8. CHAPTER SIX: IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction
8.1 This section summarises the response in relation to Chapter Six: Implementation. The chapter sets a proposed timescale for implementing the proposals and seeks views on what to include in a monitoring and evaluation framework.
Question 23
Do you have any comments on the proposed timetable?
8.2 The overwhelming majority of the 171 organisations and individuals who responded to this question raised concerns over the proposed implementation timescales. Phases such as "overly ambitious", "challenging" and "unrealistic" were common responses.
8.3 None of the local authorities that responded felt the timescales to be achievable. Particular concerns raised related to the proposal that regional Prospectuses should be published by November 2009.
"From a local authority point of view, the target of November 2009 for publishing regional Prospectuses will be difficult to meet (given the work which still has to be undertaken in relation to identifying regions, bringing together SHIPs and taking account of the resources available…." (Renfrewshire Council)
8.4 All 15 representative bodies that responded to the question raised concerns over the proposed timescales.
"….existing, successful consortia have evolved over time, learning, responding to local conditions, building on partners' strengths and weaknesses. It is entirely inappropriate to expect consortia to be formed and working relationships to be resolved in such a short timescale". ( SFHA)
8.5 One highlighted the potential negative consequences of a protracted debate over implementing any proposals.
"Timing is a problem but delaying or continuing this debate for a longer period will also create a spectre and diversion for professional staff, and bodies." ( EVH)
8.6 All but one (Clyde Valley Housing Association) of the 83 individual RSLs or consortia of RSLs that responded also raised concerns about the timescales outlined.
Question 24
Which indicators and what aspects of the Investment Programme should be included in a monitoring and evaluation framework?
8.7 Respondents suggested a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators should be included in a monitoring and evaluation framework. Typical indicators cited included the number and type of houses completed, unit costs and subsidy levels, information about quality and sustainability and the extent to which local programmes deliver on the priorities set out in SHIPs. Others suggested affordability of rents, meeting wider regeneration objectives and resident involvement.
8.8 A number of consultees highlighted the importance of good baseline information so that meaningful comparisons could be made with previous procurement arrangements.
8.9 CIH Scotland suggested that it was premature to comment on a monitoring and evaluation framework until an investment framework and procurement methods had been agreed.