Priorities, Options and Actions
This assessment criteria looked at the objectives contained with the LHS and how relevant these were in the context of the housing needs/market assessment and problem identification. The assessment considered whether the range of options was appropriate and whether the council’s assessment of options had used appropriate criteria. Was there shared agreement with partners on the priorities and options selected and was there evidence of imagination and innovation in the priorities/options selected? The priorities and options should have provided an overall sense of prioritisation, whilst a clear investment framework would allow both partners and providers prioritise their own targets, actions and resources to support the LHS. The Implementation/Action Plan should have been robust and should support the objectives and priorities/options identified. It should also have set out the lead agency as well as the responsibilities of partner organisations with target timescales/milestones identifies. Finally, were the expected or desired outcomes and impacts of the objectives, priorities and options clearly identified?
Strengths
In general, those LHS which were assessed as having dealt with this criteria well have shown how the objectives have followed logically from the supporting analysis. The Implementation/Action Plans were clearly set in the context of the objectives with all key information provided, in particular the identification of target timescales/milestones.
Weaknesses
However, the issues which the assessment process identified as being weaker typically included a lack of prioritisation across actions which in turn will make it difficult for RSLs and other partners to prioritise their own investment to support the LHS. Often it was not clear what the actual impacts of the actions would be and when these were expected to be achieved.
Examples of Good Practice
Examples of good practice for how Priorities, Options and Actions were dealt with can be found in the following LHS. For further information on these you should contact the Councils directly:
The overall gradings achieved from the assessment of the Priorities, Options and Actions critical area were as follows:
Local Authority |
Assessment |
Aberdeen City Council |
Good in parts |
Aberdeenshire Council |
Good |
Angus |
Good |
Argyll & Bute Council |
Good |
Clackmannanshire Council |
Good |
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar |
Very Good |
Dumfries & Galloway Council |
Good |
Dundee City Council |
Good in parts |
East Ayrshire Council |
Good in parts |
East Dunbartonshire Council |
Good in parts |
East Lothian Council |
Very Good |
East Renfrewshire Council |
Good in parts |
Edinburgh Council, City |
Excellent |
Falkirk Council |
Good |
Fife Council |
Good |
Glasgow City Council |
Good in parts |
Highland Council |
Good in parts |
Inverclyde Council |
Good |
Midlothian Council |
Good in parts |
Moray Council |
Good |
North Ayrshire Council |
Generally Weak |
North Lanarkshire Council |
Good |
Orkney Islands Council |
Good |
Perth & Kinross Council |
Very Good |
Renfrewshire Council |
Very Good |
Scottish Borders Council |
Good in parts |
Shetland Islands Council |
Good in parts |
South Ayrshire Council |
Good in parts |
South Lanarkshire Council |
Good |
Stirling Council |
Good |
West Dunbartonshire |
Good in parts |
West Lothian Council |
Good in parts |


