@chdot - very easy to miss the change. It was never formally announced and is so arcane that only a handful of folk know (or care) that it happened.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Trams to Granton
(247 posts)-
Posted 6 days ago #
-
Thanks
Has it made any difference?
Hard to detect in political rhetoric (and action).
Posted 5 days ago # -
Surprisingly, yes!
This is quite convoluted, but here goes. Every planning authority (local authority and national park authority) has to produce a Local Development Plan (LDP) setting out both policies and proposed development sites. Each LDP had to include sites that provide an 'effective five year land supply' for new housing. In effect enough sites to build the number of homes required in the area over that five years as predicted through a process known as the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA - usually pronounced Honda).
It takes ages to draft an LDP and many fell out of date, or sites identified in the plan turned out to be undeliverable. When this happened house builders would propose development on sites not identified for housing in the LDP. They would argue that permission should be granted as these were 'sustainable developments' - expensive consultants only too happy to provide documents explaining why this was the case. Such developments were often refused by the planning authority and then granted on appeal by Scottish Ministers, citing this policy.
Removing this policy cut off this option for house builders, making it far harder to gain permission for developments not identified for housing in an LDP.
It's hard to notice the impact of the change, as it is in the number of speculative housing developments not built. Needless to say, the house builders hate this. They challenged the change in court [Miller Homes vs. Scottish Ministers, 2024] and lost.
This is just a super quick summary - there is quite a bit more to it. I doubt there are more than a handful of politicians in the country who understand this - so you won't hear about it from them.
Posted 5 days ago # -
Interesting
So is ‘recent’ house building a legacy of old rules/permissions - and numbers completed will slow down or will developers come to terms with new rules, or find ways round them?
Posted 5 days ago # -
It will probably slow house building down a bit, preventing some housing from being built in inappropriate locations. However, the Scottish Government is so desperate to boost house building numbers that I imagine we will see a whole host of developer friendly suggestions in manifestos for next year's Scottish Parliament elections.
Posted 5 days ago # -
“
By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 30 October
2025 The tram extension consultation states “it is estimated that approximately 30% of the trees currently in place would need to be removed” if the Roseburn path route was chosen.
“
Posted 3 days ago # -
If anyone believes that a heavy engineering project can be built in an extremely narrow, extremely access-constrained location while retaining 70% of the current trees, I have a bridge to sell them. It will be scorched earth, a la Roseburn to Canal.
Posted 3 days ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
