Author: CWA

Cycling Without Age is a movement started in 2012 by Ole Kassow. Ole wanted to help the elderly get back on their bicycles, but he had to find a solution to their limited mobility. The answer was a trishaw and he started offering free bike rides to the local nursing home residents.

He then got in touch with a civil society consultant from the City of Copenhagen, Dorthe Pedersen (now Cycling Without Age), who was intrigued by the idea and together they bought the first 5 trishaws and launched Cycling Without Age, which has now spread to all corners of Denmark, and since 2015 to another 33 countries around the world.

Our Dream

We dream of creating a world together, in which the access to active citizenship creates happiness among our fellow elderly citizens by providing them with an opportunity to remain an active part of society and the local community. Watch this to see how much it means to some of Falkirk’s elderly citizens.

We do that by giving them the right to wind in their hair, the right to experience the city and nature close up from the bicycle and by giving them an opportunity to tell their story in the environment where they have lived their lives.

That way we build bridges between generations and we reinforce trust, respect and the social glue in our society.

Our Guiding Principles

Generosity: Cycling Without Age is based on generosity and kindness. It starts with the obvious generous act of taking one or two elderly or less-abled people out on a bike ride. It’s a simple act that everyone can do.

Slowness: Slowness allows you to sense the environment, be present in the moment and it allows people you meet along the way to be curious and gain knowledge about Cycling Without Age because you make time to stop and talk.

Storytelling: Elderly people have so many stories that will be forgotten if we don’t reach out and listen to them. We tell stories, we listen to stories on the bike and we also document the stories when we share them via word of mouth or on social media.

Relationships: Cycling Without Age is about creating a multitude of new relationships: between generations, among the elderly, between pilots and passengers, nursing homes employees and family members. Relationships build trust, happiness and quality of life.

Without Age: Life does not end when you turn 75. Life unfolds at all ages, young and old, and can be thrilling, fun, sad, beautiful and meaningful. Cycling Without Age is about letting people age in a positive context – fully aware of the opportunities that lie ahead when interacting in their local community.

How It Works

Volunteers (pilots) sign up for bike rides with the elderly as often or as rarely as they want to. It’s all driven by people’s own motivation. At present (September 2017) more than 450 chapters around the world offer Cycling Without Age from well over 1,500 trishaws – and the numbers are still growing. More than 10,000 pilots ensure that the elderly get out of their nursing homes, out on the bikes to enjoy the fresh air and the community around them. They give them the right to wind in their hair.

Author: The Edinburgh Reporter

Earlier today NHS Lothian announced that they have sold the building to a developer, DowningGroup, and that the sale will finalise when the new building at Little France is ready.

The 4.01 acre site owned by NHS Lothian and Edinburgh and the Lothians Health Foundation charity lies just beside the Meadows is iconic and the buildings are listed.

A community right to buy bid now appears to have been thwarted.

Marchmont and Sciennes Development Trust (MSDT) had previously asked Scottish Ministers to use this new law to give them first refusal to buy the site.

MSDT’s  formal bid was held up after complex land ownership issues around the 122-year-old hospital revealed that although the four-acre facility is being marketed as one site, the ownership was split between the two bodies.

The group has spent the last few months addressing this, and other issues raised, and submitted a revised application to the Scottish Government on 7 September 2017.

On September 14, The Scottish Government told MSDT it had issued a notice to NHS Lothian by recorded delivery to say that, under the terms of the legislation, the Sick Kids sale process should be paused.

But this morning NHS Lothian announced it had reached a deal with the Downing Group and that missives were concluded on 5 September 2017.

Affordable co-operative housing, healthcare and nursery facilities, space for social enterprises and a multi-purpose community hall were among the ideas for the Sick Kids suggested by MSDT – the community body representing local residents.

A MSDT spokesperson, said: “We are gutted that we have not even had the chance for our application to be judged by the Scottish Government, which appears to be in the dark about this sale.

“Only yesterday (Thursday) the Government’s community land team told us they had issued a prohibition notice to NHS Lothian which would have forced the sale process to be paused while our application was being considered by ministers.

“It turns out the sale had already been concluded by NHS Lothian ten days ago.

“This application was considered by many as an ‘acid test’ for the new urban right to buy laws and we feel very disappointed, as will many people in the community around the Sick Kids, that we did not get the chance to show how it would work.

“The reality of this decision is that only the bare legal minimum of the sorts of things local people suggested for this site – such as the affordable housing, more space for the local school and community facilities – is likely to happen now.

“You only have to look across The Meadows at the luxury QuarterMile development for an example of how this could now turn out for those hoping for more community facilities.

“The application process has been dogged by delays on The Scottish Government side, well beyond what the legislation states, and a string of technical challenges which the Government and Holyrood must look at again to help other communities which want to use this law.

“This is not the end of the road for MSDT and we will be in touch with our supporters in the coming weeks to gauge the appetite for engaging with the preferred bidder, and other ways we can transform our local area.”

Jacquie Campbell, Chief Officer for Acute Services, NHS Lothian said: “The decision to move the services from the current site and dispose of the site was not an easy one to make. The legacy of the Royal Hospital for Sick Kids dates back to 1863 and since 1895 the hospital at Sciennes Road has been home to thousands of children and their families in the building many have grown to call ‘the sick kids’.

“Although the site has a developer lined up to take ownership of the site, patients and their families can rest assured that no changes will be made to the current facilities until they are set to move to the their new location in the £150m Royal Hospital for Children and Young People and Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Little France next year.”

David Fraser, partner with Ryden, adviser to NHS Lothian said: “The property was put up for sale in November 2016 and naturally generated a great deal of interest which resulted in 21 formal bids being received in early 2017.

“After carefully consideration, six bidders were invited to provide additional clarifications whereby the Downing Groups was selected as preferred bidder.”

Jane Ferguson, Director, Edinburgh and the Lothians Health Foundation added: “On behalf of the trustees of the Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation, I am delighted that the process to sell the buildings that make up the Royal Hospital for Sick Children at Sciennes has reached its conclusion.

“This step is an important one in the hospital’s relocation to Little France, Edinburgh, together with the Department of Clinical Neuroscience and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

“The trustees have already committed over £2m to the development and realisation of the Art and Therapeutic Design programme for the new building, helping to creating a home for the hospital every bit as iconic as the old ‘Sick Kids’.

“The proceeds of the sale of the trustee-owned buildings at Sciennes will be used to continue to support our vision of healthier, longer lives for the people of Lothian.”

The terms of the legislation means that NHS Lothian would appear to have acted within the law, as the public body selling a building is not obliged to stop the sale until the Scottish Government issues a ‘prohibition notice’.

Author: BBC

An Israeli company called Colu has launched a local digital currency in Liverpool, which aims to revitalise the local economy by cutting out the banks. Will it achieve more than paper local currencies have? To find out, Dougal Shaw followed the money trail.

Large chains like Starbucks, Costa or McDonald’s, need not apply. This new digital currency, known both as Colu and Local Pound Liverpool, is only open to locally owned and run businesses. The idea is to encourage people to support the local economy.

Local currencies are common around the world – there are more than 10 in the UK. The idea behind them is that if you spend your money with a locally based company instead of a big chain, more of that money will continue to circulate locally. It won’t be sucked out of your community into a company’s foreign headquarters, or be paid out to shareholders.

But these currencies rarely attract enough users to have a real economic impact. Could Colu be different?

As well as being purely digital – running on a smartphone app – it is operated by a well-funded tech company that specialises in cryptocurrencies. In many other cases, local currencies are run by a small resource-starved team of enthusiasts and volunteers.

I went to see who is actually using this new currency, from a man buying his weekly sausages to the assistant mayor of Liverpool.

The customer

Foodie Ian Rasmussen is one of 17,000 Liverpudlians who have signed up to use Colu. I meet him at a deli called Delifonseca, where he is buying some sausages.

“I believe in local businesses, so I like to promote what they are doing through my consumption. One makes ethical decisions every day in the shops and I choose to buy locally because they tend to be more particular about where they get their food from. They tend to be better employers and re-invest in the community.”

The app is easy to use, he says, which is one of the things that makes it appealing.

But local currencies appeal to Ian for another reason.

“Since the financial crash of 2008, businesses have completely fallen out of love with the banking system and realised how ruinous it can be. It’s nice if local businesses can get round the inconvenience of banks that don’t understand them.”

When Ian pays for his sausages at the till, the transaction is made purely through the app, with no bank involved.

Ian has to buy his Colu pounds with normal UK pounds from his bank account. They are worth exactly the same.

At the moment, a complimentary £5 is offered to new joiners and 10% is added every time money is paid in. This is funded by Colu, in a bid to get more people like Ian to join.

Colu has a lot of venture capital behind it and investors are keen to see it grab market share, like Uber or Deliveroo.

The business owner

Candice Fonseca runs the deli where Ian purchased his sausages. It is one of more than 100 businesses accepting the local digital currency.

“Liverpool has a very strong sense of identity and in this globalised time people are more conscious of their localities,” she says.

“We have customers who don’t carry wallets, it’s inevitable that currency will become phone-based.

“It’s also cheaper for us. Customers can’t really get their head around how much we pay for banking. Even to put cash into the bank as a business, we have to pay. The idea [with Colu] is to keep the money flowing locally. We’d like to give staff the option of taking Colu as part of their wages eventually.”

Normally businesses pay a charge every time a customer uses a debit card (about 0.5-1%) or credit card (about 1-2%).

A transaction in Colu incurs zero charge for the business.

However, whenever anyone converts Colu back to normal UK pounds – cashing out, as it is known – they pay 1.5% commission. This is how Colu makes its money.

“If you pay another business [in Colu], then you don’t pay anything, it’s the cheapest way of taking money in that case. We’re not cashing anything out. So we pay suppliers like Sugar & Lime, who we get our hire equipment from for outside catering, in Colu. We spend thousands with them.”

The supplier

More than a quarter of a million local pounds have circulated so far in Liverpool. But somebody needs to cash out at some stage and take the hit of 1.5%.

One of them is Anthony O’Leary, who runs the catering equipment firm Sugar & Lime, which supplies Candice’s deli.

His warehouse contains supplies from around the world, which can’t be bought with local currency.

“We cash out our local currency because we’re the end of the line. There’s nobody for us to spend the local pound with at present.

“But there is scope for products that we buy to be manufactured more locally, in which case we could continue the chain,” he says.

Although Anthony would prefer to be paid in cash, he says it’s not a clear-cut decision.

“I’ve still got banking charges one way or another. Cash is expensive, credit card fees, it’s all at a cost.”

Colu also brings him new customers, he says, so in that sense it’s a good investment.

Anthony can also see another way for him to pass on the Colu currency and avoid the 1.5% charge – he could pay business rates in the local currency. This is what happens in Brixton and Bristol.

But first the council has to agree to it.

The councillor

Gary Millar is assistant mayor of Liverpool and a technology enthusiast.

He is a user of the app and a fan of local digital currencies in general.

“A council like Liverpool could use this to ensure money stays local. We know when people spend money locally with an independent, 65p in the pound stays local. If they spend it with a big global organisation, it will be about 30p instead,” he says.

“I think it’s wonderful if a small business can pay its business rates using a digital currency – I’d love that to happen.”

He says this would only be a logical extension of what is happening at the moment, and hints that discussions are taking place about the possibility of allowing business rates, planning fees and even parking fine to be paid in the new currency.

Millar says he could also imagine the council paying people with it, as long as this was done on an opt-in basis. The council pays some benefits on behalf of the government and of course it pays wages to its workforce – these could in theory be paid in Colu.

Millar is at pains to make clear that if such a payment system were adopted, Colu would have to take part in an open selection process.

The economist

Duncan McCann is an economist with New Economics Foundation who researches local digital currencies.

He thinks local digital currencies like Colu are a good idea, but he has some serious reservations.

“Local currencies seek to stop money escaping, the ‘leaky bucket’ argument we call it. They try to keep it circulating in your own community to do more good.

“Most local currency designs maximise the potential for the money to stick. There is some irony that this model that Colu is offering at its core extracts money to the mother company, which in this case is Colu [in Israel].”

Most other local currencies in the UK and Europe are run on a not-for-profit basis, he says.

The incentives Colu offers to new joiners can only last so long, he suggests.

“The big danger is that if no profit is being made, or worse they start making a loss, that they will just cancel the app and all the hard work is lost in an instant.

“Then it becomes very hard to start another local currency because there is so much bad feeling.”

Transaction complete

Colu has been up and running in Liverpool since December. It also runs similar currencies in Tel Aviv and Haifa, both under two years old.

It is free of the financial overheads that come with a paper currency and its deep pockets allow it to provide incentives to users, at least for now, and to employ someone to recruit new businesses into the scheme.

Its backers think it can mount a challenge to global capitalism and multinational corporations.

Its fate depends on how many people vote with their digital wallets.

Author: Sunday Herald

Scotland, as part of the UK, is bound by the 1998 UN Aarhus Convention on access to environmental justice. This requires governments “to remove or reduce financial barriers to access to justice”.

The convention’s compliance committee is reporting to a meeting of countries in Budva, Montenegro on 11–13 September. In a detailed analysis, its report concludes that Scotland “has not yet fulfilled” key requirements of the convention.

These are to ensure that the allocation of costs in court procedures “is fair and equitable and not prohibitively expensive” and to bring in “appropriate assistance mechanisms to remove or reduce financial barriers to access to justice”.

The reprimand follows a series of court cases in which those opposing controversial developments have been faced with massive legal costs. Last year John Muir Trust, which protects wild land, had to give up on appealing against a 67-turbine wind farm at Stronelairg near Fort Augustus to avoid legal bills of up to £500,000.

A birdwatcher, Marco McGinty, faced legal costs of more than £100,000 in 2013 after trying to stop a coal-fired power station being built at Hunterston in North Ayrshire. In 2010 Donald Trump was reportedly demanding up to £50,000 from pensioner, Molly Forbes, who was trying to protect her home from his golf course at Menie In Aberdeenshire.

For too long taking legal action to protect the environment in Scotland has been a luxury that effectively only the rich can afford

Friends of the Earth Scotland pointed out that the Aarhus Convention had enshrined environmental rights in international law almost 20 years ago, “The Scottish Government has abjectly failed to ensure that some of its most important provisions are incorporated into Scots law,” said head of campaigns, Mary Church.

“There have been a great many missed opportunities over the years to address the issue of access to justice for the environment as the Scottish Government overhauled the civil court system.”

The chances of getting rulings from the Scottish court system that fixed environmental problems were slim, argued Church. “For too long taking legal action to protect the environment in Scotland has been a luxury that effectively only the rich can afford.”

Helen McDade, head of policy at John Muir Trust, argued that the Aarhus reprimand confirmed what many concerned about the environment had found to their cost. “There is precious little access to environmental justice unless you have very deep pockets,” she said.

“The trust took a key case against the Scottish Government and won in the first instance. But having been refused protection against potential legal costs we could not afford to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

According to Clare Symonds from the campaign group, Planning Democracy, the public is effectively excluded from challenging decisions that damage the environment. “The Scottish Government has resisted taking any action to provide communities with substantive rights to appeal planning decisions,” she said.

Ministers had “banned” discussions on equal rights of appeal, she alleged. But giving people the same rights as developers “might restore people’s faith and confidence in the planning system”, she argued.

The Scottish Government pointed out that the Aarhus report welcomed “the significant steps taken to date” in Scotland. “We are committed to protecting environmental justice and welcome further measures to promote this,” said Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Roseanna Cunningham.

“The Scottish Civil Justice Council has recently concluded a consultation on further enhancements to the regime of protective expenses orders that limits the costs faced by those bringing environmental cases to court.”

The government’s civil litigation bill would make the costs of legal action more predictable, she said. It would “extend the funding options for pursuers, and bring more equality to the funding relationship between pursuers and defenders in personal injury actions.”

Author: DAVID POWELL NEF

You don’t need to be an expert in adult social care to know that it’s in deep trouble. High-profile, distressing exposes like that from Panorama reveal a sector on the verge of –perhaps already in – full-blown crisis.

People are living longer. In the UK the number of people over the age of 85 is expected to double by 2030. Yet thanks to Government cuts and the dysfunctionality of our care system, council spending on adult social care in England fell 8% in real terms between 2009-10 and 2016-17. More funding from national Government is the obvious place to start. But take a look under the bonnet of the care system and you quickly find that it is in need of a major overhaul.  A fifth of all publicly funded care homes in the UK are provided by the five biggest private chain providers. As we found back in March, £115 million of every £2 billion of public spending on social care will disappear straight into the pockets of investors and shareholders in those five companies alone. This is classic ‘leaky bucket’ syndrome: money spent locally, to meet local needs, but which is siphoned off.

Yet there is a different way. After all, care is a major economic sector, employing 1.4 million people and contributing over £40 billion a year to the UK. Our aging population pretty much guarantees that care is a sector that will continue to grow over the years ahead. And with a new emphasis on industrial strategy, there are major win-wins from treating care not as a depressing ‘cost’ but instead to lavish it with the attention usually given only to shiny economic totems, like technology or pharmaceuticals. Care could get tens of thousands into work around the whole of a local economy – in a new generation of small, locally-rooted and highly valued community-scale providers.

In a new report written for Localise West Midlands, we look at a part of the country where 25,000 extra jobs will be needed by 2025 alone. The newly-constituted region’s approach to economic development has so far been largely defined by the GDP-first focus handed to it by the Treasury as part of its devolution deal: attracting export-led, high-end and glamorous industries. Yet we show that community-scale social care is well placed to help public money spent locally do far more good in local economies.

Instead of dominance by a handful of ‘too-big-to-fail’ care providers, we propose that the new Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, focuses on building a new ecology of community-scale care providers. The resilience of the sector as a whole would be sharply improved, as would the quality of care. The Care Quality Commission, which regulates social care in England, rated the quality of community-scale social care providers as the highest in the sector, and smaller homes as better than larger ones. It’s a natural gateway to a career rich with the potential for skills development, and is a sector well-suited to social enterprise. 86% of all of the social care enterprises in the West Midlands employ fewer than 50 people, and two-fifths employ fewer than five.

Encouragingly, Mr Street – once the boss of John Lewis – promised in his election pitch to give more priority to co-operatives, mutuals, and social enterprises. Our report gives him some ideas.  Smaller providers struggle to compete with massive private chains. They are better ‘value for money’ – keeping money flowing locally; delivering higher standards of care – but this can be hard to prove via labyrinthine commissioning processes. Leadership is needed to position smaller care models as a way to do far more than just meet needs – to help skills development, employment and wellbeing agendas right across the region. And local authorities like those in the West Midlands should go out of their way to help new models seed and thrive, with innovation funding and a major push to market careers in care to school and college leavers.

A focus on new models of care could be a win-win in difficult times. To be clear: none of this excuses the need for national Government to put a proper amount of funding into the system. But for pioneering local areas, care could be the engine of a new approach to economic development that starts from the needs of communities, not big investors – and which could provide jobs, skills, wellbeing and of course better care to the heart of the communities perpetually left behind by economic plans.

Author: Yunus Centre, Glasgow Caledonian Unviversity

JOHN PEARCE MEMORIAL LECTURE 2017

Programme for lecture event

To register for the lecture please visit Eventbrite 

Are social enterprises in Scotland fit and agile enough to face the challenges of the future?

Laurie Russell has spent 40 years working on social and economic regeneration in Western Scotland.  He has worked at a community level, for the former Strathclyde Regional Council, for a Scottish Government/European Commission partnership and for the last ten years he has been chief executive of one of Scotland’s leading social enterprises, the Wise Group.

He has been on both sides of the funding world.  His role with European funds for 17 years was to provide financial support for programmes and projects that could achieve social and economic regeneration. He has spent as many years trying to secure funding for community initiatives in Clydebank and for the operations of the Wise Group. 

Laurie will reflect on where he feels we have got it right and where we are still getting it wrong in meeting the needs and aspirations of poor communities and supporting people to transform their lives and be free of poverty. 

He will explore the role of social enterprises in being able to deliver better and more responsive public services and what is holding back the pace and depth of public service reform. 

 He will offer constructive ideas for improving the role of social enterprise based on his experience of the public sector commissioning and tendering for services in Scotland and England.  

Laurie will challenge some of the assumptions about the role that social enterprise could play in achieving inclusive economic growth in Scotland.  This will include his thoughts on how social enterprises should adapt and prepare for the challenges they will face over the next few years.

Author: Victoria Coren-Mitchell, The Guardian

The government’s failure to clamp down on fixed-odds betting terminals must be down to stupidity or corruption and I’m not sure which of those I hope it is.

Which is better? Idiots or crooks? It would make a good parlour game.

It’s possible that I’ve spent more time among sick gamblers than you have (and if that’s not the case, we probably know each other). But if you’ve popped into a friendly high street bookmaker’s any time in the last 10 years, to bet on the FA Cup final or get some change for the parking meter, then you’ll have seen a “FOBT”.

A FOBT is a sort of glorified fruit machine with a choice of games (roulette, virtual sport, novelties) and a massive possible loss rate. The biggest difference between the old fruities and these devices, waved through by the Blair government of 2001, is that you can lose £300 a minute on a FOBT (or £600, if you play two machines at once).

And people do.

How many times, in the year ending September 2016, do you think somebody lost more than £1,000 on one of these machines?

Have a think. We aren’t talking about rich people, glitzy casinos or friends having a big night out. We’re talking about people on their own, playing the slots on regular, trafficky, local streets. Poor people. Bored people. Sometimes desperate, sometimes ill. Lonely old men. Women with their babies locked in the car outside. The average national wage is about £25,000. How many times, over a year, do you think £1,000 or more was lost in a single gambling session, on a local high street, in these circumstances?

No. You’re wrong.

It was 233,071 times.

I mean, for fuck’s sake.

Let me confess: I myself have, often, lost more than £1,000 in a single gambling session. But when I’m losing £300 a minute, this is what I’m getting:

A high-end Las Vegas casino has sent a limousine to collect me from the airport. I’ve got a complimentary hotel room with a view of the iconic Vegas Strip. I’ve got free meals, free cocktails and a cabana (a sort of shady little house with loungers and a drinks cabinet) by a luxurious swimming pool.

This doesn’t make me clever. It makes me a mug. This is what casinos give you if they think you can afford to lose the money. But your man down the Kilburn High Road, losing at the exact same rate because he’s depressed, lost, stuck, sad and has nowhere else to be, gets the square root of sod all. He gets monotony, shame and kicked out at 10pm.

This guy (or girl) hasn’t opted in consciously. They never meant to get involved for those hours or play for those sums. They didn’t join a casino, they wandered into the bookies: outlets once considered cheery and welcome on British high streets because betting on horses is traditional, fun and, to a great extent, social. But in 2001, a black hole was unrolled in the middle of them. FOBTs are demons, succubi, squatting between the chemist and the bus stop like a pile of heroin on a cheese trolley.

UK city dwellers complain that there are now dozens of bookies in their nearest shopping street where there used to be one. But most don’t know why that is.

It’s because the government capped the number of FOBTs at four per shop. But these things are free money to their owners. Punters lose and lose and lose. And when they disappear, or kill themselves, or their child is taken into care and they start self-medicating with drugs instead, someone else steps blindly up to feed the monster. So, if you’re only allowed four per shop, open more shops!

What optimistic fool, no doubt some well-meaning MP or civil servant, thought up that “four max” rule? Did you think you were smarter than the bookies, love? We’ve all been there. That’s the fast route to eating cat food out of the tin.

But the latest government move can’t be about optimism. Everyone was expecting the betting cap (or possible loss) on these machines to be slashed. Labour and the Lib Dems went into the election actively promising it; the Tories hadn’t yet committed, but John Whittingdale warned the Association of British Bookmakers: “I can’t say I would be surprised if there are quite radical measures produced… You should brace yourself.”

And then, last week, Philip Hammond decided there would actually be no curb at all – because, according to a Whitehall source in the Daily Mail, the attendant loss of tax revenues would be “financially crippling”.

Is this bent or just stupid? The shops pay 25% duty on FOBTs (it’s much cheaper for them than horseracing). In return, we get an expensive rise in crime, theft and embezzlement, family breakdown, costly court proceedings and criminal damage as the machines are often smashed up. Meanwhile, many FOBT addicts are on welfare, so 100% of the money they put into the machines goes out of the Treasury and 25% comes back. Well done everybody.

Let’s say it’s not bent. The lobbying and hospitality for MPs is massive and rising, but I’d hate to suggest any impropriety. So that suggests a moronic misunderstanding of the true maths in play.

The argument is not being had on moral grounds. If our government said they were libertarians, planning to decriminalise all drugs and abolish income tax alongside this invitation to go skint in 10 minutes at teatime in the shop next to Tesco, we could have an interesting debate. We could weigh up that freedom against the depression and suicide, the abandoned children and associated crime, and really challenge ourselves.

But they argue this situation is financially profitable for us, as a nation? They think we make money from it? Jesus. That’s their understanding of economics? As professional gamblers say about chumps: I’d like to be locked up with them.   

Author: RAGE / David Prescott

RESIDENTS of Judy Murray’s home town are considering holding a “funeral for democracy”, after the Scottish Government’s controversial approval of her planned sports academy on green belt land.

Ministers announced on Wednesday that they would grant planning permission for the £37.5 million project in Dunblane, Perthshire, despite an official recommendation from a public inquiry reporter that it be rejected.

Ann Shaw, 65, a collective member of the pressure group RAGE – Residents Against Green Belt Erosion – said the idea of holding “a funeral cortege for democracy” was one of several they would be considering, along with a march, or a mass picnic, while they waited for legal advice.

Under the “funeral” plan, the cortege could process from Dunblane to the green fields of Park of Keir, carrying a coffin representing the public will.

Mrs Shaw said: “It’s important we keep this in the public eye.

“The Reporter turned it down, and the Scottish Government overturned him. That’s a bonfire of democracy, a total farce, and we’re certainly not going to take it lying down.”

To read a detailed critique of this planning decision, local campaigner David Prescott gives his assessment of the Scottish Government Minister’s decision.

Park of Keir – Minister’s Notice of Intention

Summary

The Ministerial decision on the Park of Keir appeal was published on Wednesday 30 August 2017.  It is a “Minded to Consent” decision.  There are three conditions that need to be fulfilled before the Minster gives formal consent, which he has delayed initially for three months  They all fall to Stirling Council, who are required to conclude a Section 75 Agreement (or other legally binding agreement) which covers three (perhaps four points):

•             Secure education and affordable housing contributions in line with Stirling Council’s supplementary guidance.  This should be simple – the figures will arise from the Guidance and whilst there may be some debate about the base figures it is unlikely that the developer rise failing to get consent by not reaching agreement.

•             Ensure that no further residential development will be undertaken on the wider site.  This should be simple in that the developer has said this already, the CIC concept includes this.  So they will agree the concept to secure consent. 

•             Set out arrangements to ensure accessibility and affordability of the sports facilities.  This is a very surprising requirement.  It was rejected (in a different form) by the Reporter after considerable discussion at the hearing and where it was considered unlawful by some parties.  However the Community Council made the point that this linkage was the only justification for the “enabling” housing.

This last bullet point splits into two:  Accessibility and affordability;

Accessibility is likely to be covered by an agreement to provide a shuttle bus to Dunblane and/or Bridge of Allan stations.  This will add a considerable ongoing operational cost to the tennis and golf centre (of the order of £100k pa), which makes the affordability more difficult to achieve.

Affordability will be very difficult to agree, if it is done properly.  It may well prevent consent as it will require considerable work to develop a detailed Business Case to cover the all aspects, construction costs, operating costs and revenues, before it can be demonstrated that the arrangement will work. This is likely to require design work, funding agreements and an operating plan, all activities that the promotors refused to do prior to the planning application.  To give a credible affordability planning obligation this needs to be a rigorous and transparent process.

However the key point is that the Park of Keir decision now rests with Stirling Council.  If they agree these points the Minister will grant the Consent.  If they do not conclude an agreement the Minister cannot grant consent as set out in the Notice – although presumably he could amend his decision to ignore his earlier requirements.

Given that Stirling Council rejected the application, fought it through the appeal and public inquiry, at which the Reporter upheld their decision it would be perverse if they meekly roll over and give in.  The Council will need to agree a negotiating strategy that will stand public scrutiny, as there will be significant public interest in the outcome.

They will need to consider how the final agreement reached between the Council and King Partnership is ratified, which given it was rejected by the Planning Committee could be the full council.

They will need to look especially hard at the accessibility and affordability points, because this was Judy Murray’s mantra through the process, yet as the Reporter states the site is not readily accessible by public transport and he has raised concerns about the cost risks.

Clearly the Minister does not think this is a quick and easy task as he has (para 29) deferred the formal decision “in the first instance for a period of 3 months, to enable the relevant planning obligation to be completed to Minister’s satisfaction.”  This also suggests that there will be scrutiny by the Minister of the emerging agreement, and potentially involvement of Government officials in setting the parameters.

Detailed Critique

Background

The Planning Minister, Kevin Stewart, issued a “Notice of Intention” with respect of the Park of Keir Planning appeal PPA-390-2042.  This “Notice of Intention” was the he was “minded to grant planning permission in principle, subject to conditions and the conclusion of a planning obligation or other suitable agreement”.

This means, at the moment, planning permission has NOT been granted, and that still has to be done.  This gives a little scope for action in that the Minister could still change his mind and not grant planning permission.

This note examines the “Notice of Intention” and makes observations about both it and the Reporter’s Report, as released

“Notice of Intention”

The Notice of Intention briefly reviews and comments on the Reporter’s Report.  The key points are:

Para 5.                  The Minister accepts and agree that the proposed development does not comply with the development plan.  However they consider “that there are material considerations which indicate that planning permission … should be granted.”  He did not agree with the Reporter’s conclusions on weighting the different components and have attached weight to the regional and national importance of the sports facility.  However they have not provided any evidence or justification for that view to counter that considered view of the Reporter.

Para 10.                The Minister agrees with the Reporter’s reasoning and conclusion that this development is not in conformity with the development plan and in effect is agreeing as the Reporter stated it is in the wrong place.

Para 15.                The Minister merely states that they “attach considerable weight” in their decision making to the Reporter’s conclusion that the proposed tennis and golf centre would make an important contribution to the aim of increasing participation in both sports.  This merely says that they want the sports facilities regardless of any other considerations.  There is no assessment of how the negative aspects of this site – such as only realistically being accessible by car impact on the usability and value of the Sports facilities.

Para 16.                The Minister uses Stirling Council’s observations about adding to the wider sports offer as support.  He does fully accept the sports facilities will largely be access by car, but then comments that “users of a golfing facility will generally be more likely to travel there by private car” which is counter to the concept of golf facility as an introduction or Trainer facility, which implies that many users will not have clubs to bring with them.

Para 19.                The Minister puts considerable weight on the job creation element of the proposal as does the Reporter, but the Reporter also warns of a “real uncertainty” about the number of operational jobs that will be generated.  There is no comment on this aspect. 

Para 20.                The Minister agrees that the proposed funding model contains assumptions, some of which may be optimistic.  He accepts the argument for “enabling housing” to allow entry charges for the sports facility to be as low as possible, which was rejected by the Reporter.  It is clearly stated that the agreement to ensure that these benefits are delivered has to be finalised between the developer and Stirling Council before consent is granted THIS IS A CRITICAL STATEMENT.

Para 22.                The Minister accepts the Reporter’s conclusion that it has not been proven an alternative site does not exist.  So whilst Ministers think the concept of a sports centre is a “good thing” they accept it could be elsewhere and (see 10 + 16 above) that it is in the wrong place.

Para 23.                The Minister accepts that this is not a sustainable development.

Para 24.                The Planning Conditions – these will be discussed separately. 

Para 26.                The Minister only considers the housing content in respect of the emerging local plan, which given the impact on the green belt and the substantial built development is selective.

Planning Conditions

The Minister accepts the vast bulk of the Reporter’s proposed Planning Conditions.

The significant change is Condition 8 where the Reporter applied Stirling Council’s proposed condition which stated that “Prior to construction of the residential units, the tennis and golf centre, together with associated works shall be completed and available for use.  The Minister has changed “construction” to “occupation”, which will allow the houses to be built before the tennis centre is operational.

This is a significant dilution of the condition and indicates that the developer, who had proposed a phased approach, has put pressure on the Minister.

Agreements required to enable consent to be given

The Minister requires three points to be included in a Section 75 Agreement (or other legally binding agreement) prior to giving final consent:

•             Secure education and affordable housing contributions in line with Stirling Council’s supplementary guidance.  This should be simple – the figures will arise from the Guidance and whilst there may be some debate about the base figures it is unlikely that the developer will not agree a figure as doing so will help deliver the desired consent.

•             Ensure that no further residential development will be undertaken on the wider site.  This should be simple in that the developer has said this all along, the CIC concept includes this and they will agree the concept to secure consent.  However there is also the potential issue of the sports facilities failing financially and potentially a replacement with residential properties.  This would be unacceptable and should be specifically incorporated into the Section 75 planning obligation

•             Set out arrangements to ensure accessibility and affordability of the sports facilities.  This is a very surprising requirement.  It was rejected (in a different form) by the Reporter after considerable discussion at the hearing and where it was considered unlawful by some parties.  However the community Council made the point that this linkage was the only justification for the “enabling” housing.

This last point will be very difficult to agree, if it is done properly.  It may well prevent consent as it will require considerable work to develop a detailed Business Case to cover the affordability point, including construction costs, before it can be demonstrated that the arrangement will work.  Accessibility is more likely to be covered by an agreement to provide a shuttle bus to Dunblane and/or Bridge of Allan stations, but that will add a considerable ongoing operational cost to the tennis and golf centre (of the order of £100k pa).

Wider Issues

The Minister has “attached weight to the regional and national importance of the sport facility.”  But he has also accepted that the Reporter’s view that this is not the right location in planning terms for development, because it does not offer access to sustainable means of transport.  He has fully recognised this deficiency in the location at Park of Keir by insisting on the need for a planning obligation to cover the “accessibility and affordability of the sports facilities”.

It seems that he has confused the absolute desirability of a tennis facility of this nature (Because it is only the tennis facility that could possibly be described as of regional and national importance, the golf facility only has local impact) and its ability to deliver that outcome, which is significant diminished by the choice of location.

As the location of development is the fundamental aspect of planning this is a perverse decision.  Moreover it is likely to be used as a precedent in future for other developments, which will have a much wider impact across the whole of Scotland.

So, in accepting the Judy Murray arguments about the importance of the tennis facility, he has then chosen to locate the facility at a place where it will cost more to deliver and operate. This will frustrate the much of the stated ambition of being to develop the “grass roots” of tennis in Scotland.  He is establishing a tennis facility which is planned to fail in its stated objectives and in in effect going down the same path as the failed Roehampton experiment by the LTA which was so heavily criticised by Judy Murray.

Overall the decision is perverse, lacks logic, has not been supported by any evidence as to why the Minister places greater weight on certain aspects than the Reporter in his detailed and impartial analysis of the case and indicates that the Minister has had a closed mind to the outcome, having called it in to ensure that Judy Murray gets her desired monument to the Murray family.

Conclusions

This case is not yet concluded:

The three points listed above need to be agreed before the Minister gives consent.  He has initially suggested a deferral of their formal decision for three months (para 29).  The relevant planning obligation has “to be completed to Minister’s satisfaction”.  This puts Stirling Council firmly in control of the outcome.  Whilst the first two are, in the scale of the development immaterial sums, Stirling Council should hold out for as larger sum as possible as the developer is unlikely to want to lose the development for the sake of a few thousands of pounds.

However on the third point this is entirely open-ended.  The accessibility point may be agreed by providing a shuttle bus or similar transport arrangements/support, at a cost, but this will put even more pressure on the already weak finances of the sports facilities.  It is almost impossible to understand the affordability issue without a full understanding of capital costs, operational costs and income streams.  There is a need for Stirling Council to decide what is required and how to decide what is affordable.

A major concern in the case of the last two conditions is that they will be agreed, but will then lapse/cease in the future and that the place will have been built so there is no enforcement mechanism.

In incorporating the accessibility and affordability requirement into the final consent he Minister has shown what a poor choice this site is in terms of the desired outcomes, especially accessibility, which requires a planning obligation to be agreed, where on other more suitable sites these would be a natural outcome. 

There are wider implications in terms of local democracy, for future planning decisions and the Scottish Government’s decision making process.  These all suggest that this decision is a very important one and is one that will be subject to wider exposure and debate. 

David Prescott   3 September 2017

Author: Jamie Hailestone, New Start

Donna Hall is chief executive of Wigan Council. She talks to New Start, Jamie Hailestone about the council’s transformative approach to delivering public services, The Deal and the local authority’s upcoming conference.

What is the key philosophy behind The Deal?

When austerity hit we realised that closing a few libraries, changing bin collections and reducing school crossing patrols was not going to close a £160m budget gap. We needed something big and radical to fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and state. We created a dynamic, two-way psychological contract with all of our residents so we could weather the storm together. We called this ‘The Deal’. The Deal is a strengths-based model of service co-design with residents and community groups. We explain simply, clearly and repeatedly that we need to work differently with residents to drive out increasing demand for public services. This is how we have made it work: Stop doing things to people. It doesn’t work and costs a fortune. Start doings with people.

How has it changed the relationship between the council and the local community?

The Deal has fundamentally transformed our relationship with residents. Previously we were a big, well-run but paternalistic organisation with quite staid, traditional relationships with our residents. Our resident satisfaction with the council was low. People didn’t think we provided value for money and they didn’t trust us. That has all changed for the better through The Deal. We introduced the approach initially in adult social care, but quickly realised the benefits and its application to all areas of public service. Just one example of success is how we have tackled loneliness and social isolation thorough The Deal. Connecting lonely people into networks on their doorstep that are usually free or very cheap is better for them and better for our budgets. We have seen packages of social care reduce from over £1,000 per week to £17 per week with happier, more connected service users.

Can you give me an example of how the council has transferred an asset to a community group under The Deal?

One of our fantastic community interest companies, Abram Ward Community Cooperative, took ownership of a community building – Platt Bridge Community Zone – via a community asset transfer in 2014. The council also supported the cooperative with community investment funding. The community cooperative now has the right accommodation to empower social enterprises in their local community through business advice and funding support as well as provision of business unit accommodation and hotdesking. The cooperative also develops projects for ‘community connecting’ from developing neighborhood plans to projects to support healthy living, social isolation and mental health with more than 60 community businesses helped so far. This is a great example of how investing in the third sector can create sustainable community-led success and empowerment.

What outcomes has The Deal delivered for the council?

Since the launch of The Deal demand for council services has reduced. Between March 2015 and March 2016 there has been a 13% reduction in the number of looked after children; welfare desk presentations have reduced and the number of people receiving formal adult services has fallen from 8,818 in 13/14 to 7,782 in 16/17. The return on community investment is significant, with every £1 spent equating to £1.57. Local swimming pools, libraries and community centres are now being run by the community for the community. There’s also been a significant increase in resident satisfaction with 65% (2016) of those asked satisfied with the way the council runs things compared with 41% in 2008, whilst perceptions that the council provides value for money increased from 30% to 50%.

Can you see more local authorities taking a similar approach?

We are proud and humbled that high quality organisations from across the country are looking to Wigan to help shape their approach to working successfully with their communities and managing service demand reduction. We have Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Police both rolling out their own Deal-inspired programmes and we have many other organisations, including from abroad, who have contacted us and visited us to learn more about The Deal.

Tell us about the upcoming conference and why you are holding it?

Because there has been a significant amount of interest in our approach, we are holding a national conference on the Deal on 27 September here in Wigan. Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester mayor, our resident anthropologist Dr Robin Pharoe will be speaking as well our local community groups. The chief executive of Leeds City Council, Tom Riordan and deputy chief executive of Manchester City Council, Sara Todd, who have developed similar approaches to redefining the relationship between citizen and state. It will be a brilliant opportunity for us all to share best practice and learn from each other.

In the future, do you think local authorities will have more of an enabling role?

Councils which fail to tap into the power in communities will really struggle. Neighbourhoods are the essential building blocks for public services. GP surgeries and schools are where real transformation takes place. I would urge other leaders to be bold enough to close the things that don’t work. Keep the things open that build and connect people into their local community and make it stronger, such as libraries. We haven’t closed any, but have massively reduced their operating costs by thinking differently. Listening is crucial. Not just as a one-off but as a rolling programme of regular listening events both with staff and residents. They can be challenging but always rewarding. They avoid us getting into a bubble of self-delusion. Invest in all things digital to connect staff and residents with the future as well as saving loads of money. Engage your partners, community, public and private sector in this new approach. It simply won’t work if it’s just the council and not the NHS etc. Finally build a leadership team of officers and members with bags of energy and enthusiasm that are public service reformers and really believe in this different way of working.

Author: Senscot

To read Senscot’s briefing on Loneliness and Isolation – click here