{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02338877338877339, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005717255717255718, 'mean_word_length': 5.209677419354839, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Policy priorities for property and land in Central Scotland

This paper examines policy for land and property in Central Scotland. In the existing UK property literature, there have been few attempts to produce a comprehensive assessment of property market policy (an exception is Jones, 1996). More typically, sectors, regions and specific policy instruments are considered in more detail, usually on a case study basis. In this paper it is asked how coherent property policy is as a whole? The primary criterion by which this is assessed is in terms of urban economic competitiveness. The paper develops a heuristic framework with which to analyse property sector policy. Drawing on evidence from Central Scotland, the paper concludes that Scotland, while distinctive as a property market, does not operate a coherent policy framework for land and property and this inhibits economic competitiveness. The paper identifies a number of policy priorities: (1) property is more important to urban economic competitiveness in Scotland than is implied by the current policy position. (2) The respective tasks, roles and leadership functions of different public agencies with property policy powers need to be clarified and simplified. (3) The Scottish Executive needs to take on a clear property policy responsibility. (4) There is a need for further debate clarifying the purpose of policy intervention in terms of the market failure versus market facilitator basis for public resourcing. (5) A case can be made for a dedicated land agency with additional resources to tackle Glasgow's vacant and derelict land. (6) There is also a case for a simplified close‐ended subsidy, provided it is well designed and can overcome EU restrictions. (7) The property sector would benefit from clear national‐level signals regarding spatial development priorities that feed down to well defined and integrated city‐regional and lower plans.