Whatever else is said in this article, the strong desire among our member associations to help boost new housing supply is absolutely not in question. The passion and commitment are very much still there.

But it feels like we’re at a very worrying point in terms of the capacity in the system to build new social housing quickly and effectively, and in a way that ensures all the money is spent on time.

Recently, we asked members for some quick ad hoc feedback on their current experiences of contributing to the Affordable Housing Supply Programme through new build and/or acquisitions. Some of what we were told was pretty scary:

‘The whole system appears to be completely dysfunctional. The Planning system, Building Standards requirements and Scottish Water drainage regs all make the consents process extremely complicated, protracted and occasionally contradictory. The net effect is to extend the pre-contract period to such an extent it can be impossible to programme with any accuracy. This is before the lack of capacity of the LA to deliver approvals within statutory timescales is considered.’

‘We currently have a Stage 2 Building Warrant still awaiting approval after 2½ years. After discussions taking 2 years, a further significant point was then raised which, given works had commenced on site by that time under the Stage 1 approval, is now impossible to resolve.’  

‘The list of factors on which Planning now have to carry out internal consultation has gone up to around 10, with geo-technical being among the biggest hold-ups, including issues such as assessing the amount of embodied energy involved in a proposed development. This is all down to NPF4 requirements. Some simplification is desperately needed.’

There’s no suggestion that anyone involved in helping deliver the AHSP is at fault as such: I don’t suppose years of council tax freezes and other pressures on councils have helped. But we seem to have got to a position where the combination of factors needing to be investigated by shrinking council staff teams is slowly strangling our capacity to deliver new homes.

The risk of underspend in some LA areas has to be a real concern, and some recent press coverage does point in this direction. A heartfelt ’well done’ to those areas that have managed to avoid this, often – amongst other things – by increasing their spend on acquisitions.

Hesitant though I am to suggest this, the chronic delays and lack of capacity in the system can make it harder for us to argue for greater investment. Can we honestly say that future budget increases would lead to proportionately more homes within the target timescale?

There must be a risk that this also feeds into the narrative around focusing more on larger developments by larger developers, as suggested in the initial announcement about a new national housing agency. You can certainly understand why a small community based housing association might reluctantly conclude that five or more years to build 20 homes just isn’t worth the hassle. Mind you, larger developments can bring planning issues of their own….

It might be a useful exercise for those tasked with developing More Homes Scotland to take our members’ (and other similar) feedback and consider to what extent the new agency might be able to deal with the factors contributing to the current, painfully slow new build process.

Finally, I hope I don’t ever again have to hear someone say that the planning system is there to encourage and facilitate the development of new homes – you surely have to be on another planet to believe that.