Planning, Infrastructure and Place Advisory Group: annual report 2024

Appendix B: Case study summaries

B.1. Winchburgh development

Project Lead: Winchburgh Developments Ltd (WDL) is the lead developer (a joint venture between private equity house West Coast Capital and CALA).

Case study type: large-scale masterplanned urban expansion and placemaking of a strategic area which has been identified for growth by planning at the local, regional and national level.

Overview

The Winchburgh Development is one of the UK’s largest placemaking projects, representing a substantial extension of a small existing settlement in West Lothian, located approximately 14 miles west of Edinburgh. On completion, the development will comprise approximately 3,500 homes (25% affordable housing); four state-of the art schools; a potential railway station; a motorway junction; a marina; 35 acres of employment land; community facilities, and open spaces including the 85-acre Auldcathie District Park.

Challenges

The longevity and complexity of the project has created numerous challenges including:

• Complexity of delivery given the scale of development, number of partners involved, and the overall funding ask.
• Longevity of the project (planning application submitted in 2005) which increases exposure to external factors (political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal).
• The social infrastructure provision required to deliver housing, which has necessitated significant upfront investment in new schools.
• Escalation in costs, including land and transport costs; for example, land remediation works and costs associated with delivering a new rail station.
• Energy requirements and meeting net zero targets with limited viable renewable energy options (e.g. wind turbines not viable given proximity to Edinburgh Airport).
• Complex stakeholder management, including negotiating with infrastructure owners.

One of the most significant challenges, which threatened to stall the development completely (restricting it to 550 homes), was securing funding for a new secondary school.

Solutions

To address the above, several solutions were implemented:

• A highly collaborative and innovative financing approach, through a Tripartite agreement between Scottish Government, WDL and West Lothian Council (WLC).
• A first-of-its-kind funding mechanism was developed to support WLC to forward-fund the new schools, to be paid back through developer contributions and underwritten by guarantees from The Scottish Government and WDL. External support to broker a financial solution, facilitated by the production of a business case to demonstrate the case for intervention.
• A public-private partnership approach which led to effective risk sharing.
• Effective engagement and negotiations with many public and private sector partners and stakeholders, including lead partners West Lothian Council, Bellway Homes, Barratt Homes, Taylor Wimpey, CALA, Robertson and J Smart and Co, as well as Winchburgh Owners Association.
• Community empowerment, including the role of ‘Winchburgh Ambassadors’ - local residents fulfilling a two-way, informal role of communicating information from the developer back to the community, as well as relaying sources of concern or support back to the developer.

Lessons Learnt

• The need for innovative funding solutions, requiring a high degree of collaboration alongside specialist input to develop practical mechanisms.
• Importance of positive collaboration between the developer and the Local Authority throughout the course of the project.
• The opportunity for risk to be better shared within the scope of the current planning system and for funding solutions to de-risk investment (e.g. could a government guarantee scheme underpin development funding?).
• The positive approach to building long-term community relationships supporting adaptability, which is particularly important in the face of external factors (e.g. climate change and ambitious decarbonation targets).
• The need for robust early-stage cost estimates and solutions to address cost escalations (e.g. how to address the rail station cost escalation?).
• The importance of the Development Management Scheme to manage the land use and masterplan development.

Future Opportunity

• Significant housing and infrastructure already delivered, with opportunity for further investment e.g. enhanced transport connectivity and new rail station.
• Opportunity to build on community empowerment to support adaptability of development and resilience.

B.2.Town centres

Case study type: Place-based, town centre regeneration

Overview

Town centre regeneration activities in 3 medium sized, rural towns: Selkirk, Crieff and Fraserburgh

• Selkirk Place Programme (Scottish Borders Council) aims to build a Town Team to drive a Place Brief for Selkirk which translates into a Place Investment Plan to inform local policy decisions and investment priorities.
• Crieff Regeneration (Crieff Community Trust): the community and business led regeneration of Crieff has developed over a 10-year period, initially catalysed by an ambition to regenerate a former hotel of heritage value on the high street.
• Fraserburgh Regeneration (Aberdeenshire Council): the regeneration of Fraserburgh represents ten years of partnership change, responding to crisis in industry (closure of major food factory and associated jobs loss) to become one of the most improved places in Scotland.

Looking at the place examples above, this case study explored national regeneration policy and funding, considering both the regional scale and community-led initiatives to infrastructure delivery and partnership working with local authorities.

Challenges

Across the three case studies, common challenges emerged as follows:

• Regeneration takes time, needing at least 10 years of consistent support and patient capital.
• Developing local capacity, maturing community anchor organisations (e.g. Community Development Trusts), and establishing effective governance takes time and often requires resilient volunteer leaders.
• There can be poor alignment and coordination of local outcomes.
• Inconsistent place appraisal for investment.
• There can also be a lack of quality data and intelligence to make targeted and informed strategic decisions about infrastructure investment.
• Affordability of infrastructure, regeneration funding and constrained public finance.
• There can also be complexity in ownership structures and community asset transfer models; and
• There is not always visibility on the pipeline of investment and opportunities for collaboration through a shared place vision and objectives.

Solutions

• Tools and resource to support intelligence gathering, including collation of quality data (and production of consistent maps, assets, and plans) to support an investment case built on the needs of a place.
• Better understanding investment readiness and status of existing relationships.
• Multi-year models to support local capacity and alignment on definition of local outcomes (Theory of Change concept).
• Long term investment in capacity building with learning and adaptation.
• A targeted approach that prioritises regeneration projects, with a common methodology for place appraisal and coordination across all capital planning.
• Collaborative investment models, prioritising the use of community partnerships and assets.
• Maturing governance and organisational structures to enable the next phase of development.
• Strengthen influence on local policy and planning decision making (e.g. policy on out of town development to promote and sustain town centre resilience).

Lessons learnt

Although each place (Selkirk, Crieff and Fraserburgh) is different in terms of local needs and also in terms of local capacity and the maturity of governance structures, common lessons can be drawn as follows:

• The importance of the availability and quality of data in intelligence-gathering and analysis to inform targeted and strategic decisions on infrastructure prioritisation and investment. This includes local data on planning and delivery but also using data to gain a longer-term outlook of need nationally.
• A focus on governance levels and the need for capacity and coherence between national, regional and local levels in both the policy creation and investment spheres and how success in these domains can lead to successful infrastructure outcomes.
• The importance of considering net zero in terms of infrastructure and energy provision and delivery but also considering the embedded carbon of a development, its location and the infrastructure that supplies it. Consider adaptation at the heart of projects and the role of policies in supporting this and directing budgets to help deliver it.
• The importance of engaging all levels in regeneration projects from local, regional and national level. The importance of accountability of all these groups in taking responsibility for their contribution to the project.

Future Opportunity

• Consider how to support places with the collation and analysis of local intelligence (including availability and quality of data) to provide clarity on what makes a place work and where the investment need is.
• Support a targeted approach that prioritises investment through a common methodology for place appraisal with coordination across all capital planning.

B.3. Energy Networks

Lead (Infrastructure provider): Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN)

Case study type: Energy and heat networks

Overview

SPEN are the operator of the distribution and transmission networks for Central and Southern Scotland (as well as other areas in the UK). SPEN presented to the core advisory group on energy networks and the challenges of a transition away from fossil fuels in the energy sector. Significant changes in the structure, demand and supply of energy have been driven by net zero and renewable energy ambitions.

Challenges

SPEN’s aim for the next 7-8 years is increasing interconnector capacity to support Scotland’s renewables ambition. SPEN are grappling with the move to net zero and supporting Scotland’s renewable energy usage ambition. Key challenges are summarised as:

• Pace of delivery required: From 50GW of generation by 2030 to 80GW by 2035. There are concerns about deliverability and whether the capacity is there to deliver at the pace required.
• Connection queue: There is a connection demand backlog of 110 GW which is far beyond Scotland’s winter peak of 5GW and current export capacity of 6.6 GW. A number of the key nodes for the network and substations are being overwhelmed. National Grid ESO’s view is that only 20-30% of the projects currently contracted to connect to the transmission network will ultimately be realised.
• Unprecedented rise in transmission connections but also challenges with applications: SPEN have seen a 300% increase in applications to connect to their network since 2018 and an 80% increase in applications on the 2022 volume. Only about 30% of applications will result in developments. Even with industry reform, they expect these volumes to continue, resulting in:
  • Significant and costly reinforcements.
  • Extended connection timelines.
  • Interactivity and increasingly complex connection offers.
• Data limitations: Planning for domestic demand is undermined by the lack of access to UK smart metering data. Currently, only 25% of households have smart meters and there is no legal access to this data and often communication limitations. This prevents an understanding of how demand is changing and of the overall network needs.
• Decarbonisation: A significant challenge exists of meeting household energy demand e.g. for electric vehicles – future forecasts of 1.1 and 1.9m vehicles by 2030.

Solutions

Ofgem proposed a moratorium on new applications joining the transmission queue, but this wasn’t taken up. SPEN led an industry ENA (Energy Networks Associations) working group which identified industry proposals (supported by Ofgem) including:

• Making the best use of the existing network capacity.
• Ensuring investments add capacity at the right time.
• Ensuring storage customers are treated consistently across the Electricity Distribution. Networks (DNO).

The development of a Planning model to improve the effective operation of the network, focussed on:

• Forecasting energy scenarios in partnership with stakeholders.
• Assessment of the whole network including detailed case studies.
• Flexible tenders.
• Options assessment that has built in flexibility, considering adaptability of services and smart/innovative solutions as well as conventional options.
• Cost benefit analysis of the options to optimise investment decisions.
• Developing geospatial maps at the transmission level, from what already exists at the distribution level.
• Installing secondary substation monitors to get a picture of electricity usage and distribution.

Lessons learnt

• Energy transition and decarbonisation requires planning and data usage to effectively manage the network. Importance of access to data to assess future network needs and optimise investment decisions.
• Collaborative working across sectors has supported forecasting of energy scenarios which are critical to effective planning.
• Significant resource required (including training new workforce) to deliver infrastructure investment to meet pace of delivery required.
• Need for adaptability and flexibility of solutions to meet ambitious decarbonisation targets.
• Emphasis on how local planning decisions need to be better linked with the national need for better infrastructure, through National Planning Framework.

Future Opportunity

• Exploring data availability to support planning and effective management of the network. Data sets and online tools were considered to be valuable areas for improvement (renewables, land availability, Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies etc.).
• Consideration of the role of community solutions.
• Linking with SSE Networks, who provide the Transmission Operator (TO) and Distribution Network Operator (DNO) role in the North of Scotland, on understanding the challenges.
• The role of Regional Spatial Strategies and Regional Economic Partnerships, both to help understand energy developments and to unlock regional potential.
• Study examples of “whole-place collaboration on energy” as good case study demonstrators.

B.4. Rural Housing

Case Study type: Rural housing infrastructure.

This case study considered issues of rural housing as a form of infrastructure to support major developments, using Hagshaw Energy Cluster and Cromarty Firth Green Freeport as project examples to explore how rural housing can support a green transition:

Overview

Rural housing is considered transformational to rural areas; it is seen as a cornerstone in ensuring that rural communities remain vibrant and to help redress depopulation challenges. However, availability of rural housing is an ongoing challenge, and a significant one given that 98% of the land area in Scotland is categorised by Scottish Government as rural. Rural housing is also vital in supporting a Just Transition and the growth of renewable energy projects and other green jobs.

• Hagshaw Energy Cluster: on the border of South Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire, the Hagshaw Energy Cluster Development Framework spans the footprint of the seven operational wind farms, with a further four consented. The Development Framework aims to support the efficient delivery of renewable energy potential while maximising social, economic and environmental benefits. This includes a place-based approach to infrastructure, including rural housing.
• Inverness and Cromarty Firth (ICF) Green Freeport: Scotland’s largest (green) industrial development and Europe’s largest heavy maritime engineering hub. Green Freeport status aims to maximise local and Scotland-wide benefits from a pipeline of renewable energy projects, placing the Highlands at the heart of the drive towards net-zero and potentially creating around 11,300 jobs locally. Worker attraction and retention is key to growth plans and requires rural housing.

These large scale developments bring significant benefits to rural areas, but they need to be supported by housing and there is a need to think about how developments can bring long term benefits to communities beyond the early construction phases.

Challenges

• Very localised solutions (community and landowner-led) to addressing rural housing shortages. Although positive examples, they lack economies of scale, including an appropriate delivery model.
• The requirement for useful data to better understand rural housing issues and potential solutions.
• Lack of consistency across planning authorities.
• Some communities don’t have capacity to use the planning process to deliver community benefit.
• Purchase of existing rural housing by higher income earners (second homes) and resistance to new development, by existing and also new residents.
• Innovative rural service provision is required alongside rural housing delivery.

Solutions

There are effective localised solutions in practice across rural communities – examples cited include:

• Applecross (Community Land Use Plan), Tomduie (Community based initiative with shared facilities), Argyll & Bute (area capacity), and Tornagrain (placemaking).
• A coordinated approach to legacy investment, particularly around energy investment, including pooling of infrastructure funds for community benefit (including housing).
• Increase efficiency of planning process to expediate; including opportunity for Masterplan Consents Areas (MCAs) to simplify consents.
• Public-private partnership to create efficiencies and better co-ordination of resources.

Lessons learnt

• Scottish Government undertaking significant work in this area. It is a critical area as unresolved rural housing shortages risk not maximising the social and economic benefits of infrastructure investment, particularly the legacy benefits of renewable energy projects.
• The importance of the legacy of large scale developments on the areas within which they are located. There is scope for better co-ordination of social, economic and environmental benefits, including pooling funds and drawing on available expertise to generate more ambitious outcomes.

Future Opportunity

• There are opportunities to pool infrastructure funding to create economies of scale and attract further investment.
• Planning tools such as Development Frameworks and Masterplan Consent Areas have potential to streamline consenting processes, and foster collaboration with potential benefits for housing and infrastructure delivery. There is scope for their use in rural areas to be further explored.
• Analysing further the socio-economic benefits of developments and establishing a model to better maximise the legacy potential of developments. Importance of supporting ongoing work in this area rather than duplicate effort.
• The importance of the legacy of large scale developments on the areas within which they are located. There is scope for better coordination of socio-economic benefits, including pooling funds and drawing on available expertise, resulting in more ambitious outcomes.

B.5. Vacant and Derelict Land

Case Study Type: Vacant and derelict land

This case study considered the issues of vacant and derelict land with input from Scottish Land Commission, DTAS and Clyde Gateway.

Overview

The Vacant and Derelict Land Taskforce was established in 2018 by the Scottish Land Commission and SEPA to look at the national VDL situation in Scotland (with approximately 11,000 hectares of derelict land, plus many more unregistered sites under 0.1 hectares) and actions to tackle it.

The Taskforce made a series of recommendations to Scottish Government to reform the approach to bringing sites back into use. Since then, Scottish Government has implemented delivery actions including the Vacant and Derelict Land Investment Programme (VDLIP) – although this is currently paused due to financial constraints – the VDL Hub and making sites and data more visible; and reforms to support re-use, including pilot work to support community-led re-use. Re-use has included some of Scotland’s 600 ‘stuck sites’ which are some of the most complex, harmful and long-term VDL challenges.

• Scottish Land Commission: appointed Ryden to report (2024) on progress with the reuse of Scotland’s VDL. This was set against a 2019 baseline report which found that the steady re-use of VDL masked some long-term, problematic derelict sites.
  • The report finds that Scotland’s stock of VDL is reducing, with VDL site numbers and land area falling by 15% and 21% respectively between 2017-2022.
  • The mix of VDL sites is similar but the regional pattern in variable, with the Clydeplan / Glasgow City Region delivering the most pronounced fall in VDL.
• Clyde Gateway: Scotland’s largest regeneration programme. A partnership between Glasgow City Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Enterprise, backed by funding and direct support from Scottish Government.
  • Clyde Gateway had nearly 30% of all derelict land in Glasgow / South Lanarkshire (350 hectares) with significant drainage, infrastructure and contamination constraints including former Power Station, Gas Works and Chemical Factory sites.
• Development Trusts Association Scotland (DTAS): an independent, member-led organisation which aims to promote, support and represent development trusts in Scotland. DTAS has supported community-led, practical and innovative approaches for tackling VDL sites across Scotland, with a VDL pilot (covering 8 projects) over 2 years.

Challenges

• The steady re-use of VDL can mask some long term, problematic derelict sites – “stuck sites” or Derelict Urban Sites “DUSTEs”^[2] which are often in deprived areas with weaker development options.
• Additional complexities affecting site feasibility, often requiring public sector upfront investment.
• Structural changes in office and retail markets risks new VDL legacy.
• Slowing the creation of new VDL by maintaining and reusing existing assets.
• Barriers to reuse, such as costs and market conditions, have worsened over recent years which compounds physical and ownership constraints.
• Funding can often be one-off competitive rounds which does not promote a long-term, place-based approach.

Solutions

• Slowing the creation of new VDL by maintaining and reusing existing assets.
• Developing community capacity: working with community organisations with demonstrable histories of engagement in the area to build capacity and support community-led reuse of VDL.
• Funding: move away from short-term competitive funds to regionally-controlled patient capital.
• Better data and analysis of sites, categorising those sites suitable as commercial options versus those that can contribute to the economy in other ways e.g. climate resilience through greening and nature based solutions.
• Develop appraisal framework (with access to supporting quality data) to test a wider range of options. The approach should go beyond traditional development appraisal and consider a wider range of options e.g. community re-use, renewables, nature based solutions, contribution to climate resilience, etc.

Lessons Learnt

• The initial outlay to support community capacity is often relatively small to achieve long-term action. To ensure adaptability and resilience, the community should be engaged in identifying the best interventions at an early stage.
• The importance of a long-term focus and recognition that interim projects may be required, supported by public funding, to leverage private investment in the area.
• Resolving infrastructure constraints remains a key barrier to unlocking VDL. Innovative solutions are required e.g. Clyde Gateway and SUDs solutions to improve flooding/sewerage issues from the Clyde.
• Transport infrastructure can be a key investment attractor and sustainable options needs to be considered before road accessibility.

Future Opportunity

• Further explore the potential to categorise VDL sites at the national level.
• Explore short term uses and potential re-use options.