Author: Window Wanderland

Watch this great little film which illustrates how effective and simple this idea is.

Thanks to the incredible efforts of Strathbungo residents, the 2017 event exceeded all expectations… It attracted national media attention and was seen as a real celebration of community and what we can achieve when we all pull together! From performances in front rooms to amazing projections onto buildings; mischievous monkeys, polka dot parties, disco balls, bubble baths, mythical creatures, intricate installations, pop up bingo halls and tattoo parlours, fantastical faraway lands and music filling the streets…. It was beautiful! We can’t wait to see what 2018’s event brings!

Simply sign up and create a window display in the front windows of your flat, house, business or shop. Please don’t feel intimidated! A ‘display’ could be as simple as a candle, book, fairy lights or image in a window. Or you could go all out and stage a performance in your front room! Simple or spectacular… it’s completely up to you.

Window wanderland

Author: George Monbiot, Guardian

It could, if the results stand up, be one of the most dramatic medical breakthroughs of recent decades. It could transform treatment regimes, save lives, and save health services a fortune. Is it a drug? A device? A surgical procedure? No, it’s a newfangled intervention called community. This week the results from a trial in the Somerset town of Frome are published informally, in the magazine Resurgence & Ecologist. (A scientific paper has been submitted to a medical journal and is awaiting peer review). We should be cautious about embracing data before it is published in the academic press, and must always avoid treating correlation as causation. But this shouldn’t stop us feeling a shiver of excitement about the implications, if the figures turn out to be robust and the experiment can be replicated.

What this provisional data appears to show is that when isolated people who have health problems are supported by community groups and volunteers, the number of emergency admissions to hospital falls spectacularly. While across the whole of Somerset emergency hospital admissions rose by 29% during the three years of the study, in Frome they fell by 17%. Julian Abel, a consultant physician in palliative care and lead author of the draft paper, remarks: “No other interventions on record have reduced emergency admissions across a population.”

Frome is a remarkable place, run by an independent town council famous for its democratic innovation. There’s a buzz of sociability, a sense of common purpose and a creative, exciting atmosphere that make it feel quite different from many English market towns, and for that matter, quite different from the buttoned-down, dreary place I found when I first visited, 30 years ago.

The Compassionate Frome project was launched in 2013 by Helen Kingston, a GP there. She kept encountering patients who seemed defeated by the medicalisation of their lives: treated as if they were a cluster of symptoms rather than a human being who happened to have health problems. Staff at her practice were stressed and dejected by what she calls “silo working”.

So, with the help of the NHS group Health Connections Mendip and the town council, her practice set up a directory of agencies and community groups. This let them see where the gaps were, which they then filled with new groups for people with particular conditions. They employed “health connectors” to help people plan their care, and most interestingly trained voluntary “community connectors” to help their patients find the support they needed.

Sometimes this meant handling debt or housing problems, sometimes joining choirs or lunch clubs or exercise groups or writing workshops or men’s sheds (where men make and mend things together). The point was to break a familiar cycle of misery: illness reduces people’s ability to socialise, which leads in turn to isolation and loneliness, which then exacerbates illness.

This cycle is explained by some fascinating science, summarised in a recent paper in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology. Chemicals called cytokines, which function as messengers in the immune system and cause inflammation, also change our behaviour, encouraging us to withdraw from general social contact. This, the paper argues, is because sickness, during the more dangerous times in which our ancestral species evolved, made us vulnerable to attack. Inflammation is now believed to contribute to depression. People who are depressed tend to have higher cytokine levels.

But, while separating us from society as a whole, inflammation also causes us to huddle closer to those we love. Which is fine – unless, like far too many people in this age of loneliness, you have no such person. One study suggests that the number of Americans who say they have no confidant has nearly tripled in two decades. In turn, the paper continues, people without strong social connections, or who suffer from social stress (such as rejection and broken relationships), are more prone to inflammation. In the evolutionary past, social isolation exposed us to a higher risk of predation and sickness. So the immune system appears to have evolved to listen to the social environment, ramping up inflammation when we become isolated, in the hope of protecting us against wounding and disease. In other words, isolation causes inflammation, and inflammation can cause further isolation and depression.

Remarkable as Frome’s initial results appear to be, they shouldn’t be surprising. A famous paper published in PLOS Medicine in 2010 reviewed 148 studies, involving 300,000 people, and discovered that those with strong social relationships had a 50% lower chance of death across the average study period (7.5 years) than those with weak connections. “The magnitude of this effect,” the paper reports, “is comparable with quitting smoking.” A celebrated study in 1945 showed that children in orphanages died through lack of human contact. Now we know that the same thing can apply to all of us.

Dozens of subsequent papers reinforce these conclusions. For example, HIV patients with strong social support have lower levels of the virus than those without. Women have better chances of surviving colorectal cancer if they have strong connections. Young children who are socially isolated appear more likely to suffer from coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes in adulthood. Most remarkably, older patients with either one or two chronic diseases do not have higher death rates than those who are not suffering from chronic disease – as long as they have high levels of social support.

In other words, the evidence strongly suggests that social contact should be on prescription, as it is in Frome. But here, and in other countries, health services have been slow to act on such findings. In the UK we have a minister for loneliness, and social isolation is an official “health priority”. But the silo effect, budget cuts and an atmosphere of fear and retrenchment ensure that precious little has been done.

Helen Kingston reports that patients who once asked, “What are you going to do about my problem?” now tell her, “This is what I’m thinking of doing next.” They are, in other words, no longer a set of symptoms, but people with agency. This might lead, as the preliminary results suggest, to fewer emergency admissions, and major savings to the health budget. But even if it doesn’t, the benefits are obvious.

Author: CES

Local Energy Economies

CES wants to see a radical change to a more sustainable, accountable and socially beneficial way of generating, supplying and using energy.

Since 2013 we have led the development of the Local Energy Economies concept in Scotland. The idea is simple:

·         use renewable energy near to where it is sourced

·         retain its financial value in the local economy

·         minimise transmission losses or shipping costs

·         displace carbon-based transport and heating fuels as much as possible.

All the while, empowering communities through the enterprise and responsibility of taking ownership of their energy resources.

The keys to unlocking this potential are to balance local generation with local demand, and to create system flexibility for times when the two don’t match.

The changing UK energy system

Our energy system is changing. National energy policy is moving towards a situation where ‘smart’ technology will be used to balance generation and demand for energy in a more flexible way.

The roll-out of smart meters to all UK households is just one part of this change.

The move to smarter technology has two drivers:

The ‘transmission’ of electricity over large distances is costly and inefficient, and in some areas of the UK (especially in Scotland) significant grid equipment upgrades are needed if more electricity is to move across the country from generators to demand customers.

The development of renewables can decarbonise the energy system, and as renewable energy isn’t always available when we need to use it, new technology such as energy storage and smart communication systems is needed to make sure renewable generation can match locally connected energy demand.

Local Energy Economies centre stage

The movement from the current energy system to a flexible, locally managed one will require new models of energy ownership and arrangements for supply. Community organisations have the opportunity to be centre stage within this transition and CES wants to make sure that Local Energy Economies are at the heart of it.

There are plenty of policy, regulatory, technical and commercial challenges to overcome. We are systematically addressing these through novel partnerships with community groups and others, to develop projects that put Local Energy Economies into practice and share the learning with stakeholders.

Author: Carluke Development Trust

A South Lanarkshire community with plans to purchase the site of a historic 18th century windmill, and breathe new life into the local area, is one of eight across the country sharing in £1.2 m of Scottish Land Fund cash.

Carluke Development Trust (CDT) receives £278,000 to bring into community ownership the High Mill site next to Carluke town centre. The site includes the A-listed High Mill, which is the most complete windmill of its type in existence in Scotland, and a former market garden extending to 1.2 acres.

As Tom Sneddon, Chair of Carluke Development Trust explains, the group will use its award to purchase the site and turn it into a community growing space that will provide new training, employment and volunteering opportunities:

“We are absolutely thrilled to receive this crucial financial support from the Scottish Land Fund, allowing CDT, on behalf of the communities of Carluke, to take ownership of the land and the buildings of the Carluke High Mill. The work has only just begun and we will now embark on the journey of creating a new community garden and growing space which will become a focal point for educational, training and volunteering activities within Carluke. This will also be a significant catalyst for the future development of Carluke’s town centre and of Carluke itself.”

Carluke Development Trust is one of eight groups across Scotland sharing in £1.2 million. Speaking today while visiting Bannockburn House, another historic building brought into community ownership with Scottish Land Fund cash back in December 2017, Minister, Cabinet Secretary for Land Reform Roseanna Cunningham said of today’s grants: “I’m delighted to see the Scottish Land Fund making these awards which will help us progress towards our goal of expanding community ownership and control of key local assets. Each project will make its own distinctive contribution to the quality of life in the local community, bringing people together and creating opportunities for employment, recreation and volunteering. The Scottish Government will continue to promote community land ownership and work to ensure that land in Scotland delivers benefits for everyone.”

Author: CCN

Communities all over Scotland are harnessing the power of their voices to influence government decisions and policies relevant to their local areas. Responding to consultations on local and national issues are a good way to do this, and can be a route to better community involvement in national politics.

The Scottish Parliament’s Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (ECCLR) committee, just held an open call for evidence on the environmental impacts of salmon farming, where they sought views on the recently published SAMS report reviewing the impacts from a scientific perspective.  This report is the first updated review since the previous research published in 2002.

The ECCLR Committee carried this out in advance of the Rural Economy and Connectivity (REC) Committee’s forthcoming inquiry on aquaculture in Scotland, which opened on 8thFebruary 2018.  This wider enquiry aims to “consider the current state of salmon industry in Scotland, identify opportunities for its future development and explore how the various fish health and environmental challenges it currently faces can be addressed”.

Salmon farming, and indeed aquaculture of other types, is of major concern to many coastal communities and groups.  There are concerns over the risk of disease (e.g. fish lice), the accumulation of waste, genetic mixing between farmed and native salmon through escapes and the possible impacts of farms sighted within or near to marine protected areas (MPAs).

This call for evidence mobilised coastal communities to use their voices in many different ways.

Despite there being a short window of only 14 days given for written responses to be submitted, multiple individuals and community groups submitted their thoughts, comments and opinions on the impacts to their local areas.  These submissions are required to be considered by the committee as part of the evidence gathering process and will then form part of a report to the REC committee as part of the full inquiry.

While it seems a small move, by getting involved in this way communities are making sure that they are being heard at a national level and the value of their local knowledge can be seen.

Others got involved by sharing petitions, running twitter storms, speaking to their local MSPs and spreading the word among their neighbours, communities and supporters.

As part of the consultation, stakeholders were called to give oral evidence to the committee at the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh.  Among these was the only community group to be included – Friends of the Sound of Jura – represented by John Aitchison.  John represented his community sitting on a panel alongside Sam Collin from Scottish Environment Link’s aquaculture subgroup and the General Manager of the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (the industry body for salmon farming in Scotland).

John spoke eloquently and passionately about the issues surrounding the environmental impacts of salmon farming, the problems of siting farms in or near to MPAs and the shortcomings of the current monitoring and regulatory processes.  In the session, John gave evidence with such conviction and authority that it really caused the committee members to rethink their line of enquiry.

As well as being the only community group invited to give oral evidence, Friends of the Sound of Jura were one of only two environmental groups called, and this makes their involvement hugely influential in getting across their local and environmental views.  With John representing them in such a knowledgeable and inspiring way, there’s no way that the committee could fail to take on board the evidence presented.

All of these efforts work to build the involvement and empowerment of communities in local and national politics, and ensure that stakeholder views include those of local groups.

Author: BBC

The Secret History of Our Streets, Series 2 Episode 2 of 3  at 20.00 . Watch short clip about Duke Street, Glasgow here

BBC Two’s multi-award-winning Secret History of Our Streets told the story of six London streets, from Victorian times to the present day.

Now, as its people stand at a crossroads in their history, the series travels to Scotland to tell the stories of three archetypal streets in Scotland’s three great cities: Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

Endlessly surprising and not at all what you would expect, the stories of these streets are the story of a nation.

Duke Street is Britain’s longest street, running from Glasgow city centre through the heart of Glasgow’s East End. Elegant Victorian tenement blocks line the road to the south of Duke Street. Yet just 40 years ago, those tenements were under threat. This is the story of how a group of pioneering residents took on the Glasgow Corporation in a battle to save their homes.

Author: Tamasin Cave is co-author of A Quiet Word and a campaigner with Spinwatch

The timeless practice of “gastronomic pimping”, as Nye Bevan put it, is a tool long used by commercial lobbyists to curry favour. These “meetings” are deliberately social occasions designed to create bonds, establish shared values and ultimately influence council decisions.

Robert Davis, the most wined and dined politician in Britain while he was chairman of Westminster council’s planning committee, was entertained 150 times by property industry figures in three years. But hospitality is not the only tool in the property lobbyist’s box. One of the surest ways to access and influence the officials you seek to influence is to employ people who know local government inside out. Councillors up and down the country are employed in the property lobbying business. They are elected to represent the public interest and at the same time employed by developers seeking to influence the public sphere.

Take one of the scores of firms in this business, which claims to have “won successful planning consents for over 20 years”. It employs numerous local councillors, including one who sits on a council planning committee, as well as prospective and former councillors, plus a former council leader. These people not only understand how decisions are made, but in many cases are the decision-makers themselves. This is valuable for any developer needing council backing.

Besides trying to ensure that elected officials are onside with their clients’ development plans, these planning lobbyists also deal with any resistance from local communities. Developers have a statutory duty on large projects to consult with communities. Consultation, however, in the hands of lobbyists, is a tool that serves to draw out community opposition and provide it with a managed channel through which to voice concerns, but with no hope of tangibly changing the outcome. As the ex-Tesco lobbyist Bernard Hughes explained: “Businesses have to be able to predict risk and gain intelligence on potential problems. The army used to call it reconnaissance; we call it consultation.”

 People need to have a proper look at what is happening in their council. Take a look at the registers of interests

What do developers want from their relationships? It may be straightforward planning permission; or relief from paying a tax used to fund local amenities; or an agreement with the council on the amount of affordable homes the developer has, or doesn’t have, to provide. All of which can be, and is, negotiated by the councils upon which such lavish hospitality is poured.

That the “local lobbying” industry has got away with such practices for so long is no surprise. It lacks the one thing necessary to drive them out – scrutiny. As Davis says in his defence, all his meetings with developers “were all properly declared and open to anyone to examine”. But people need to have a proper look at what is happening in their council. Take a look at the registers of interests to see if any of your councillors double up as lobbyists. Get hold of the registers of hospitality and see if they are taking from the developers they should be overseeing. Use freedom of information law to dig deeper into who is meeting whom, and what they are seeking to do, and then hand the information to your local paper.

Until a light is shone on these relationships they will continue to flourish, and we will continue to get developments that serve no one but the investors and developers. 

Author: Nicola Frost

6 things you need to know about small and micro community organisation

1. There are a lot of them – but we don’t know much about them

In 2014-15, nearly half of all UK charities had an income of less than £10,000 (known as ‘micro’), and another third were ‘small’ organisations with an income of less than £100,000. However, these organisations account for just 4.5% of the sector’s total income.

And these figures are just those organisations registered as charities. The total number of civil society organisations is far higher — but no one really knows how much higher. For this and other reasons, micro organisations are deeply under-researched.

The phrase ‘below-the-radar’ is misleading, as they are often at the centre of local communities, just not visible to officials and policymakers. For example, we recently funded a small Plymouth-based organisation, About Time, which supports asylum seekers in the city, teaching them English and welcoming them to a community centre where they can make friends and socialise. The relatively tiny economic impact of organisations like this one disguises their huge social significance.

2. They know their place

Small and micro organisations hold vast expertise about what precise issues affect people in their area, what that means in practice, and what strategies will work in a particular situation. They can serve very small or isolated communities overlooked by larger-scale operations, or very specific communities of interest. In either case, they have a sophisticated understanding of the policy and institutional landscapes in which they operate.

The Torbay Ladies’ Lounge, for example, provides a safe, confidential, relaxed environment for vulnerable women who are homeless, sex street workers, victims of domestic violence, suffering from mental health problems/addictions and who are lonely and isolated. Project workers with a detailed knowledge of local conditions help vulnerable women access available services, and plan for a better future.

3. Their funding structures are very different

Public sector commissioners generally favour larger organisations or partnerships, as these are seen as less complicated and more efficient to communicate and contract with. This excludes small and micro-organisations from many funding opportunities, and threatens the local or very specialist expertise embedded within them.

However, on the plus side it can mean that smaller organisations are not influenced as strongly by government priorities, and can be freer to act in accordance with their own values and priorities, and those of the communities in which they work. The recently-established Red Velvet cinema in Plymouth plans regular screenings in a café, aimed at reaching isolated older people and bringing them into contact with neighbours. They recognise their activity is not (or not yet) the kind of thing to attract public funding, but feel this is the right way to address loneliness in their area.

Small and micro organisations tend to rely more heavily on donations from individuals, and on small grants from trusts and foundations. While in many cases contributions from the people involved cover most core costs, some activities will never be financially self-supporting. While more varied forms of financing are welcome, some of the sector has an ongoing need for grant funding, especially grants that cover core funding as well as project expenses. And of course, many tiny, informal groups may well neither need nor want to get involved with external agencies.

4. They are often about connection for connection’s sake

Much of what small and micro organisations do focuses on bringing people together — not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. That’s vitally important. 

We’re increasingly aware of the risk social isolation poses to health and wellbeing. But building social capital also means people connecting and interacting within and between groups. DCF manages a social prescribing programme in Exeter which puts community builders on the ground, supporting tiny informal groups to get off the ground, linking individuals to them, and connecting neighbouring activities.

This is a critical part of building thriving, resilient communities that are equipped for future challenges. It might look like just a Brownie pack, or an older people’s lunch club, but there’s a lot more to it.

5. They can bridge the divide between helper and helped

Having fewer paid staff members is not simply a question of finance. Heavily dependent on unpaid local energy and initiative, small and micro organisations often have less of a divide between workers and ‘beneficiaries’, so there is less of a fetish around formal ‘volunteer’ roles and the world isn’t so divided into helper and helped. ‘Volunteers’ can benefit from community action just as much as those they work with.

This chimes closely with Asset-Based Community Development which begins with the recognition that local people should have an active involvement in improving their lives, and that everyone has skills and passions to throw into the mix. Organisations operating with a largely unpaid workforce can help bring together individuals’ energy for mutual benefit. This more holistic approach supports an aim of interdependence (that is, people connected with other people, and sharing skills and support), rather than independence (expecting people to be able to supply all their needs themselves). It also promotes mutuality and equity among community members – a sense of working together on an equal footing for everyone’s benefit.

We need to learn more about this dynamic, and celebrate it more. But we should also recognise that the changing nature of working lives, and the limited time people have to take action locally, is already having a significant impact on micro-organisations, and this is set to continue.

6. Small doesn’t have to mean conservative

Very small organisations frequently have very low fixed costs. With low rates of paid staffing, they can ebb and flow depending on the energy of those involved, the funds available, or the needs of those they work with. So they can be extremely flexible and efficient.

Devon Community Foundation has found some of the smaller recipients of our grant funding are encouragingly dynamic, reflexive, and open to innovation and collaboration. A recent survey we conducted showed 70% of our grantholders had collaborated with others; three-fifths of those were organisations with annual incomes of under £30,000.

As champions of small civil society organisations, we need to ensure we’re supporting innovation at all levels, providing the right information for groups, and finding the best ways of capturing and sharing good practice and learning.

Author: Planning Democracy

For those of you who have had the NIMBY term thrown at you for daring to challenge a development proposal, DIMVI is the term you can now use to respond to those who clearly have their own development interests at heart.  Read on!

I have been reading some of the responses to the Planning Bill. Apparently, there have been over 800 sent in from a wide range of people and organisations, so many that they are not all up on the Parliament website yet. Many of the respondents are familiar to us now and you would be surprised not to see some such as the Heads of Planning or local authorities. However, some are less familiar. Pagoda Porter Novelli was one such name, which, when I saw it, made me wonder if the Planning Bill was suddenly of interest to some South Indian Buddhists or whether this was an Italian architectural firm specialising in temple construction.  I was curious to read in their opening title that they were community engagement specialists. However, it didn’t take long to discover exactly what kind of community engagement they specialised in; the type that helps “to deliver approval for planning Applications” rather than the empowering people to identify shared aspirations type. I was more and more curious about this submission, especially when it said they had conducted a survey of local authority councillors. Not least because it is very interesting how the results of this survey were discussed, you know, for an organisation specialising in community engagement.

My first question was why focus your survey on councillors and not the general public if your business is public consultation? There was very little discussion of the responses to the questions about barriers to engagement that the company had put into their survey (apparently needlessly replicating the Government’s own Barriers to Engagement research which attracted a huge response, written about in a previous blog post). There was a somewhat cursory set of bullet points summarising the different answers (I hope their consultation exercises contain a little more detailed analysis than this attempt). The survey also apparently had questions regarding ‘third party’ rights of appeal. Apparently 49% of the councillors supported while ‘some’ 28% didn’t and 16% were undecided (there is no mention of the what the remaining 7% thought). Unlike the subject of barriers to engagement, this prompted a somewhat one sided discussion about the negative implications of appeal rights (which rather begs the question why they mentioned the survey results at all, bearing in mind the pro’s outweighed the anti’s). A rather random and unevidenced set of reasons were put forward as to why Equal Rights of Appeal were not a good idea including the default scaremongering classic “it would likely increase the cost of new homes to first time buyers”. (Really, can you show us the analysis on that one please?)

Just as an aside, on the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage, I was looking at some of the arguments used against women gaining voting rights. The opposition to women’s right to vote made some pretty scandalous claims which now seem rather ludicrous but were taken seriously at the time. Examples include that women were child bearers and that would stop them from taking part in political life and that would be a threat to the British Empire and the whole human race. Others declared that giving women suffrage would “cause irreparable damage at great expense to the state.” Rather hyperbolic don’t you think?

Anyway, I needed to check out just who Pagoda were to be making such overstated arguments against equality themselves. It turns out this company are a PR firm, whose community engagement is not necessarily in the community or indeed public interest. In fact, this organisation are not apparently even interested in promoting a plan led system, let alone an inclusive one. This is how they describe one of their consultation projects

“Helensburgh was one of the last towns in Scotland without a supermarket. However, plans for a new Waitrose food store faced resistance from local retailers especially. The site wasn’t zoned for retail, and there were concerns that the edge-of-town location would have a negative impact on Helensburgh’s thriving town centre. Our role was to help Waitrose gain planning approval.”

Such companies have been around for a while. The journalist Anna Minton recounts one story of a firm employed to promote the high speed rail project HS2 talking about being employed to “shit them up”. Them being any opponents who were presumably being maligned as NIMBY’s.

And I thought to myself should companies like this be allowed to respond? Who checks out their ‘evidence’ as none of their claims are backed up by any references or sources. Clearly these kind of firms represent their own vested interests and those of the clients that pay them, whilst also somewhat disingenuously claiming to represent the community interest by describing themselves as community engagement specialists.

So, for those who purport to be working in the public interest when in fact they have their own interests at heart, I hereby label you DIMVI’s.

Development is In My Vested Interest.

I suggest that individuals and organisations of this nature should be forced to add a cautionary notice to their responses.

‘Notification alert! This response contains arguments put forward by a DIMVI’

NB: We will be giving oral evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee on the 28th February at 9.30am in Committee Room 4. You can come and support us in the public gallery if you wish. Read our written submission here. It is helpful to show a good presence in the public gallery during all of the LGCC evidence sessions on all the dates – 28th Feb, 7th, 14th & 21st March. If you can make any of these, call the Parliament to book a place (can only be done one week in advance, via Visitor Services, Switchboard on 0800 092 7500 or 0131 348 5000).

Author: Prof Cliff Hague

How and why has 70 years of planning benefited Scotland? With a Bill to reform the planning system now before Holyrood, this question is timely. Planning is not just about contesting your neighbour’s conservatory; it has long-term impacts on our towns and countryside, conservation of natural resources and well-loved places, the way we live our lives and our children’s future. That is why changes to our planning system should be given careful scrutiny inside and outside parliament.

 If there had been no planning system, Scotland’s iconic landscape would have looked very different. There would have been ranch houses around the banks of Loch Lomond, mega billboards lining roadsides in the Trossachs, shopping malls (some now derelict) dotted along the M8, and any number of coastal sites ravaged by onshore oil-related development during the 1970s frenzy.

Edinburgh doubled in area in the 20 years between the wars. The bungalows, that had reached Fairmilehead, the Maybury and Portobello, would have marched ever onwards and outwards, replacing farms and woodlands, with executive mansions grabbing prime spots on the Pentland Hills to command views over the city and across the Forth. Unable to serve this low-density spread, bus services would have been poorer, to the detriment of the mobility of children and older people, for example.

The new towns would not have existed. As traditional industries like oil shale went into terminal decline, places like Livingston and East Kilbride helped restructure Scotland’s economy. We would be poorer without them. Disinvestment from the urban cores and inner cities could have left parts of Clydeside looking like inner Detroit. What developer ADVERTISEMENT would invest in remediation of a former industrial site if there was the nice easy option of a green field not far away?

Similarly, Edinburgh’s Old Town would have continued its pre-war trajectory towards rack and ruin, while the New Town would have been degraded by speculative investors jostling to dominate the skyline with their offices and hotels.

Planning is not just a matter of aesthetics – it can steer investment to vacant and derelict sites before agricultural land is forever sacrificed, conserving greenspaces and finding new uses for older buildings such as in Glasgow’s Merchant City. If this “holds back economic growth”, then it holds back the wrong kind of “growth”, to give priority to social inclusion, environmental protection, climate change mitigation, place identity and food security.

Planning worked as a public service, created to serve the public good. It didn’t get everything right: in the 1960s in particular, it needed corrective voices provided by civic society through the Cockburn Association or the New Glasgow Society. Yet the ethos and moral compass that inspired the best of Scottish planning has withered as the system has become more centralised, more attuned to the demands of developers, and so more removed from being a vital part of local democracy.

As research commissioned by the Scottish Government revealed in 2017, there is now a deep and fundamental lack of trust in the planning system among members of the public who have engaged with it.

The Planning Bill now before parliament was an opportunity to address this corrosion, and to design a world-class planning system for Scotland. Sadly, it shows no such ambition. Rather, it seeks primarily to make the planning system a vehicle for more and faster delivery of planning permissions for housing. Provision of houses has been contracted out to the large building companies, who work for their shareholders and pay their executives eye-watering bonuses. They build not when they get a planning permission, but when it suits their business model.

To “balance” new provisions for which developers lobbied, the Bill allows “a community body”, such as a community council, to prepare a local place plan (LPP) for “the development and use of land”. However, any LPP must “have regard to” the National Planning Framework (essentially the Scottish Government’s plan for where major developments should, or should not, go), and also the council’s Local Development Plan (which may have been amended by the Scottish Government Minister or overtaken by the National Planning Framework). In addition, the Local Development Plan must have taken account of the “local outcomes improvement plan” for the area. Typically this is a set of generalised statements agreed by the Community Planning Partnership, whose members are usually officials of the council and other public bodies such as Police Scotland.

Such public agencies themselves have morphed into speculative developers as they seek to capitalise their land and property holdings to fund their services. So as long as the “community body” wants the same things that are already set out in these multiple plans, its members can give their spare time, or raise funds to hire consultants, to produce their own LPP, provided they comply also with any requirements about its form, content and preparation prescribed by the council or Government.

Good luck with that! The Scottish Government has resisted all calls to redress the imbalance that exists in the system of planning appeals. A developer can appeal against the refusal of planning permission, and against any conditions imposed as part of a consent, even though the decision of the planning authority has to be based on policies in the development plan. The matter then passes out of the hands of the local council. Costs may be awarded against them if they lose the appeal, a sobering prospect for officials and councillors already struggling in difficult financial times.

Meanwhile a “third party”, such as a civic organisation, has no right of appeal if a planning permission is granted, even if the decision runs against what is in the plan. To be accessible to all, a planning system needs to be simple, clear and predictable; anything else favours those able to afford expensive lawyers and an array of professional consultants.

Scotland needs a planning system that delivers not just development and housing numbers, but quality in new and existing environments, a sense of belonging. Restoring public confidence would reduce stress and enhance well-being. It can be done.