Technical Notes 2026, Issue 63 - Proposed Council Response to the Scottish Government consultation on Accelerating home-building in Scotland

The purpose of this Technical Note is to advise Elected Members of a current Scottish Government consultation on Accelerating home-building in Scotland, and to invite any comments for inclusion in a response to the Directorate for Planning, Architecture and Regeneration. The consultation closes on 30 April 2026. 

• The Scottish Government declared a national housing emergency in 2024 and in 2025 published a Housing Emergency Action Plan. The Action Plan commits the Scottish Government to four planning actions to accelerate investment in new housing delivery. One of the actions is to “extend the planning consultation on accelerating build-out of new homes to specifically cover measures for smaller and medium enterprises (SMEs), as well as measures to increase volume of delivery”. The consultation in question has been launched to address that action and to more broadly investigate options to tackle the housing emergency
• The rate of housebuilding completions in Scotland has slowed in recent years following a modest rebound after the end of COVID-19 restrictions. The consultation paper sets out several potential causes for the reduction, including sites being available to housebuilders but not considered financially viable, risk and liability for the public sector and the capacity and motivation of the applicant. The options in the paper are presented as potential incentives, penalties and mechanisms which could be deployed to overcome barriers to housing delivery.

• The paper sets out a range of options on which the Scottish Government are now seeking views. It is understood that the options are not mutually exclusive and that they may be considered together or individually. The options set out in the paper and the draft response to the paper’s questions are summarised as follows:

Option 1. Introduce fiscal measures to tackle inactivity or slow build-out

Summary of Option

• The consultation paper states that fiscal measures can be used to intervene in the market to stimulate or accelerate delivery. Relief or supplements to taxes such as the Scottish Building Safety Levy (SBSL) or Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) are set out as potential options. The Scottish Government has powers to introduce a local tax through primary legislation; however, additional competence must be obtained from the UK Government and Parliament to introduce a national tax. As it would take longer to introduce a national tax, the paper infers that it would be likely that local authorities would be responsible for the implementation and administration of any tax. The main question(s) ask(s):
  • Could fiscal incentives offering relief to other charges help to accelerate build-out rates? 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?

Draft Response

• Officers consider that financial incentives rather than penalties would be more effective, particularly when penalties could hinder rather than help built-out rates if the initial constraint causing slower completions had been financial. In this regard, officers will consider the use of fiscal levers to progress works in a timely way so as to improve supply in an attempt to match increasing local demand. Such incentivisation will need to be fully considered to understand how these may be applied and to avoid any unanticipated consequences for Council resourcing, costs and budgets.

Option 2. Monitor build-out rates and intervene where these are unreasonably slow

Summary of Option

• In Scotland, planning authorities can serve a completion notice where development has commenced but not completed by the time a permission would have lapsed, or where the authority is of the opinion a development will not be completed within a reasonable period. However, the notice only applies to the part of the development that has not been delivered, and it is understood that serving a notice may not overcome all barriers to delivery. The consultation paper suggests that legislation could be brought forward to enhance existing provisions by extending reporting requirements, e.g. to require a build-out statement and annual reporting of progress, by linking existing powers to cease planning permissions after a deadline or where the planning authority considers progress to be too slow
• Should such measures be introduced, the paper asks who would be penalised for non-compliance; how a change of ownership might be managed; whether landowners would be required to consent to submission of planning applications given subsequent liabilities; and whether any changes would be compliant with human rights legislation. The paper notes that whilst any provisions could reduce time spent by planning authorities on determining applications for homes which are not going to be delivered, increased time and resources may be required to manage completion rates, administer fuller reporting and undertake additional enforcement. The main question asks:
  • Should we bring forward powers for reporting on development progress and powers to intervene where it is considered to be unreasonably slow?

Draft Response

• Officers consider that what would reasonably be considered slow would require definition and potentially up-front agreement. Intervention to address a slow rate of buildout could give rise to legal issues including the potential for challenge, additional costs and judicial review, each of which could delay rather than accelerate development. The complexities around who might be penalised present similar potential difficulties. These factors suggest that implementation could be challenging and resource intensive. Officers are concerned that requiring a developer to quickly progress build-out of a site could result in undesirable impacts on development quality and safety if the impetus was on speed before other considerations. Completion notices have not recently been used in East Dunbartonshire which may indicate that there is no significant local stalled sites problem that would require to be addressed through legislation
• Development progress is already monitored as part of the Housing Land Audit process; however, the HLA is to a considerable degree reliant on a response being provided by developers. A legal requirement to report to the HLA would improve its quality. However, how such a framework might function would require further consideration and clarity. The Chief Planner letter of 02 September 2025 requires authorities to notify Scottish Ministers when unallocated housing sites of 10 or more units are both validated and determined. Any new monitoring arrangements should not result in further burdens on Council resources.

Option 3. Reduce procedural time and costs for SME developers

Summary of Option

• The paper states that cost of building has gone up and that the development industry has informed the Scottish Government that this has particularly impacted on the ability of Small to Medium Enterprise (SME) developers to bring projects forward. Costs incurred to SME builders include acquiring planning consents, timescales and levels of information required at the pre-development stage. The paper states that simplifying planning requirements for small-scale proposals could help to de-risk sites which are of greater interest to SMEs
• The paper notes that a culture of proportionality in the planning system brings benefits across all sectors and that the National Planning Framework (NPF4) already includes varying requirements depending on development scale.
  However, the paper suggests that the development hierarchy could be amended to include a ‘medium’ or similar category so as to fast-track applications for smaller sites, that requirements in or alongside NPF4 for smaller sites could be rationalised or simplified and that planning application information and advice could be clarified. The paper notes that Option 3 would take time to develop and implement through legislative change. The main question asks:
  • 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?

Draft Response

• SME builders constitute a limited proportion of development in East Dunbartonshire and smaller-scale proposals are already subject to flexibility and relief through the Council’s developer contributions framework and some provisions in NPF4. Introducing an intermediate scale or otherwise amending the hierarchy could fast track the planning process by requiring shorter timescales and less onerous requirements depending on scale; however, any amendments should focus procedure and process only. Officers consider that there should be no further relaxation of planning requirements for smaller developers or sites and that all development should be subject to thorough scrutiny to ensure a fair and proportionate consideration of proposals. 

Option 4. Diversify outputs from deliverable land

Summary of Option

• The Letwin Report on the build-out of housing land in England concluded that the homogeneity of the types and tenures of the homes on offer at large sites, and market-driven limits to the rate at which those homes are delivered, are the key drivers of the slow rate of build-out. It found that development of a mix of homes and tenures on larger sites could accelerate the rate of delivery. The consultation paper notes that NPF4 Policy 16 requires LDPs across all areas to take account of diverse needs and delivery models and that the policy also gives support to proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice and address gaps in provision. The paper highlights that existing practice has already delivered a range of house types for large-scale proposals and the potential use of Masterplan Consent Areas (MCA) to proactively consent larger sites
• The consultation paper suggests that NPF4 requirements could be developed further to ensure that new LDPs allocate sites to accommodate as wide a range as possible of sizes, types and tenures, and that primary and secondary legislation could require sites above a fixed threshold to offer a diversity of housing types and tenures; any threshold would have to reflect differing circumstances across Scotland. The paper concedes that there may be limits to the level of impact any intervention would have given other drivers of commercial decisions, e.g. market, labour and materials. The paper suggests that guidance could be produced more quickly than legislation but that any changes should not introduce requirements that might delay LDP adoption
• The main question asks:
  
  • Do you think that encouraging more diverse housing outputs across the pipeline of deliverable housing land would increase the pace of build-out?

Draft Response

• The Letwin Report’s conclusion is that a wider variety of homes would accelerate build-out rates because homogenous product delivery does not meet the desires and financial capacities a range of different types of purchaser. Therefore, evidence suggests that for large developments, legislation or guidance to require a wider variety of types and tenures could be beneficial. Any requirements would depend upon the nature of the site, its location, market demand, affordable housing demand and a range of other factors. Whilst a national requirement could be inflexible, officers consider that it would be useful for legislation to be put in place to allow planning authorities to apply such requirements as part of the Local Development Plan, subject to firm market evidence. Implementation of legislation would require strong direction at a national level balanced with an understanding of local circumstances and what types of intervention would work well.
• It is possible that different requirements according to planning authority area could cause confusion and divergence across Scotland contrary to the aims of NPF4. New requirements added to affordable housing proportions, developer contributions and other types of planning gain could inadvertently add an additional constraint to development. Whilst the proportion of SMEs in East Dunbartonshire is small, more diverse outputs could increase overall completion rates in that smaller scale developers may be less inclined to focus on market absorption rates through the control of supply and unit type under the current major developer-driven housing market as alluded to in the paper. 

• A draft response to the consultation is provided as an appendix to this Technical Note. If you have any comments on the consultation or the draft response, please respond to the Land Planning Policy team by email at development.plan@eastdunbarton.gov.uk no later than 1pm on 29 April 2026
• Officers will provide a response to the consultation via ‘Citizen Space’ to the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning, Architecture and Regeneration. Comments by the deadline of 30 April 2026.