Numerous proposals appearing for 11 private units in Edinburgh, so falling below the threshold for requiring to provide any affordable housing contribution.
Why does City of Edinburgh Council not take a lead from other councils and make a blanket 25% provision regardless of development size?
This should really be a national standard shouldn't it?

#1....and completely undermine any chance of the development of numerous city brownfield sites, pushing development to larger bland greenfield, peripheral and unsustainable ghettos. Great thinking, any more??
Getting residential development moving in the city is hard enough with current contribution levels and a hysterically protectionist (and incompetent) planning department is bad enough....

#2....Eh...can you explain why across the board 25% affordable provision works in the Trossachs or Fife, but doesn't work in posh Edinburgh?
Is it just because land prices and Ferraris in Edinburgh are too steamy?
A sensible affordable housing contribution would reset ridiculous smaller land values that are driving up house prices and the people needing affordable housing out of the city.
Its pretty obvious.

The trade-off for an across-the-board hard rule on AH contributions is that some sites just won't come forward. So while it may look like it works, there are almost certainly homes not being built because of the inflexibility.

Plus I think there's generally limited interest from RPs in small sites. My understanding is that they prefer whole developments to manage, so eg wouldn't be interested in two flats in a block of ten. While this is obviously different they still may not be interested in two houses in the middle of another development.

I accept the comments relating to affordable housing percentage and 25% seems very reasonable some authorities want 50%! However my concern is the lack of quality design and detail for long term easy maintenance. The valley gutter detail is a maintenance disaster waiting to happen? Also such boring design all no doubt to maximise the builder's profit?? Yes the planning Department needs to have Architects so that design can be monitored, not the use of non statutory Guide lines and the enclosed sketches!!

#2, #4... You imply that the erosion of a developer's potential profit is a more important problem than the affordability of housing. - Really??
If residential development profits decline, then so will residential land values, offering more people opportunities to afford a modest home. A blanket 25% affordable housing provision would not thwart all residential development. Development would change, not cease. A blanket 25% would help limit one of the opportunities available to developers to externalise the social costs of their activities.

No, I'm saying that a blanket 25% non-negotiable policy will stop sites with limited viability from coming forward, almost certainly complex brownfield sites in areas of low house prices.

Developer contributions should be baked into the price they pay for land, but we also have to accept in some areas there just isn't the uplift in value to do this.

City of Edinburgh’s rural west housing strategy undermining semi rural identity and aesthetics as per usual. This isn’t going to fit in with the ratho conservation area: this is going to fit in with the CALA HOMES aesthetic. Where is the country park Cala promised Ratho and the Care home that persuaded the village to stop fighting developers? New medical practice. STILL only ONE GP on a day while all the other rooms lie dormant. Ratho primary school bursting at the seams and still running half day Fridays because it can’t afford the extra teacher. Not enough spaces in the nursery to give all preschoolers their full government entitlement. Build more houses: it’s exactly what ratho needs.