Scottish Government

12 Reuse of derelict and urban vacant land

12.1 The tables and charts in this section relate only to sites (or parts thereof) which were brought back into actual use. Sites removed from the survey for definitional reasons or due to naturalisation are not included here; details of these sites are given in the Annex.

Table 23: Derelict land reclaimed and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, by local authority area, 2005 ^{1, 2}

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding
2. The figures for Scottish Borders are not included as they did not participate in the 2005 survey.

12.2 Table 23 shows that a total of 735 hectares (498 sites) were reclaimed or brought back into use since the previous survey, this figure includes vacant sites that were previously derelict and excludes those sites removed for definitional reasons or due to naturalisation. 448 hectares of the land reclaimed back into use was derelict, of which 20 per cent was in Dumfries and Galloway (89 hectares), 15 per cent was in Aberdeenshire (68 hectares) and 11 per cent was in Glasgow City (50 hectares). Of the 287 hectares of urban vacant land brought back into use, 16 per cent (46 hectares) was in North Lanarkshire and 13 per cent (37 hectares) was in Glasgow City.

12.3 Table 24 shows that for sites brought back into use, the most common source of funding was the private sector (71 per cent). The source of funding was unknown for 6 per cent of sites and public sector funding accounted for 15 per cent of sites. Glasgow City had the greatest area brought back into use by public funding (31 hectares) with a further 17 hectares brought back into use with mixed funding.

Table 24: Sources of funding used for derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, by local authority area, 2005 ¹

1. The figures for Scottish Borders are not included as they did not participate in the 2005 survey.
2. Mixed public and private sector funding or partnership

12.4 Table 25 shows the known sources of public sector funding for sites brought back into use. Local Authorities were the most common source of public sector funding, assisting in part or all of 107 hectares of vacant and derelict land being brought back into use. This represents 15 per cent of the total amount of vacant and derelict land reported as being brought back in 2005. Some of the sites brought back with Local Authority funding involved funds received from the Scottish Executive Vacant and Derelict Land Fund (See Section 12.5 below).

Table 25: Source of public sector development funding used for derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, 2005

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding.
2. Sites with more than 1 source of public funding are included more than 1 once in the above table

12.5 Table 26 shows the amount of formerly derelict and urban vacant land that has been reclaimed or reused with the involvement of the Scottish Executive's Vacant and Derelict Land Fund. The 3 councils in receipt of this fund in 2005 were Dundee City, Glasgow City and North Lanarkshire. In total, 53 hectares of formerly derelict and urban vacant land was reclaimed or brought back into use with the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund making either a partial or full contribution. As a large proportion of spend on land development during 2005 through the Fund is preparatory in nature e.g. acquisition, feasibility, demolition and decontamination, it is anticipated that the figure in the 2006 survey will be significantly higher.

Table 26: Sites where the Vacant and Derelict Land Fund ( VDLF) was a funding source used to reclaim derelict land and bring urban vacant land back into use, 2005 ¹

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding

12.6 The new use of sites, or parts of sites, that were reclaimed or brought back into use (excluding sites removed for definitional reasons) are shown in Table 27. Chart 7 shows the distribution of new uses for derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey. The most common new use for derelict land was residential development, with 35 per cent (156 hectares) of the land area reclaimed for this purpose. The second most common new use for derelict land was other general industry, for which 19 per cent (87 hectares) was used. 55 per cent (158 hectares) of urban vacant land was brought back into use for residential development and 8 per cent (23 hectares) was brought back into use for other general industry.

Table 27: Reclaimed derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, by new use, 2005 ¹

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding
2. Excluding manufacturing
3. Excluding passive open space
4. Unknown values are excluded from the calculation of percentages

Chart 7: Main new uses for derelict and urban vacant land brought back into use since the previous survey, 2005

12.7 Table 28 shows the distribution of site size classes for those sites brought back into use and for existing sites ( i.e. those which remain vacant or derelict). Sites brought back are on average smaller than existing sites. Only 4 per cent of derelict sites brought back into use are 10 hectares or larger compared to 7 per cent of existing sites.

Table 28: Distribution of size of existing sites and sites brought back into use since the previous survey, 2005 ¹

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding

12.8 Table 29 shows the date when derelict or urban vacant land was first identified for existing sites and sites brought back into use. Overall, 48 per cent of the sites brought back into use have lain derelict or urban vacant since before 1991 compared to 55 per cent of all existing sites.

Table 29: Date when derelict or urban vacant land was first identified; existing sites and sites brought back into use since the previous survey, 2005

1. Unknown values are excluded from the calculation of percentage values
2. Settlements as defined by local authorities in their latest council approved local plans (see Annex Section A.7).

12.9 Table 30 shows the contamination status of existing derelict and urban vacant sites and sites brought back into use in 2005. In 2005, 18 sites covering 144 hectares which were brought back into use, were known to have contamination. Some local authorities revised their definition of 'contamination' in 2005, more information on this is provided in Annex section A.4.

Table 30: Contamination status of existing derelict and urban vacant sites and those brought back into use since the previous survey, 2005

1. The contamination status shown here refers to the status of the sites as recorded by local authorities. For those sites brought back into use land may be decontaminated, or tested and found not to be contaminated.

12.10 Table 31 shows the relationship between the previous use and new use for sites brought back into use since the previous survey. In the majority of cases, the new use of a site is not the same as the previous use. However, of the 45 hectares of derelict and urban vacant land where the previous use was residential, 40 hectares were brought back into use for residential development (89 per cent).

Table 31: Previous use against new use; sites brought back into use since the previous survey, (hectares) 2005 ^{1, 2}

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding
2. The figures for Scottish Borders are not included as they did not participate in the 2005 survey.

12.11 Table 32 shows the relationship between the preferred use and the new use for sites brought back into use since the last survey. Overall, for 369 hectares (50 per cent) of the 735 hectares of land brought back into productive use, the primary preferred use as recorded in the previous survey was the same as the new use of the site.

Table 32: Preferred use against new use; sites brought back into use since the previous survey (hectares), 2005 ^{1, 2}

1. Figures may not sum due to rounding
2. The figures for Scottish Borders are not included as they did not participate in the 2005 survey.