land Audit anticipates this rate of building within the private sector will be maintained over the next six years; this does not take account of any new sites allocated in LDP3. This evidence demonstrates a whole system, plan-led approach to promoting new development in North Ayrshire and delivering new homes at an increased rate. Development planning and development management processes have, wherever possible, provided certainty to the developer that has allowed them to move rapidly from proposing the site for inclusion in the Local Development Plan to building and selling new homes in little more than four years. The above approach has resulted in significant development of housing in areas of North Ayrshire that have not previously been attractive to housing developers. This, in addition to wider Council and community work, is contributing to transformational change within North Ayrshire communities. The planning system’s role in accelerating home building should be plan led. The new generation of Local Development Plans has the potential to accelerate home building across Scotland in a manner that creates sustainable, liveable and productive places without the need for efforts being diverted into establishing and overseeing new fiscal measures; revoking planning consents or undermining current successful development management processes.