Author: ERCS

Want to find out more about Environmental Rights and why they matter?

Come and find out at our first Environmental Rights Summit!

Prof David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, will be our keynote speaker.

This summer, with the consultations on environmental governance and the Human Rights Bill, we have the chance to tell the government what we need for an enforceable human right to a healthy environment.

Join us to be the collective voice in demanding access to environmental justice in a court of law and ensuring our substantive and procedural rights are protected in the new Human Rights Bill.

We will have the day to share our hopes and aspirations for a greener, healthier and fairer Scotland for everyone.

There will be plenty of opportunities for exchanging ideas, tips and learning, including workshops on:

• Using freedom of information requests to hold public bodies to account – from The Ferret
• Challenging poor planning decisions and campaigning for a fairer system – from Planning Democracy
• Using strategic litigation to enforce environmental protection – from ERCS
• How to advance the Rights of Nature – from Lawyers for Nature

This will be an in-person event for ERCS members, supporters, community campaigners, the voluntary sector and all our networks.

—————

Event details

Wednesday, 6 September 10am-4.30pm.

Venue: Summerhall, 1 Summerhall, Edinburgh EH9 1PL.

Programme outline

10am: Welcome

10.30 – 12.30pm: Workshops + Break

12.30pm: Voices for Justice speak out – the experience of ERCS’s advice clients

1pm: Lunch and networking

2pm: Prof David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment and Prof Elisa Morgera, Professor of Global Environmental Law at Strathclyde University

2.40pm: Scottish Government Human Rights Bill Team

3.30pm: The state of environmental governance in Scotland: what it is and what needs to be fixed?

Panel discussion with Environmental Standards Scotland, Professor Campbell Gemmell and others.

4.15pm: Closing remarks

Author: LGIU

Lessons from Finland’s social and healthcare reform experience

While Scotland ponders the vexed question of health and social care reform, Finland have actually started down the reform route. Finland’s social and healthcare reform has now been live for over six months and in that time, no large-scale scandals have arisen. However, with the analysis of this reform remarkably quiet, this leaves significant questions about the reality behind the scenes.

The aim of this wide-ranging reform is to homogenise the delivery of services across the country, create seamless services between service providers and well-functioning collaboration between different sectors and service providers within the sectors.

Observers feel the change was so vast that its impact on everything is still being processed, analysed and not yet understood, but already we can begin to see the impacts on Finland’s local government and even on voting patterns. However, we can also identify with the themes of centralisation and financial pressure only too familiar for local government around the world.

Sharing the preliminary findings from Finland’s social and healthcare reforms, this briefing highlights opportunities for learning from the current experience, especially with regard to financial impacts. This will be of interest to everyone working in health and social care, integrated joint boards as well as communities

Background

Finland has three levels of governance: central, regional and local.

Constitutionally enshrined, Finland’s 309 municipalities are based on a model of self-government with control over a range of community services such as schools, water supply, local streets and until recent reforms, health and social care. (Council of Europe)

In 2021, parliament in Finland approved a Bill for the establishment of welfare counties, responsible for social and healthcare services as well as rescue services referred to as the “Sote” reform. These reforms became fully effective on January 1st 2023. You can read more about the original plans here.

Budgets

One of the core aspirations of the health and social care reform was to deliver savings of up to €‎3bn, directly impacting the manner in which local government finances work, and in some cases, taking a huge burden off local government’s shoulders.

However, while it is still early days, this reform is not a panacea for local government’s financial challenges, even though reform of health and social care shifted many responsibilities away from municipalities to the newly created well-being services counties. Local demographics and the size of each municipality play a big part in how much they each benefit from the reform. That in turn means the impacts are far from even felt.

For example, in Punkalaidun, a population of 2,500 with a large proportion of those over 66 years old, is expected to have over €‎350,000 in budget surplus. Previously, the town was over €‎650,000 in deficit. Similar numbers, proportionally, are seen in the region’s biggest city, Tampere.

Taija Myyrä, an expert in social and healthcare management, explained,

“The concern about elderly care has been lifted from the municipalities. However, municipalities are very different from one another, they have diverged and their services have also diverged. Now, of course, the goal is to make the services ever more equal, but significant challenges arise precisely due to the differentiation and different population structures,”

“The next couple of years will be spent following the fluctuations caused by social and healthcare reform. Within five years, there significant budget adjustments will be needed in municipalities. Delivery and structures of services will need to be thoroughly considered to make them efficient.”

Myyrä has discussed with a range of people from municipalities and surmises that there are no firm conclusions to draw from the reform yet but highlights the variance in preparedness from different municipalities, with some facing unpredicted costs and changes.

State subsidies used to also be paid to municipalities for facilitating health and social care, but reform changed this. Jyväskylä, with a population of 134,000, has been in the news since April 23 because it’s expecting to face a deficit of up to €45m in 2023. The sizeable deficit came as a surprise and was mostly a result of the loss in state subsidies for basic services, culture and education in municipalities.

“The economic situation is very challenging; half of the municipalities are projected to have deficits by 2025, which is of course a significant challenge. There is a risk that for example early childhood education may face cuts, which would have a big impact, especially on families with children,” (Myyrä).

The reform, which transferred social and healthcare tasks from municipalities to the well-being services counties, had a negative impact on tax revenues. Municipal tax which, not dissimilar to the UK’s model of council tax, was uniformly reduced by 12.64% points.

Eero Laesterä, a well-known municipal expert and Doctor of Administrative Sciences, also questioned whether the tax cut was properly executed, when interviewed by the national public broadcaster, Yle. Laesterä commented,

“As we have examined the economic decline until the year 2024, one can dare to wonder if the municipalities were stripped of half a percentage point too much, as the municipal economy seems to be deteriorating,”.

Laesterä suggested that the financial state of municipalities could potentially revert to conditions prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic years, maybe surprisingly, brought about favourable outcomes for Finnish municipalities, largely attributed to the €5bn Covid-19 aid package granted by central government.

However, these substantial funds have now been depleted and familiar challenges are on the horizon: a migration trend from north to south and rural to urban areas, coupled with an ongoing ageing population. The health and social reform was expected to deliver help to manage this demanding situation.

“While some degree of anticipation was present, significant underlying issues persist in municipalities’ financial troubles,” Laesterä said.

Expenditures, it appears, are increasingly surpassing revenues in a growing number of Finnish municipalities. Currently affecting around a dozen localities, this trend is set to expand significantly according to projections by Laesterä, potentially encompassing dozens of municipalities next year and exceeding a hundred by the end of the decade.

In an effort to steer away from further financial strain, municipalities are employing tactics familiar to anyone working in public services including austerity measures, increased borrowing, asset sales and possible tax hikes. However, identifying areas for cost-cutting can prove to be a challenging endeavour, especially after multiple rounds of budget cutting. Taking on additional debt adds a fresh layer of complexity due to rising interest rates, therefore posing a significant challenge to financial sustainability.

Silver lining

One silver lining from the reform, and in particular the uncertainty it brings, is the added impetus to collaborate and innovate in service delivery. Myyrä comments that an ever-increasing number of municipalities are exploring ways to collaborate more in effectively providing the necessary services.

“Collaboration is, of course, positive and it creates new ways of operating. Even though municipalities still have many tasks, removing social and healthcare governance significantly clarifies their operations. Now, municipalities can focus on promoting democracy, for example.

“The social and healthcare reform is also a municipal reform and I see this as an opportunity; it’s not just about ‘running out of money, everything is negative.’ New things are not always solely negative. This reform allows municipalities to develop their operations and do things differently.” 

Local Democracy vs Centralisation

One of the questions this reform raised in terms of local government is the familiar question of local vs central decision-making. Finland’s strong municipal autonomy has become known worldwide and now, as a result of this, reform the power of 309 municipalities has been condensed to 21 well-being services counties.

The new well-being services counties are led by 1,397 elected representatives whose term runs for four years. The first elections took place in January 2022, a year before the reform was to be implemented.

Voter turnout for the county elections was 47.5%, which is considered low compared to previous elections. The turnout was 7.6 percentage points lower compared to the previous local elections held in 2021, which had a turnout of 55.1% while the turnout was slightly higher in smaller municipalities.

The relatively low turnout is concerning for democracy, according to election expert Sami Borg from Tampere University. After the election, the Chair of the National Coalition Party, Petteri Orpo, stated he was disappointed in the low voter turnout. According to him, the result provides a poor democratic foundation for the work of the well-being countries.

“There is no trust in the model,” Orpo said.

The winner in the regional elections was the National Coalition Party, which also won the most recent national parliamentary elections in March 2023, replacing the Social Democratic Party’s tenure. This change of power to a more right-leaning government has certainly brought Finland into the news and is overshadowing social and healthcare reform despite the massive impact on society as a whole.

Comment – Early days and unintended consequences

Well-researched data on the outcomes of the reform is not yet widely available and rather the feedback and success of the large-scale reform largely relies on individual qualitative experiences. A lot of focus has been on Spring 2023 parliamentary elections and the coalition government that emerged from it, with a central government program focused on austerity and stability measures.

A new central government programme, which was recently published has evoked both approval and criticism, but initial reactions from municipalities reflect a sense of relief. Many of the entries in the section of the government program which addresses municipal policies, align with the goals outlined by the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities (Kuntaliitto).

Faced with the prospect of an extensive €6bn austerity program, municipalities feared the worst. Historically, significant savings in public finances have been drawn from municipalities’ basic service state subsidies, and those cuts have been sugar-coated with the inclusion of certain new discretionary state grants. A story familiar to those in the UK, Ireland and Australia. But in Finland, health and social care reform avoided major reductions in state subsidies, even though the next government term will introduce a one percentage point index brake on municipal state subsidies.

Many questions remain about the government programme. A sore point in the upcoming government term will inevitably revolve around the division of responsibilities between municipalities and well-being services counties, particularly concerning housing services and the promotion of people’s health and well-being, also employment services and benefits. Finnish municipalities are facing yet another major reform concerning the transfer of Public Employment Services (TE-palvelut) to the local level, with the aim to strengthen municipalities’ responsibilities in employment services. This reform is to take place in 2024.

While it is still early days, a new national government means it is difficult to form comprehensive, wide-ranging conclusions on how the reform has gone. But given parallels in centralisation and financial sustainability with local government systems in UK, Ireland and Australia, LGIU will continue to report on the progress of this work and share lessons.

Author: New Local

Leadership is always a buzzy phrase. A quick scan of LinkedIn tells you it is a hot topic – from stepping up to lead, leading under pressure, or leading through change – everyone wants to lead (and be led) better. But what does leadership look like through a community-powered lens? How would a community powered leader do things differently? What values and behaviours do they have? Strengths? Goals? Weaknesses? What does ‘leading’ in a community-powered way even mean? 

At this year’s Stronger Things, in the Guildhall’s atmospheric Crypts, the seeds of New Local’s future work on leadership were sown. Bringing together people from across community groups, local authorities and health, we asked: “What does community powered leadership look like to you?”. Yes – literally look like. We asked people to pick up their pens, and draw community-powered leadership. Here are a couple of examples of what they produced: 

Pictures may speak a thousand words, but there’s nothing that New Local likes more than hearing from people. And so, we attempted to distil the behaviours and values that shape community-powered leadership. In 45 minutes.

This is what we learned: 

• Community powered leadership is from the back.  

These leaders are not boastful or attention-seeking, but support others to shine. They turn up, every day, to encourage people – to celebrate the small wins, and to praise efforts of those who have contributed to the achievement. Nothing is done alone and a community-powered leader recognises that and empowers communities to take both the lead and the credit. As one participant summed: “It’s about the soft light, not the spotlight”.

• Community-powered leadership is empathetic and honest.  

These leaders know when to devolve responsibility and are open to learning from failure. They are calm, and reflect – but listen. Hard. They show empathy for the circumstances and try to understand the root causes. They take pride in their role and value their sense of public duty, but give others the time and space to think. These leaders are interested in conversation AND action – being honest about what is possible but by establishing trust through doing.  

• Community-powered leadership challenges the status quo – in the thinking and the doing.  

They are focused on change: to the system, to the organisation – to people’s lives, and to themselves. They value qualitative insights alongside the quantitative data and are prepared to try new approaches. Leaders recognise the inequitable distribution of power and money and stand up for what they believe in, role-modelling behaviours that signal a sea change.

One participant shared this quote from Alice Walker as a guiding principle: “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” 

• Community-powered leadership is connecting and convening – of ideas, of people and of action.  

It’s not about thinking in silos. It’s about being open to possibilities, spotting opportunities and connections for better working both vertically and horizontally. It’s about trusting communities, letting go of power and control (and responsibility and accountability) and being willing to embrace risk. It’s about enabling others around them to be truly in it together for the benefit of our communities.  

Author: The Ferret

A group representing coastal communities has criticised the Scottish Government’s new fish farming strategy for lacking environmental targets or stronger decision making powers for local residents.

The Scottish Government’s new plan to support the fish farming sector – the Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture – promises to protect the environment, promote innovation and ensure local communities see lasting benefits.

The Coastal Communities Network (CCN), which is made up of 24 local groups across Scotland, welcomed the environmental principles outlined in the government’s new strategy.

But it criticised an absence of clear targets and interim deadlines to measure if the sector is improving sustainability.

The group also wants communities to have the power to reject unwanted new fish farms via “a mechanism that promotes true democratic decision making”.

The government said “environmental protection and enhanced community benefits” were “key outcomes” of its plan, and were already being progressed.

Fish farming’s environmental impact

CNN argued the strategy fails to address the industry’s environmental impact five years after a Scottish Parliament committee expressed concern.

In a 2018 report, the parliament’s cross-party environment committee found a “lack of progress” in tackling the environmental risks of salmon farming first outlined in 2002, despite a plan to double the economic contribution of the aquaculture industry by 2030.

There were “significant gaps in knowledge, data, monitoring and research around the adverse risk the sector poses” to the environment, the committee added.

CNN has asked the government for more detail about the current environmental impact of the fish farming industry, and for precise definitions of “sustainable” practices.

“The industry has lost its social licence in many coastal communities up and down Scotland’s west coast, which want open pen fish farms to be phased out and our coastal waters revived,” claimed John Aitchison, CCN’s aquaculture spokesperson.

“At present, planning refusals for fish farms are usually overturned on appeal by Scottish Government reporters who have no knowledge of aquaculture, and communities have no means of challenging this apart from very expensive court proceedings.

“We need a mechanism that promotes true democratic decision making.”

The Ferret previously revealed that between March 2017 and 2023, the government approved four of seven fish farming developments originally rejected by local councils.

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Improved environmental protection and enhanced community benefits are two key outcomes that are enshrined within our Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture and progress is already being made on meeting these outcomes.

“This work includes an upcoming trial of a new process for managing fish farm applications focussed on coordination and improved engagement at the pre-application stage as well as placing a renewed emphasis on innovation and regulation within the sector to minimise the impact of the sector on Scotland’s marine environment.”

Author: Nick Wright, Planning Democracy

Many Local Authorities are starting to develop new Local Development Plans. As part of this they are inviting local communities to prepare Local Place Plans.

Here is a guest blog by Nick Wright that will be useful in helping you to decide whether or not to bother. Nick is a consultant, who has worked with a number of communities developing their Local Place Plans.

Thanks Nick take it away!

In the run-up to the 2019 Planning (Scotland) Act, there was much scepticism about community-led Local Place Plans. Many people who wanted Equal Rights of Appeal for local communities saw Local Place Plans as a poor substitute for a stronger community voice in planning decision-making. 

Whatever the political motivation for introducing Local Place Plans, they are here to stay.  Local authorities are starting to invite local communities to prepare Local Place Plans, as required by the 2019 Planning Act. Countless communities across the country have started work on plans, and some early adopters have already had their Plans registered.

Should you take the plunge? 

Only your community can decide whether to invest your time, energy and money in making a Local Place Plan.  I can’t make that decision for you, but I can flag up what to think about in making the decision.

Your starting point should be to look at section 1 of the Scottish Government’s draft How To Guide for Local Place Plans and Paul Ede’s presentation at the start of the SURF People in Place Network meeting 10 on 27th July 2023. 

Those two links will help you think through questions that might affect your decision whether to take the plunge.  For example:

How much time will it take? My experience is that you should expect it to take at least six months to prepare a plan, not least because good community engagement takes time.  If you need to secure funding or support, you’ll need to add in preparatory time to get you to the starting line.

What are the costs? You’ll need a few hundred pounds to cover printing and venue costs relating to community engagement (e.g. posters, surveys, space and refreshments for events). Beyond that, the cost depends entirely on how much of the community engagement and plan preparation you want to do yourselves.  Some communities, like Callander do everything themselves.  But most buy in some external support, usually to provide extra capacity and/or impartial facilitation.  If you just want to buy support for specific tasks, you might spend a couple of thousand pounds, maybe more depending on what you need.  To buy in paid support to facilitate the whole process and produce the plan, I suggest you budget between £10,000 and £20,000.  Some plans have cost substantially more than that and provide more detailed content, for example Wester Hailes; others could cost less and contain less detail.  You should decide what’s right for your situation.  And don’t forget that, in an ideal world, you would also have a budget ready to deliver what’s in the plan!

What else might your community get out of it? The headline reason for doing a Local Place Plan is to influence planning policy.  But, as the government says, Local Place Plans are more than just a plan.  Communities find that there are other potential benefits from making a community-ledplan, including:

• Helping make the case for funding for community priorities – because inclusion of a project or priority in the plan demonstrates to funders that it has community support.
• Motivating and energising the local community – this applies particularly to volunteers like Community Councillors or people involved in specific groups, who can get renewed energy from being involved a Local Place Plan. Sometimes it can bring new volunteers too.
• Enabling local folk to meet new people and make new connections.
• Building relationships between your community and your local authority or other organisations, which can help to open doors and make things happen.

That said, it’s important to make an informed decision about whether to embark on a Local Place Plan.  That means weighing up the pros and cons. For example, people might come together and forge new relationships, but they might also fall out with each other; that can get messy with strong personalities and entrenched views.  You might have limited resources and have to weight up how to split those between projects that are in immediate need and long term planning.  And, whilst your plan could help your community get resources to deliver projects or change planning policy, you might invest all that time and energy for seemingly little return.

One of the problems facing communities is that there is no guarantee that their Plan will make it into planning policy (which is contained in the Local Development Plan, prepared by the local authority or National Park). That is because, once Local Place Plans are registered by the community’s local authority or National Park, the government says that “they are to be taken into account in preparing its Local Development Plan” (Planning Circular 1/2022: Local Place Plans, paragraph 10). That wording is important: it means that there is no obligation on planning authorities simply to incorporate Local Place Plans into their Local Development Plans. So, even if communities go through the hard work of producing a Local Place Plan and getting it registered, they won’t necessarily get what they want.  

Don’t forget to check out the draft How To Guide and Paul Ede’s presentation at the start of the SURF meeting ten video recording to help you weigh up these and other pros and cons.

Making the most of the opportunity

Let’s say you decide to take the plunge and make a Local Place Plan. How can you make the most of this opportunity to influence local authorities and planning policy?  

I believe the job of a Local Place Plan is to put forward the community’s agenda in the context of overall public policy aims (like climate change, health and wellbeing, and social inclusion) – not to translate the details of public policy into a local community plan.  An essential purpose of Local Place Plans is to challenge and bring the local perspective to the next generation of Local Development Plans and wider public policy (even including NPF5 in due course!).

To achieve that, I’d suggest that any community should make sure its Local Place Plan does two things:

1. Represent your whole community. Make sure that the way you prepare your Local Place Plan is not open to challenge, and particularly that you make every effort to give everybody in your local community the opportunity to be involved.  This isn’t easy, especially if there are disagreements There is lots of advice on how to do this in the Scottish Government’s draft How To Guide on Local Place Plans (scroll down on that webpage to see the guide).  

Even if you think you know what your community wants, don’t miss out the crucial step of asking the wider community what they want. If you fail to do that, the whole basis of your plan will be open to question. That means you’ll be on the back foot defending your plan, rather than on the front foot implementing it. 

1. Don’t miss the boat! Remember, Local Development Plans will now only be produced every 10 years.  Pay close attention to your local authority’s ‘Local Development Plan Scheme’, which is updated annually and says when local communities will be invited to prepare Local Place Plans. Here’s what the Scottish Government’s Local Development Planning Guidance has to say about this issue:

“Community bodies can prepare LPPs for their area at any time, including in advance of the invitation to do so. However they should be aware that outwith the timeframe provided by the planning authority in the invitation the assistance for the preparation of them may not be available and the opportunity to be taken into account in preparing the LDP will diminish as work to prepare the plan progresses.” (Annex B, paragraph 11)

Clearly, you’ll have the greatest chance of influencing planning policy at the start of preparing a new Local Development Plan, when the invitation to prepare Local Place Plans is issued.  Nobody yet knows for certain how Local Place Plans prepared after Local Development Plans have been written might be able to influence planning policy.  It’s a new system and that simply hasn’t been worked out yet. 

Now let’s look in a little more detail at what the new crop of Local Place Plans look like, drawing out some lessons from urban and rural plans that I hope will help your community to make its plans as effective as they can be.  

Urban experience

Let’s look at four urban Local Place Plans: Ferguslie Park (Paisley), Foxbar (Paisley), Kinning Park (Glasgow) and Wester Hailes (Edinburgh). Each contains a range of proposals, but they all share three fundamental attributes.

Firstly, each plan covers an identifiable local neighbourhood.  That reflects good practice of local communities themselves deciding the extent of the plan, rather than having it imposed on them (see section 1 of the draft How To Guide).  That works well for identifiable neighbourhoods, like the four mentioned in the previous paragraph.  One question for the future is how that approach will work in town and city centres, areas that are home not only to residents but have a greater presence of businesses and other organisations and are used by large numbers of people who live elsewhere.

Secondly, the plans cover a range of initiatives, not only proposals related to planning policy. Across the four plans, you will find proposals that are related to planning policy (such as revitalising long derelict sites with new development or community food growing) alongside a range of other “non-planning” initiatives like community gala days, cycling routes, improvements to front gardens, community hubs, arts projects and many others.  Each plan represents a community agenda for the future which goes beyond planning policy, to be delivered through community and local authority action, and also contributing to bigger government agendas of climate change, health and wellbeing, and equality/inclusion.  

Thirdly, each plan has an overarching vision or set of objectives for their local community which acts as a framework for the content of the plan. This is significant, because it allows the plan to demonstrate how they address established government priorities like climate change, improving health and wellbeing, and equality/inclusion. That’s what Local Development Plans have to do, so you’re more likely to get what your community wants if you do it too.  

For me, this is about thinking how your plan’s vision and objectives can be framed in the language of the National Performance Framework and the National Planning Framework (two different documents!), plus also the Place Standard.  

For example, if you produce a plan that encourages more car use or suggests putting new development in locations that flood or are a long way from facilities or public transport, you would find it difficult to get support from authorities because .  But if you frame your plan in terms of a government policy like 20 Minutes Neighbourhoods and Local Living for example, as do the Local Place Plans for Kinning Park, Wester Hailes and Ferguslie Park, you’re more likely to get a good hearing.

Don’t feel that you need to familiarise yourself with every detail of relevant local and national policy and reflect them all in your Local Place Plan.

Rural experience

Let’s turn now to rural communities. A good place to look is Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, where Local Place Plans produced by four very different communities have recently been registered by the planning authority:

• Arrochar, Tarbet and Ardlui – focussing on the twin villages of Arrochar and Tarbet which are blighted by derelict sites and buildings, a lack of housing for locals and workers, and heavy trunk road traffic through the villages.  
• Callander – a small town in a beautiful landscape setting which is a hub for local services, but with scant transport links and career opportunities.
• Drymen – a growing village which is in commuting distance of the Central Belt whilst also the visitor gateway to East Loch Lomond and the first overnight stop on the West Highland Way.
• Luss and Arden – Luss, a conservation village on the banks of Loch Lomond, faces challenges not only from a huge seasonal influx of visitors but also declining community facilities and services.

Although facing some similar issues, each community is unique, as their plans illustrate. Their plans are unique too.  In Callander and Drymen the communities themselves prepared the plans, whilst Arrochar/Tarbet and Luss employed external facilitators to help. All four received financial and in-kind assistance from the National Park as planning authority.

What lessons can we draw from these four plans for other communities?

Firstly, each contains a vision or set of objectives as a framework for their proposals. As with the urban examples mentioned above, this enables the plans to demonstrate how they ‘fit’ with established government agendas like tackling climate change, promoting sustainable transport, addressing rural population decline, supporting community empowerment, and working collaboratively to deliver place-based change. That makes it more likely that local and national government will support delivery of the plans.

Secondly, the plans are presented in different ways. Callander is beautifully written and presented, a traditional plan document which is a joy to read.  Drymen, Luss and Arrochar/Tarbet opt for more graphic formats, with mini action plans for each main theme like housing, climate change and getting about. All are exemplary, and demonstrate that there is no right or wrong way to produce a plan.

Thirdly, it is striking how common themes occur in all four of these rural plans, including:

• The need for more homes that are affordable for local people.
• Getting about on foot, by bike and by public transport, both within communities and to reach opportunities and services elsewhere.
• Access to community services and facilities like shopping and health facilities.
• Building the local community’s capacity and ability to take action themselves on these and other issues.

If you’re familiar with rural communities, these themes will come as no surprise; they are common in Community Action Plans and Local Place Plans across rural Scotland. As more Local Place Plans are registered over the next couple of years, it will be interesting to see how common aspirations can be brought together as an evidence base to inform policy and investment by local and national government in rural housing, transport, services and community empowerment.  This may also apply to urban Local Place Plans, of course.

What next?

It’s early days in the evolution of Local Place Plans. Time will tell how the eight plans referred to above will influence Local Development Plans, or indeed wider investment or services. Personally, I’m most optimistic for those communities where the local authority or National Park were proactive in supporting preparation of the plans. Those investments of time and money suggest that the public sector is more likely to try to implement what the plans contain.

If you’re thinking of taking the plunge and preparing a Local Place Plan, think carefully first about why you want to do it and the balance between risk and reward.  Go in with your eyes open.

Practice is likely to evolve rapidly in the next couple of years as more communities prepare Local Place Plans, and local authorities get to grips with them (developing the suggestions put forward by the Scottish Government in Annex B of their 2023 Local Development Plan Guidance). I’m looking forward to seeing how communities and the public sector develop new ways of using Local Place Plans to make better places.

Author: Renfrewshire Council

Background – Renfrewshire Council’s ‘You Decide’ PB 

As part of the 1% mainstream PB target, Renfrewshire Council delivered the ‘You Decide’ PB exercise. A total of £1.2 million was made available from the council’s Environment and Infrastructure service’s budget (from 2020 to 2023) and delivered through the PB process, enabling local people to suggest and choose what projects will make the biggest difference to Renfrewshire.

Through a range of engagement platforms, such as social and local media, community councils, roadshows, radio and outdoor advertising, Renfrewshire Council invited local people to submit their ideas for what they wanted improved in their area. Over 2,800 ideas were submitted. The ‘You Decide’ steering panel shortlisted feasible project, which then led to the public voting process. A total of 4,800 votes were cast, and now a total of 50 successful projects are being delivered across 16 areas in the Renfrewshire region.

Successful projects

Bishopton

• Engage with the local community to carry out improvements to the appearance of roundabouts in the Village
• Install a tarmac path and seating along one side of the grass area on Ferry Road in front of West Porton Farm
• Install outdoor exercise equipment at Churchill Drive Park

Brookfield and Bridge of Weir

• Install a wheeled sports area in Moss Road Park, including skateboarding, scooters and skates, for children and young people to enjoy
• Install speed activated signs at the entrance to Brookfield

Elderslie

• Light up the Wallace Monument to make it more of a feature
• Install outdoor exercise equipment at Old Road Park
• Install speed activated sign on Main Road
• Install seating at Main Road near the NCR75 cycle path entry/exit
• Upgrade the path that runs alongside the river from Abbey Road to Wallace Avenue to tarmac
• Upgrade the tarmac surface at Queens Road Park

Erskine

• Create ramps either side of existing steps at Holms Crescent to aid pedestrians with mobility issues, prams and bikes
• Upgrade the Clyde Walkway path from Newshot Drive around to the river and create additional seating at the waterfront
• Install lighting on link path between Millfield View and Linburn Road

Houston

• Install a pedestrian crossing near the bus stop on Magnus Road/Piper Road
• Repair steps and ensure accessible access to Helicopter Park (South Mound) for people with mobility issues, prams and bicycles

Howwood

• Install lighting in Howwood Park connecting Beith Road and Midtown Road
• Improve the playing surface at the Howwood Park playing field
• Tarmac the perimeter path around Howwood Park

Inchinnan

• Add two additional lighting columns to existing lighting in Inchinnan Park to provide lighting around the play area
• Install a lighting column on the path between Braemar Road and Old Greenock Road bus stop
• Install a gate from Inchinnan playing fields car park to allow direct access to the park and upgrade the path as required
• Resurface the footpath Broompark Drive that leads to Inchinnan Primary
• Design and install interpretation boards at points of interest in Inchinnan following engagement with the local community
• Install seating on the walking and cycle route at the A8 Greenock Road

Johnstone

• Additional lighting in the park on the Ellerslie Street area next to the play park
• Install additional lighting in Spateston Park link path from Sheldrake Place to Spateston Road
• Install kickabout football goals in Spateston Park
• Install outdoor exercise equipment at Thomas Shanks Park
• Install new lighting columns from Miller Street to Ritchie Park

Kilbarchan

• Install additional lighting in Kilbarchan Park from Well Road to Park View
• Create an activity trail around the village with information and interpretation boards
• Engage with the local community to improve the appearance of the roundabout at the entrance to the village (Easwald Bank)

Langbank

• Contribution towards installing items of play equipment in Station Park
• Upgrade the path through Langbank playing fields from Station Road to the train station

Linwood

• Install a wheeled sports area in Kintyre Park, including skateboarding, scooters and skates, for children and young people to enjoy
• Install lighting in Kintyre Park

Lochwinnoch

• Install lighting in Lochwinnoch Park around the surrounding path network
• Lighting improvements from the car park at Lochwinnoch Park (Lochlip Road) towards the train station

Paisley East

• Create an enclosed dog exercise area in East End Park
• Install lighting in Barshaw Park from Arkleston Road entrance to car park
• Contribution towards replacing all play equipment in Jennyswell play park

Paisley Gleniffer

• Improve the paths within Gleniffer Braes Country Park
• Improvements to Gleniffer Braes Car Park (off Glenfield Road) and improve the signage

Paisley North, West and Central

• Access improvements to Glencoats Park to aid users with mobility issues, prams and bikes
• Install additional play equipment in South Candren Village Green play area
• Install additional street lighting at the entrance to Ferguslie Gardens opposite West Lane

Renfrew

• Improve the appearance of roundabouts and add additional signage at the two main entrances to the town – Glasgow Road and Paisley Road
• Install additional seating in Renfrew Town Centre
• Contribution towards improvements to the play area at Glebe Street

Author: Dr Josh Doble, Community Land Scotland

Scotland has an exciting opportunity in the next six months as we await the Land Reform Bill and the chance to secure legislation which can help deliver the transformational change in land ownership Scotland desperately needs. In this context, Professor Mike Danson’s report on ‘Post-Monopoly Rural Land Ownership’ provides some much-needed evidence and analysis on the benefits of community land ownership.

In the paper, four communities were studied in detail: Abriachan Forest Trust, Galson Estate Trust/Urras Oighreachd Ghabhsainn, Knoydart Foundation and West Harris Trust/An Urras Taobh Siar na Hearadh. These were chosen for their scale, to offer diversity of opportunity in their development; length of ownership to enable strong before and after comparisons of the different, ownership models and a variety of geographic locations.

Using these case studies Danson details the story of a transition from monopoly to community ownership, and in doing so, clearly articulates the different cultural, economic and social underpinnings of community land ownership compared to monopoly landlordism.

As part of his analysis, Danson specifically focuses on whether these four community landowners deliver on the following criteria:

• Sustainable land management necessary to reduce climate impacts, particularly focussing on traditional land management and monoculture approaches
• Empower and strengthen local community resilience, to address short term and long-term shocks
• Help build local economies, support business growth and improve local incomes
• Help address depopulation and negative demographic change
• Embed local community wealth building into the local economy

The criteria Danson selected are an important means of understanding the holistic impact of land ownership. They demonstrate that who owns the land is central not just to understanding landed power but how it impacts upon our national response to the climate and biodiversity crises, our attempts to build resilient, circular, wellbeing economies, our drive to support community wealth building and to secure Scotland’s rural population, so that people can live in sustainable and enduring rural communities.

Community Land Scotland are calling for recognition that community ownership of the land and assets around them is the fundamental bedrock upon which resilient communities are based and from which just, long-term responses to the climate and biodiversity crisis, economic and social challenges and rural depopulation can be secured. Danson himself argues that “if there is evidence to answer these criteria in the affirmative then the arguments for community ownership being promoted and extended in the interest of the public and the planet become conclusive”.

Politicians also recognise the importance of this, as we see in the introduction of Community Wealth Building legislation, the government commitment to land reform and the circular, wellbeing economy. However, it is time for the warm words of encouragement from government to result in robust and concrete legislation which allows these vital changes to take place.

Danson’s report provides clear evidence to policy makers that community ownership – as exemplified by these four case studies– has led to further sustainable development, community resilience and local social and economic progress. In the table below, Danson’s findings set out how, in terms of jobs, enterprise, income and other economic performance indicators, all four case studies recorded positive and sustained progress. Progress which would not have happened, or would have been severely delayed, under previous monopoly ownership.

After reading through Danson’s research, I was left with the overarching conclusion that while monopoly landowners are focused on profit and the monetary value of land, community landowners value, and contribute to, a far wider range of issues central to not only economic life but social and cultural life. In Danson’s examples, and across the rest of our membership, community ownership means valuing the totality of what constitutes a healthy community and environment, alongside economic viability: Culture and language; repopulation and housing; employment and local wealth and environmental protection and green space expansion.

Most crucially community landowners do all of this with the input and consent of the local population – it is fundamentally a democratic and pluralistic model.

Danson finishes with a call to action which we all need to heed as we look forward to ensuring that the Land Reform Bill is as robust and transformational as it needs to be: “Communities, the economy and the environment cannot afford to wait for market failures to be addressed by the owners of large estates, whether private, state or NGOs.”

We agree wholeheartedly with Danson’s call here – it is time for the extension of community ownership across Scotland as broadly and quickly as possible. If we are going to face the environmental, economic, and social challenges facing Scotland in the 21st century, we need local communities to be empowered and to have opportunities to own the land and assets around them, so they can be the drivers of change.

Professor Danson is an economist and Professor Emeritus of Enterprise Policy, Heriot-Watt University and Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. He has published widely on rural, regional and island economies, microbreweries, minority languages, and many other areas with 18 books, 100 book chapters and over 500 papers.

Author: Anca Voinea, Cooperative News

Sixty-five years ago 31-year old Eileen Byrne (Eileen Ni Bhroin), a nurse, and her sister, 29-year old Angela Byrne (Aingil Ni Bhroin), a schoolteacher, attended a study week in the Skerries organised by the National Co-operative Council. 

While there, the sisters watched a film about credit unions in Australia and started discussing the concept with a man who had recently come back from the country. Upon their return to their home on Donore Avenue, Dublin, they shared their experience with some neighbours, including Treasa McGeehan, who invited them and a few other people over to her home on Hartcourt Terrace to discuss the matter in greater detail. Another meeting followed on 26 April, 1958 in Eileen and Angela Byrne’s home at 35 Hamilton Street.

Shortly after, Donore Credit Union was born, with assets of £100 and a membership of 100. In 1958 its first office was located in the home of the founders Eileen and Angela Byrne on Hamilton Street. In those early days committee members collected money at the homes of each member on a weekly basis.

Eventually, a temporary office location in a garage on Donore Avenue was set up and then later moved to the side office at 45 Donore Avenue. The office was then relocated to a rental property opposite St Teresa’s church and in 1969 the premises on Ebenezer Terrace were set up and the credit union remained there until 1991 when a new building on 22 Rutledge Terrace opened, where it still operates.

Today the credit union, the oldest in the country, has assets of €40m and a membership of just over 5,300. Its ethos, however, remains the same.

“Since then, we have been all about serving our members and community. We believe in the importance of offering a personal service where our staff often know members on a first-name basis and where people can discuss financial matters face-to-face without being redirected to a machine,” says CEO David McAuley, who knows many of the credit union’s members personally.

“Although we offer modern services such as online banking and a mobile app to make our services more accessible, we will never diverge from the traditional service we have been offering for 65 years.”

A chartered management accountant, McAuley joined Donore in 2016. He had been active in the credit union sector since 2008.

Despite growing in size and membership, Donore remains committed to serving its local community in the Liberties neighbourhood, also known as Dublin 8. In 2020, it became the first credit union in Ireland to measure the social impact it has on its local community. Its Social Return on Investment Study showed that for every €1 invested into the credit union it, in turn, creates a social value of €10 that goes back into the community. 

With over 250 credit unions which have over 3.6 million members, Ireland has the highest number of credit union members per capita in the world.

“The credit union is truly something that is a strong part of our culture,” adds McAuley.

Donore recently marked its 65th anniversary by hosting a Community Awards event on Friday, 12 May in St. Catherine’s Church on Thomas Street. 

“This event was filled with joy and smiling faces of people from the community as local unsung heroes were recognised for going above and beyond for their communities, neighbourhoods and having an overall positive impact on people’s lives,” says Nick Ahlmark, the credit union’s marketing officer.

“On this eventful evening, Donore Credit Union awarded 21 individual awards and three joint awards to people that were nominated by their friends, neighbours and community. Over 120 nominations were received in total, and the selection process was challenging with a good number of heart-warming stories about the selfless acts that people do on a daily basis to better the lives of people around them.”

So what’s next for Ireland’s first and oldest credit union? Donore continues to focus on the core business of loans and savings while offering sustainable finance options to the local community.

In 2022 its loan book reached €13m, double the value of 2018. In 2021 it introduced Greener Home Loan, in partnership with Energia and House 2 Home, of CU Greener Homes. Under the scheme, Donore grants of up to €35,000 per home available, as well as additional financial support from Energia for eligible work – with loan rates starting from 4.9% APR. Grant support of up to €35,000 per home is also available from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) for deep retrofit works on homes built pre-2011. 

“We have repurposed ourselves as the provider of sustainable finance for our community,” says McAuley. 

“We have measured and reported our social impact, and that has led us to position ourselves as the best option for delivery of a sustainable community through a co-operative democratic not-for-profit model that is focused on delivering sustainability through social and environmental projects. Having repurposed ourselves, we have overcome challenges in the recent past and now are an energised forward looking credit union that has an engaged and active membership with growing loan book and membership. 

“We have brought that message to many of our credit union colleagues and there are now a number of credit unions positioning themselves in that space.”

Author: Glasgow Eco Trust

Glasgow Eco Trust has launched an innovative fundraiser – a community flight donation scheme. People who have taken a flight recently can make a small donation to support our work on community led climate action. This scheme is an alternative to official carbon offset programmes. People that donate will be supporting community-led climate action. We are also not encouraging people to fly more!

WHY WE ARE DOING THIS

There are two main reasons why we are doing this:

Firstly, our work is delivered under five main themes – transport, food, resource use, energy and spaces. The first four of these are the main contributors to an individual / household / community carbon footprint. By donating through this scheme you are supporting community-led climate action which is making a difference for people, place and planet.

We also know there is huge pressure on consumers to change their behaviour however often it is the system that is preventing people doing more – why is it cheaper to fly from Glasgow to London than take the train? – so we will continue to lobby for system change to make it easier for people to make positive choices.

Examples of our work include:

• Transport – our Active Travel programme enables more people to walk, wheel and cycle and we campaign for better active travel infrastructure, including our recently launched Active Travel and Sustainable Transport plan for Whiteinch and Scotstoun focusing on bigger system change. In 2017 37% of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for by transport and the two biggest contributors to transport emissions are from cars (40%) and aviation (15%) with flying being the largest per trip contributor. (2017) (Source: National Transport Strategy, p21).
• Resource use – De’ils On Wheels community bike workshop refurbishes unwanted bikes – every bike we get back into reuse saves 16.5kg of CO2e
• Food – Glasgow Eco Trust is part of an innovative project, the Food and Climate Action project to develop a more local, more resilient food system. This is lead by Glasgow Community Food Network and is in partnership with five local host organisations including ourselves in west Glasgow.

Secondly, funding is becoming ever more competitive. Therefore we are having to diversify where and how we get our funding and income from as well as become more innovative as to how we fundraise – such as this community flight donation scheme!. This scheme forms part of our bigger #GET23in23 fundraising campaign where we are aiming to raise £23,000 in 2023. Although the flight donation scheme will go beyond 2023!

SUGGESTED DONATIONS

The following table provides suggested donation amounts based on how far your flight was and which class of travel you took. You can use this table to calculate the donation amounts based on any flights you have taken since the end of lockdown. There are some examples shown below too.

HOW TO DONATE

1. Have you flown since lockdown was lifted?
2. If so work out how much you would like to donate based on the table above
3. Click the green ‘donate’ button
   • On a PC/laptop – the ‘donate’ button is on the right – use ‘Ctrl + Donate’ to open the donate page in a new tab – then you can move between tabs to see the suggested donations
   • On smartphones/tablets – scroll down to end of page and hold down on ‘donate’ and open in a new tab – then you can move between tabs to see the suggested donations
4. Complete the required fields including the flight details information
5. Tick the Gift Aid declaration if appropriate
6. Complete your donation

NOT FLOWN RECENTLY BUT STILL WANT TO SUPPORT OUR WORK

If you have not taken a flight recently but still would like to support our work you can donate to our General donations.

Thank you for your donation – all support is greatly appreciated.

Community-led climate action – making a difference for people, place and planet!

Author: Skye Wind

Skye Wind

The landscape and environment as we currently know it on Skye looks set to change forever with the advent of industrial scale wind farms in the next 5-7 years. To date, there have been consultation events held on the island by the commercial wind development companies to provide some information on these developments, but it is difficult for islanders to find information to help them understand the bigger picture and the implications for the future of the Isle of Skye.

This website has been designed to act as a centralised information point for islanders to obtain information on the bigger picture containing some background information and also links to other sources of data.

A good starting point for anyone looking to understand the scale of the proposals is to view the Highland Council wind turbine map which will allow you to scroll across to the Isle of Skye and zoom in on the particular wind turbine developments proposed:

In summary, there are two existing projects on Skye in the Edinbane area which are being ‘repowered’ which essentially means replacing smaller 100m high turbines with significantly larger 200m high turbines which will enable a greater amount of power to be generated by each turbine (approximately increasing from 2.3MW per turbine to around 4.5-5MW per turbine)

Skye Wind