Industry body Homes for Scotland, which represents companies building 95% of new homes built for sale across the country as well as a significant proportion of affordable housing, has voiced its concerns over the Plan's recommendation that no new land for private sector housing is needed before 2025. With sites lying idle across the plan area and no longer viable in the current market, the impacts on both population and economic growth are alarming.
However, while many other development sector bodies have reacted in a similar fashion and Scottish Government planners themselves have also made representations indicating their concerns over the Plan’s direction, the Strategic Plan team has pressed ahead regardless and has already submitted the proposed plan to Ministers for approval.
-- Advertisement --
With Scotland-wide private sector housing development still effectively half that of 2007 levels, Homes for Scotland Director of Planning Allan Lundmark said: "By over-emphasising its reliance on urban brownfield land, which requires massive levels of private investment in public infrastructure, and ignoring the very real problems associated with making such sites viable, the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Plan team is living in an economic dreamland where the intellectual strategy it has adopted is more important than jobs, investment and growth.
"Its failure to understand and react to the new economic realities of development means private sector housing investment will simply dry up and move elsewhere. When you consider that each new home built supports 4 jobs, this could have a massive impact not only on direct employment but also the ability of the area to attract new labour and skills. The delivery of affordable housing is increasingly linked to the development of sites for market housing, so there are serious social issues inherent in this plan. Unless it is altered, somewhere in the order of £2 billion of private investment could be lost to the region.
"What the home building industry needs are additional smaller sites that can be more easily built and sold. This would support aspirations for economic growth by allowing for increases in population and household numbers in areas where there is demand. As it stands, however, the Strategic Plan is so skewed that there is simply no balance or choice to help achieve such objectives."
(CD)
