Author: BBC

Residents of Scotland’s highest village have met to take forward their plans for a community buyout.

They were discussing their goal of purchasing Wanlockhead from landowner the Duke of Buccleuch.

Proposals for a community buyout began when neighbouring village Leadhills started the same process back in 2014.

Representatives of Community Land Scotland and the Scottish government attended the meeting to give advice.

Among the aims of the proposed buyout would be to provide economic development opportunities for the village.

They include plans to turn it into a “tourism centre” based around its mining heritage as well as recreational opportunities on the Lowther Hills.

It comes after recent plans emerged which could see up to 140 turbines located in the area.

The next step for the group would be to create a community company for the proposed buyout.

It would then be tasked with registering an interest in buying the land within the current legislation.

South of Scotland MSP Claudia Beamish, who attended the meeting, said local people had “highlighted an inspiring range of opportunities for the future”.

“If the community buyout goes ahead, decision making will be in the hands of the people who live there,” she said.

“They will be given support and funding advice by Scottish government bodies.”

Ms Beamish added that as a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee (RACCE), she was working to make the Land Reform Bill “more robust”.

“The bill will act as a backstop if owners refuse to negotiate on an application by a community,” she said.

“I wish the Wanlockhead group and other groups across south Scotland well for amicable arrangements with the landowners concerned.”

Author: Bella Caledonia, Graeme Purves

In North Edinburgh, a community-based campaign is fighting to prevent one of Edinburgh’s oldest surviving walled gardens from being lost to a luxury housing development.  The Friends of Granton Castle Garden want to restore it to use as a community garden.

The late-Medieval walled garden could be more than 500 years old.  It survived the demolition of Granton Castle in the 1920s and continued in use as a market garden until relatively recent times.

Some 10 years ago, the garden was acquired by Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd., a company wholly owned by the City of Edinburgh Council, to add to its wider portfolio of land in the Granton Waterfront redevelopment area.

In December 2003, Waterfront Edinburgh had submitted applications for planning permission to erect a residential development of 17 luxury houses within the walled garden.  The company’s original proposal was for a gated development, but the security gates were subsequently dropped from the scheme.  In October 2004, the Council’s Development Management Sub-Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement in relation to affordable housing and a financial contribution towards education infrastructure.  A draft legal agreement was prepared in 2008 but the economic crash intervened.  The agreement was never concluded and planning permission never issued.

Despite the garden being identified as open space in the Council’s Open Space Audit and the Edinburgh City Local Plan, Waterfront Edinburgh remains intent on building luxury housing on the site. In January 2015, the EDI Group, of which Waterfront Edinburgh is a part, revived its interest in the development.  The Council’s Planning Department erroneously informed Historic Scotland that the planning applications relating to the garden had been withdrawn along with others for adjacent sites, but EDI managed to keep them alive on the basis that the Council had previously been minded to consent.  Its proposals are currently being considered by the Council under its procedure for dealing with legacy planning applications, which requires them to be re-assessed in the light of more up-to-date development plans, changes to policies and revisions of guidance.

There have been a number of important changes in policy and guidance since Waterfront Edinburgh’s proposals were last considered by the City Council.

In 2014, the Scottish Government revised Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) which now states that decisions should have regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in its Land Use Strategy.  One of these principles is that where land is highly suitable for a primary use such as food production, this value should be recognised in decision-making.  The SPP also states that decisions should be guided by the need to protect, enhance and promote access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment.

A resurvey undertaken by Historic Scotland in the light of evidence of a history dating back to 1479 led to its listed status being upgraded from Category C to Category B in July 2015.  Historic Scotland also issued new planning guidelines on historic gardens and designed landscapes earlier this year.

The emerging Strategic Development Plan Open Space Strategy identifies the garden as a key location for action to create a network of connected green spaces in North Edinburgh.

A driving force in the Friends of Granton Castle Garden is its Chair, Kirsty Sutherland, who is a horticultural consultant.  Under her leadership, the campaign has developed an impressive momentum, winning the support of organisations as diverse as the Pilton Community Health Project, North Edinburgh Arts, Nourish, Edible Edinburgh, Scotland’s Garden and Landscape Heritage, Common Weal and Edinburgh College of Art.  Research by the Friends has uncovered a great deal of new information on the history of Granton Castle and its garden and an initial survey of the garden’s walls has been undertaken with the assistance of Historic Environment Scotland staff under the Scotland’s Urban Past scheme.

Granton Castle Walled Garden is an irreplaceable resource and one of the few areas of deep, unpolluted, well-tilled soil in the area.  The surviving apple trees at Granton are prolific fruiters and their stock has made an important contribution to apple cultivation across Edinburgh.

The garden could be an asset of great value to North Edinburgh and the city as a whole if it were to be restored as a community garden.  With the establishment of the Friends of Granton Castle Garden, there is now an organisation with the skills, capacity and commitment to make that happen.  The Friends have engaged with EDI with a view to gaining access to the garden to undertake survey work and an archaeological investigation.  They have also indicated an interested in purchasing it in the event of EDI’s planning application being unsuccessful.

A development of 17 luxury houses will benefit very few people and make no significant contribution to meeting the city’s housing needs.  There is no need for the garden to be developed for housing, as it is surrounded by large areas of vacant post-industrial land which is much more suitable.  The cost of providing road access to the site is estimated to be around £100,000, an abnormally large sum for a development of only 17 houses.

EDI has made it clear that its preference for a housing development in the walled garden is based entirely on financial considerations, the sale return on a niche housing development being much higher than sale for restoration as a working garden.  Awkwardly for the City Council, doing the right thing now will call into question the wisdom of Waterfront Edinburgh’s purchase of the walled garden for development in the first place.

The economics of the purchase are already looking far from clever.  In 2006, Waterfront Edinburgh paid £800,000 for the walled garden.  With planning permission for housing, the site is now estimated to be worth only £240,000.

There is no compelling rationale for sacrificing a unique civic asset to luxury housing, but a real risk that it will be lost to the citizens of Edinburgh as a result of the narrow perspective of the City Council’s commercial arm.  The Chairman of the EDI Board is the SNP councillor for Corstorphine/Murrayfield, Frank Ross.  Other members of the Board are the Labour councillor for Leith, Gordon Munro and the Conservative councillor for Inverleith, Iain Whyte.  It must be hoped that in an election year the city’s politicians will see the merit of giving greater weight to the interests of the community than sparing the blushes of their development company.

It is expected that the planning application will be determined early in 2016.

Author: Urban Realm

Lateral North have lifted the lid on a travelling workshop which will call at 50 destinations throughout 2016 as part of a community orientated initiative to produce a contemporary atlas of Scotland and associated database of conversations gathered from the tour.

Possible Scotland is the latest initiative to be conducted by the architecture, research and design collective who have requisitioned a former camper van for their roadshow, delivering masterplanning, regeneration and artistic projects during each stopover.

This work will provide assistance to groups seeking to bring private land under community ownership, identify opportunities for social housing, tackle care for the elderly and investigate renewable technologies and infrastructure.

In a statement Tom Smith and Graham Hogg of Lateral North said: “Possible Scotland aims to bring about change from a grass roots level and what we are aiming to do would create a vision for a future Scotland that is the collective voice of hundreds and thousands of people ¬ it would very much a manifesto for Scotland written by the people of Scotland.

“The more communities we can engage with the more opportunities we believe will showcase themselves. With Scotland a hive of grassroots activity we believe this project can bring communities together that are urban, rural, island and everything else in between.”

Author: Community Land Scotland

Constructing a forward agenda for Land Reform.

This short document has been prepared for consideration by each of the main Scottish political parties as matters Community Land Scotland would like to see considered for party manifestos for the 2016 Scottish Parliament election. Community Land Scotland will be pleased to engage with political parties to explore the ideas. Community Land Scotland would like to see commitments to:

• The creative use of devolved taxes (eg, the Land and Building Transaction Tax and Non Domestic Rates) to act as a disincentive to more concentration of Scotland’s land ownership patterns and help achieve greater diversity in land ownership.

 • Give Ministers powers to inquire into the effect the single ownership of any significant landholding on communities, or the effects of the scale of any landholding, and whether that landownership is in the public interest. This power should be combined with a Compulsory Sale Order power over all or part of the land holding when Ministers determine an ownership does not serve the public interest. • A Compulsory Sale Order power to Scottish Ministers and local authorities, under specified conditions, and over: empty homes; derelict and vacant land; and land considered abandoned, neglected or in need of sustainable development.

• The right to a transfer of ownership of foreshore and seabed to a community landowner whose landownership adjoins such assets currently under the control of the Crown Estate.

• A Compulsory Purchase Power to Scottish Ministers and to local authorities to acquire land for the purpose of creating human settlements.

• A continuation of the Scottish Land Fund for the duration of the next Parliament.

 • Explore the benefits of and mechanisms for the creation of new common good land.

• Explore what statutory status and powers could be held by appropriate organisations at the locality level and which could help advance sustainable development, in the context of the evolution of community planning to a more bottom-up and locally based system.

 • Measures to ensure full transparency over who owns Scotland’s land (as necessary, subject to the passage of the Land Reform Bill)

. • Incorporate into Scots law human rights obligations that support advancing equality, social justice and the progressive realisation of human rights to adequate housing, employment and a decent standard of living.

Author: ADS, NHS, Scottish Govt

The Place Standard is a tool to evaluate the quality of a place. It can evaluate places that are well-established, undergoing change, or still being planned. The tool can also help users to identify their priorities.

The tool is simple and free to use. It consists of 14 questions which cover both the physical and social elements of a place. Prompts are provide to help users answer the questions. When all 14 questions have been completed, the results are shown in a simple diagram.

Why place is important

Research shows that the places where we spend our time have an important impact on our lives. The way a place looks, functions and feels can influence our health and wellbeing, and the opportunities we have access to. Improving the quality of places can help to tackle inequalities.

Understanding the existing and potential strengths of a place can inform good decision making, allowing resources to be targeted to where they are most needed. This approach can deliver better results over the long term.

The tool can also support the design and delivery of successful places, creating quality development where people want to live.

Who it is for

The tool is designed to be accessible for everyone to use: communities; public sector; third sector; and the private sector. People will want to use the tool in different circumstance and for different purposes, but it allows people to work together productively across sectors and boundaries in a consistent way.

Area

The tool allows different sizes and types of places to be assessed. This can include whole towns or neighbourhoods in urban or rural locations. The tool can be used to assess existing places as well as places that are still being planned. Whatever the place, the area to be evaluated should be agreed in advance by those involved.

How to use

You can either complete the tool on paper or online.

•           Record who you are, noting if you are an individual or representing a group, and agree the area you are going to assess.

•           Answer each question by recording a rating on a scale from 1 to 7. Some prompts are provided as a starting point for discussion. The rating should be agreed amongst the group carrying out the assessment. Space is provided to record the reasons for your answers.

•           When you have answered all the questions, plot each rating on the ‘compass diagram’. In this example (below) the “Moving Around” question was rated as ‘4’. The next question, Public Transport, was rated a “6”. A line should be drawn between each point.

•           After completing the diagram, you can reflect on the results by agreeing priorities and actions. Space is provided for you to list the main issues.

There may be occasions where the question does not seem relevant or where you feel you do not have enough information to answer. In these cases you should think about the area that is being evaluated as part of a larger place or ensure that there is a way in which community views can properly be taken into account.

When the tool is being used to help plan a new development where there is no established community, you will want to think about what it will be like to live there. It will also be useful to consider the needs of, or impact on neighbouring communities.

Output

The diagram that is produced is easy to understand. It shows at a glance the areas where a place is performing well and where there is room for improvement. Where a place has been assessed as good, the shape will be fuller, reaching towards the edge of the circle (in the example below: public transport). Where it is viewed as performing poorly the shape will be smaller, remaining towards the centre (eg: streets and spaces)

There is no benchmark or minimum standard. The tool is used to determine the strengths and assets of a place and to indicate areas in which action may be taken.

When to use

The place standard tool can help you to achieve a number of aims.

Communities can use the tool to assess what works about their place and where it needs to improve. This may be part of a wider discussion about the regeneration of an area, or it might be to inform a new place or development which is planned nearby.

Local authorities and Community Planning Partnerships can use the tool to help plan their activities and prioritise appropriate action.

The development sector can use the tool to establish to the needs of communities and create good places where people want to live.

What happens next?

The place standard tool is part of a process, not the end of a process. In considering what you do next, you should think about opportunities to develop and build upon the conversations and relationships the tool has initiated.

The method allows assessment to be consistent and comparable over time to see if improvement has been made. In order to get the most out the tool you will want to record the qualities of the place and the reasons for your rating. This will be useful for people to set the ambition for their place.

Author: New Start

Despite all the talk of prioritising poverty in Scotland, most regeneration investment is still going into wealthier areas, says Derek Rankine of SURF

SURF, a network of more than 250 regeneration-related organisations in Scotland, recently undertook an 18-month consultation process to develop a community regeneration manifesto for the May 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. Our consultation findings led us to the conclusion that the majority of regeneration investment in the country is not reaching the right places.

A central concern raised is that many regeneration resources designed to tackle poverty are ending up in affluent areas and commercial centres. Citing evidence by the University of Glasgow, Ryden Property Consultancy, and the Scottish Parliament’s local government and regeneration committee, we found that current regeneration investment trends favour already successful places. In so doing, they are counter-productively increasing inequality.

A mismatch was also identified between the structural levels at which social and economic problems develop, and the local neighbourhood level in which they are addressed through regeneration plans and processes.

To help address the ‘rhetoric and resources mismatch’ identified by SURF’s consultees our manifesto, launched today, features nine bold and practical policy recommendations for the next Scottish Government.

The manifesto calls on the next Scottish Government to implement two key recommendations: investing in a new generation of 15 place-based regeneration initiatives in strategically significant geographies, and introducing a statutory duty requiring public bodies to address socio-economic disadvantage across all policy and resource decisions.

SURF’s investigation indicated that the evidence base in support of place-based regeneration programmes is mixed. While targeted regeneration investments can demonstrate improvements in some aspects, such as a place’s housing quality, there are valid questions about how effectively they deliver meaningful and sustainable change for intended beneficiaries over the longer term.

Despite these questions, a good deal has been learned about what does and doesn’t work in place-based regeneration from the Social Inclusion Partnerships and Urban Regeneration Companies experience in Scotland, as well as England’s New Deal for Communities and relevant programmes in mainland Europe. SURF argues that now is the time to put this learning into practice with a new programme in Scotland that maximises value by using existing delivery vehicles, clear and measurable targets, and transferable learning processes.

But this high-profile place-based programme needs to be accompanied by renewed efforts to place poverty and inequality impacts at the heart of public spending and decision-making. Introducing a socio-economic duty would provide a policy mechanism with the potential to put policy rhetoric around the importance of addressing poverty and inequality into practical action.

As raised in the debate around the 2010 UK Equality Act, there is a concern that such a duty may ultimately prove ineffective amid the ‘noise’ of other local government responsibilities. SURF agrees with the Poverty Alliance that, in order to be adequately effectual, the duty must contain clear targets and definitions, and robust monitoring and enforcement.

SURF contends that the implementation of both of the above proposals together is necessary in linking focused support towards physical, social and economic challenges in particularly disadvantaged places with broader policy development aimed at tackling poverty, deprivation and disadvantage across Scotland.

The approach also accepts the increasingly popular view, promoted by among others, academic experts and SURF event contributors Professor Kate Pickett (‘The Spirit Level’) and Sir Tony Atkinson (‘Inequality – What Is To Be Done?’), that high levels of inequality are causing broad damage for everyone in society, with impacts reaching far beyond the marginalised poor

SURF’s manifesto is being launched with a view to influencing the main parties competing for seats in the 2016 Scottish elections. The content will also form the basis for a Scottish regeneration hustings event, in which guest politicians will be questioned by the SURF network in Edinburgh on Thursday 7 April 2016, one month before the election. The parties and politicians that will be campaigning on poverty and inequality can expect some demanding questions on how resources are best targeted.

Author: Annie Miller

Vision: a fairer, more just society, where every citizen receives a Citizen’s Basic Income.

The Mission of the Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland is ‘to advance research and public education about the economic and social effects and influences of Citizen’s Basic Income systems (defined here as schemes which guarantee an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to every individual as a right of citizenship)’.

A Citizen’s Basic Income (CBI) would provide every citizen with a universal, non-means-tested and unconditional basic income, replacing most of the current Social Security benefits and most of the current tax loopholes in the personal income tax system.  Each feature of CBI can help to achieve several related objectives of welfare reform and wider social and economic policy, in the areas of:

•             individual empowerment and choice;

•             labour market efficiency;

•             greater administrative simplicity;

•             the creation of a fairer, more supportive and inclusive society;

•             prevention of poverty, and

•             a reduction in inequality of income.

The more generous the scheme, the greater will be the potential fulfillment of these objectives.

The role of Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland is to educate the general public, policy- and decision-makers about the desirability and feasibility of CBI schemes.  Although the concept itself is relatively simple, implementation is fairly complex and technical.  There is no single optimum CBI scheme.  However, the better informed the public, the more likely they are to persuade decision-makers to establish a suitable CBI scheme for the benefit of society.

Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland will work to build awareness and support for CBI in Scotland, although full implementation would only be possible with devolution of full fiscal powers to the Scottish government.

We plan to launch Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland in the spring of 2016 with the publication of the new book on CBI by Annie Miller, which will be promoted through a media release and other public relations activity. Following its launch, the trustees of Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland will develop its profile, reach and impact through:

•             tailored communication for different audiences, occasions and media, including talks at events, to build awareness and understanding of CBI around Scotland;

•             building a network of supporters;

•             informing relevant public policy.

The trustees of Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland will continue to fundraise to allow us to deliver our activities effectively.  We plan to employ at least one member of staff once we have sufficient funds. The successful launch of Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland and delivery of our planned work will allow us to achieve our mission. Founders of Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland:

Maddy Halliday, Annie Miller, Jon Shaw, Willie Sullivan.   December 2015.

Author: Michael Gray, Common Space

REPRESENTATIVES of Scotland’s largest private landowners have expressed concern that they have lost influence in the ongoing debate on land reform.

Responding to the rallying call for further action – written by land reform committee convener Rob Gibson MSP on CommonSpace – lobbyists admitted that “the methods and politics” of their opponents were making it “very, very difficult” to make the case against land reform.

Over the past year a movement for land reform has demanded greater action from the Scottish Government over the vast concentration of land ownership, as well as the lack of transparency, tenant farming rights and derelict land developments.

David Johnstone, chair of the laird’s lobbyist group Scottish Land and Estates (SLE), bemoaned the lack of consideration for rich landowners in comments to The Daily Mail.

Responding to Gibson, he said: “He is saying we will do something whatever the impact may be. It does give the impression some people on the committee have made up their mind before they’ve started.

“We’re going to try very hard to get change but we’re aware of the methods and politics being used, so it’s very, very difficult.”

SLE represent some of the countries largest private estates – just 432 of which make up 50 per cent of all private land.

The group have fought against proposals to require shooting estates to pay equal taxes to other businesses and property holdings, a tax cut introduced by the Tories in the 1990s.

Rob Gibson MSP, who chairs the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment committee which is scrutinising the Land Reform Bill, explained that hard work was ongoing inside parliament to strengthen the Land Reform Bill.

He promised that the bill would be as “sustainably radical as humanely possible” despite lobbying attempts from private landowners.

“The landowners and their organisations have been hyperactive. I have never heard from so many lords, earls and dukes in my life,” Gibson wrote.

Last year the Duke of Argyll described plans to introduce equal inheritance rights, a crucial proponent in wider land reform progress, as “terrifying”.

The UK’s largest landowner, the Duke of Buccleuch, said he was “deeply dismayed” that the land reform debate was pushing for changes to who owns Scotland.

In contrast to those fears, SNP members rejected the party’s policy on land reform for not going far enough. A number of flash points – such as the forced eviction of farming families in East Lothian – have heightened public awareness of land reform.

Author: The Ferret

Holding an umbrella upside down so its spike points towards the floor, Bill Frew runs a finger clockwise around the circumference of its handle, then slides his hand down to press a catch and open the red parasol.

“This is what happens with fracking,” he says as the canopy widens. “A small area is affected on the surface but the devastation unseen below can affect a much larger area.”

Frew is inside Pilrig St Paul’s Church, off Leith Walk in Edinburgh.

It’s shortly after lunchtime and in the quiet of the vestry we draw up chairs and talk.

Frew has been up since around 5am and to be frank he looks exhausted.

He has dark rings under his eyes and the 65 year old still has a long day ahead, hosting meetings with fellow environmental campaigners before embarking on a two hour drive to the Dumfriesshire home he shares with his wife, Loraine.

The Frews live in Canonbie, a sleepy Scots village straddling the River Esk, just south of Langholm and a couple of miles north of the border with England.ew

It’s a tranquil place of rustic charms that Sir Walter Scott immortalised in his poem, Marmion.

Bill and Loraine moved there in 2006 after he retired from a 35 year career with Perth and Kinross Council, both anticipating a secure and stress free retirement in an idyllic part of Scotland.

“We bought an old Victorian property with derelict outbuildings and created a small guest house and I built two holiday cottages,” Bill says in his soft Ayrshire brogue.

His property lies just outside Canonbie and business comes from tourism, mostly anglers from around the world who come to fish the River Esk in hope they’ll hook its prized salmon.

It’s a leisure spot with a glowing international reputation but running a guest house can be hard graft and it has taken Bill and Loraine the best part of a decade to build up their business.

Yet the peace of mind they’ve earned in Canonbie is endangered, an issue that first came to light in 2007 when Bill spotted a white piece of paper nailed to a tree about three hundred yards from his home.

The official council document was to notify locals of a mining proposal by Dart Energy, a company that wanted to extract coal bed methane on land owned locally by the Duke of Buccleuch, Britain’s largest private landowner.

The planning application was one of 20 proposals submitted by Dart at the time, and – after all were classed as minor, individual applications – they were approved by Dumfries and Galloway Council between 2007 and 2010.

Bill shakes his head wearily. Eight years on and he remains aghast that the council didn’t consider the plans as one large-scale development, arguing they should have been rejected outright as the consequences for Canonbie could be catastrophic.

“We were a local business and they’d given us planning permission to extend it for the cottages for tourism, and then a year or two later they approve 20 coal bed methane drilling sites around the village – all on the Duke’s estate. There were only two neighbourhood notifications,” he says.

After learning of Dart’s proposed project with the Duke’s company, Buccleuch Estates, the Frews started knocking on village doors and to their astonishment found that many locals knew nothing of what was planned.

It was then that Bill and Loraine’s campaign began in earnest.

They produced newsletters and held public meetings. When support grew among the 1500 or so people in the locality, they formed a group called the Canonbie and District Residents’ Association.

At the same time, they had to learn complex scientific material, a sharp learning curve that was aided by conversations with friends and environmental groups such as Friends of The Earth Scotland.

Indeed, eight years ago the Frews knew nothing about unconventional gas extraction but today both can claim to have a degree of expertise.

Bill cites a document submitted to the council when Dart first applied to drill, revealing there were 20 sites planned, each around one acre in size.

For Dart to drill on just one site would involve some 400 heavy good vehicle movements, Bill explains, adding that the industry calculation for each well was roughly 2000 to 4000 HGV vehicles moving in and out of the area.

Moreover, he points out that the 20 sites touted by Dart were just phase one of a masterplan although no further details have been released publicly because it’s deemed privileged commercial information.

There could 100 drilling sites in the offing, or even more. But no one will say.

In response, the council said that all the correct statutory procedures were followed and that the Frews’ formal complaints, submitted some time after permission was granted, were not upheld by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO).

But Bill insists the system failed the people of Canonbie and the local community were kept in the dark.

He pauses and then continues in his measured tone. He says there could be serious implications for public health and cites some of the environmental problems caused by fracking in Australia and the USA.

One spillage, or a single burst pipe of contaminated water could, he claims, pollute the River Esk and destroy the reputation of a tourist attraction that brings thousands of people to Canonbie each year, tourists who eat in restaurants, spend money in shops and stay in B&Bs and hotels.

For her part, Loraine says the last few years have been a “constant strain” and that although some people in Canonbie are scared to speak out, she and her husband will not be cowed by Buccleuch’s power and influence.

She says that much of the property and land, in and around Canonbie, is owned by Buccleuch Estates while many residents are tenants of Buccleuch, or employees.

However, Buccleuch Estates is on record as saying: “You have to separate what are legitimate technical concerns about safety and the technology from those vociferous voices who don’t want to see any economic development in the area.”

“I have little sympathy for that because it behoves us all to try to create economic development.”

“There is a vociferous minority who aren’t elected by anyone and they purport to speak for a community when they have no democratic mandate”

The Frews’ life is now consumed with the struggle against Buccleuch and now the Scottish Government, who will make the final decision on whether fracking and coal bed methane extraction can take place in Scotland when its current moratorium is lifted.

“If these proposals go ahead our business is knackered and we’ve invested three quarters of a million plus. In terms of the local tourism industry, we could be facing decades of fossil fuel activity,” Bill says.

Author: Scottish Government

The Community Empowerment Bill received Royal Assent and became an Act on 24 July 2015.  The text of the Act can be found on the Legislation.gov.uk website at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2015/6/contents/enacted

Please note that the numbering of the Act has changed from the Bill, as new sections and Parts were inserted during its passage through the Scottish Parliament.

When will the Act come into force?

The different parts of the Act are likely to come into force at different times.  In most cases secondary legislation (orders and regulations) and guidance need to be developed before the legislation can come into effect.  This will be done through a process of engagement and co-production with people affected by the legislation.  More information about those processes and timetables will be available on the websites listed below as they develop.

As a rough estimate, we expect most parts of the Act to come into effect by summer 2016. 

What does the Act do?

Overall, the Act will help to empower community bodies through the ownership or control of land and buildings, and by strengthening their voices in decisions about public services.

There are 11 topics covered by the Act.  The information below gives a brief summary of each, and contact details to find out more.  Websites give the current situation, and will have information about implementation of the Act as it becomes available.

Part 1: National Outcomes:  Requires Scottish Ministers to continue the approach of setting national outcomes for Scotland. They must consult on, develop and publish a set of national outcomes. They must also regularly and publicly report progress towards these outcomes and review them at least every five years. Public authorities and other persons or organisations that carry out public functions must have regard to the national outcomes in carrying out their devolved functions.

Contact:  ScotlandPerforms@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/About/Performance

Part 2: Community Planning:  Places Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) on a statutory footing and imposes duties on them around the planning and delivery of local outcomes, and the involvement of community bodies at all stages of community planning. Tackling inequalities will be a specific focus, and CPPs will have to produce “locality plans” at a more local level for areas experiencing particular disadvantage.

Contact:  David.Milne2@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/PublicServiceReform/CP

Part 3: Participation Requests:  Provides a mechanism for community bodies to put forward their ideas for how services could be changed to improve outcomes for their community.  This could include community bodies taking on delivery of services.

Contact:  CommunityEmpowerment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/engage

Part 4: Community Rights to Buy Land:  Amends the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, extending the community right to buy  to all of Scotland, urban and rural, and improving procedures.  Part 4 also introduces a range of measures to amend, and in some areas, simplify, the crofting community right to buy. Finally, Part 4 introduces a new provision for community bodies to purchase land which is abandoned, neglected or causing harm to the environmental wellbeing of the community, where the owner is not willing to sell that land.  This is if the purchase is in the public interest and compatible with the achievement of sustainable development of the land.

Contact:  crtb@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Rural/rural-land/right-to-buy

Part 5: Asset Transfer Requests:  Provides community bodies with a right to request to purchase, lease, manage or use land and buildings belonging to local authorities, Scottish public bodies or Scottish Ministers.  There will be a presumption of agreement to requests, unless there are reasonable grounds for refusal. Reducing inequalities will be a factor for public authorities to consider when making a decision. Relevant authorities will be required to create and maintain a register of land which they will make available to the public.

Contact:  CommunityEmpowerment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/engage

Part 6: Delegation of Forestry Commissioners’ Functions: allows for different types of community body to be involved in forestry leasing. This opportunity will be available under a revised National Forest Land Scheme which will be published after the Asset Transfer Requests provisions come into force.

Contact:  bob.frost@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/strategy-policy-guidance/communities

Part 7: Football Clubs: The Scottish Government is committed to the principle that supporters should have a role in decision-making, or even ownership when the opportunity arises, of their football clubs.  The Act provides powers for Ministers to make regulations to facilitate supporter involvement and give fans rights in these areas.  The Scottish Government will shortly issue a consultation paper to explore the best way of taking this forward.

Contact:  Derek.Grieve@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/Topics/ArtsCultureSport/Sport/football

Part 8:  Common Good Property:  Places a statutory duty on local authorities to establish and maintain a register of all property held by them for the common good.  It also requires local authorities to publish their proposals and consult community bodies before disposing of or changing the use of common good assets.

Contact:  Brian.Peddie@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/engage

Part 9: Allotments:  Updates and simplifies legislation on allotments.  It requires local authorities to take reasonable steps to provide allotments if waiting lists exceed certain trigger points and strengthens the protection for allotments. Provisions allow allotments to be 250 square metres in size or a different size that is to be agreed between the person requesting an allotment and the local authority.  The Act also requires fair rents to be set and allows tenants to sell surplus produce grown on an allotment (other than with a view to making a profit).

Contact:  Amanda.Fox@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Business-Industry/Food-Industry/own

Part 10: Participation in Public Decision-Making: A new regulation-making power enabling Ministers to require Scottish public authorities to promote and facilitate the participation of members of the public in the decisions and activities of the authority, including in the allocation of its resources. Involving people and communities in making decisions helps build community capacity and also helps the public sector identify local needs and priorities and target budgets more effectively.

Contact:  CommunityEmpowerment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/engage

Part 11: Non-Domestic Rates:  Provides for a new power for councils to create and fund their own localised business rates relief schemes, in addition to existing national rates relief, to better reflect local needs and support communities.

Contact:  Douglas.McLaren@Scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website:  http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/local-government/17999/11199

How can I register interest in taking over a building owned by a local authority or public body?

The legislation on asset transfer (Part 5 of the Act) is not in force yet.  But many local authorities, and some public bodies, already have asset transfer schemes on a voluntary basis.  The first step is to contact the owner and ask them about the property.  You may also find it helpful to contact the Community Ownership Support Service for advicehttp://www.dtascommunityownership.org.uk/.

If the property is in a rural area or small town you may want to consider the community right to buy process (this will be extended to urban areas when Part 4 of the Act comes into force).  Please see the Scottish Government website for more information http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Rural/rural-land/right-to-buy.

Which public bodies are covered?

Where parts of the Act apply to a particular list of bodies, these are set out in the schedules at the end of the Act.  In each of these cases, Scottish Ministers have powers to add new public sector organisations to the list, if needed.

Community planning partners are local authorities and the bodies listed in schedule 1.  Section 13(2) lists organisations that have additional statutory duties to facilitate community planning and take reasonable steps to ensure the CPP fulfils its functions efficiently and effectively.

Participation requests can be made to the “public service authorities” listed in schedule 2.

Asset transfer requests can be made to the “relevant authorities” listed in schedule 3.

How is a “community” defined in the Act?

In most parts of the Act, “community” is not defined.  It is left to each group of people to describe what they have in common.

For national outcomes the Scottish Ministers are required to consult with people who represent the interests of communities in Scotland, when determining or carrying out a review of the national outcomes.  Under section 1(11), “ “community” includes any community based on common interest, identity or geography”.

Parts 2 (community planning) and 8 (common good) refer to “communities (however described) resident or otherwise present in the area of the local authority”.  Parts 3 (participation requests) and 5 (asset transfer requests) are open to bodies which relate to a particular community, but it is up to the body to define that community itself.

The exception is in Part 4 of the Act, which amends the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.  In Part 2 (community right to buy) and the new Part 3A (abandoned, neglected or detrimental land) of the 2003 Act, a community must be defined by reference to postcode units or other types of area which may be prescribed by the Scottish Ministers.  (Crofting communities are defined by township, or by other criteria with Ministers’ approval.)

What type of community groups can use the rights in the Act?

Different parts of the Act have different requirements for the community groups that can get involved, and different terms to describe them, to make clear which is which.

In Part 1 (national outcomes), Scottish Ministers have to consult “persons who appear to them to represent the interests of communities in Scotland”.  “Community” includes any community based on common interest, identity or geography, and any individual, group or organisation could be included.

Parts 2 (community planning), and 8 (common good) do not have any formal requirements for community bodies that want to be involved in the process, except that they are established to promote or improve the interests of communities “resident or otherwise present” in the area.

Section 20 sets out the types of body which can make a participation request.  This includes community controlled bodies (defined in section 19), community councils, groups without a written constitution, and bodies designated for the purpose by Scottish Ministers.

Section 77 sets out the types of body which can make an asset transfer request, which are community controlled bodies (as defined in section 19) or bodies designated for the purpose by Scottish Ministers.  If they want to make a request for ownership of the land, rather than lease or use, they must also be a company, a SCIO or a Community Benefit Society which meets the criteria in section 80.

Part 4 of the Act amends the requirements for community bodies wanting to exercise the community right to buy orcrofting community right to buy under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, and sets out the requirements for the new right to acquire abandoned, neglected or detrimental land.  These allow for companies limited by guarantee, SCIOs and community benefit societies to be included, where they meet the other criteria required.

Part 6 amends the requirements for community bodies who want to take up forestry leasing from the Forestry Commission Scotland.  Instead of having to be a company limited by guarantee, they can be any type of body corporate with a written constitution which meets the other criteria set out in section 7C of the Forestry Act 1967, as amended.

How can I register interest in taking over a building owned by a local authority or public body?

The legislation on asset transfer (Part 5 of the Act) is not in force yet.  But many local authorities, and some public bodies, already have asset transfer schemes on a voluntary basis.  The first step is to contact the owner and ask them about the property.  You may also find it helpful to contact the Community Ownership Support Service for advicehttp://www.dtascommunityownership.org.uk/ .

If the property is in a rural area or small town you may want to consider the community right to buy process (this will be extended to urban areas when Part 4 of the Act comes into force).  Please see the Scottish Government website for more information http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Rural/rural-land/right-to-buy  

Does Asset Transfer under the Act have to be at market value?

No.  The Act does not say anything about how much a community body would be expected to pay for transfer of an asset.  It only says the community transfer body must state in the asset transfer request the price it is prepared to pay.  The relevant authority must agree to the request unless there are reasonable grounds for refusal, taking into consideration (amongst other things) the benefits that may arise from the community body’s proposal and comparing that to the benefits of any other proposal. 

Local authorities can dispose of land at less than market value, under the Disposal of Land by Local Authorities (Scotland) Regulations 2010.  The regulations require them to consider whether the disposal is likely to promote or improve economic development or regeneration, health, social wellbeing or environmental wellbeing.  These matters are also to be considered in deciding whether to agree to or refuse an asset transfer request.

Other relevant authorities are subject to the Scottish Public Finance Manual.  This states that “Where there are wider public benefits, consistent with the principles of Best Value, to be gained from a transaction, disposing bodies should consider disposal of assets at less than Market Value. This includes supporting the acquisition of assets by community bodies, where appropriate.”

We expect that the guidance to be developed on asset transfer will address the information that community transfer bodies may need in order to offer an appropriate price, and how relevant authorities can assess the value of benefits offered by community proposals.