Author: Scottish Civic Trust

2016 My Place Awards

The closing date for nomination is 31 January 2016. Nominations can be made by community groups including:

•civic societies and other local groups affiliated to the Scottish Civic Trust*

•community councils

•development trusts

• local history societies

• community arts groups

• other community-based voluntary groups

Step One : Read the Rules and Guidelines Document

Step Two: Download the offline forms for support use only Project nominations  Civic Champion nominations

Step Three : Complete and send online entry form(s)  Project Entry Form  Civic Champion Entry Form

Please download the Rules and Guidelines document here. Entries for both projects and people must be submitted online.

PROJECTS. Nominations for projects will be considered of:

• New buildings

• Historic buildings that have been reused or refurbished

• Designed public realm schemes such as streetworks, parks etc.

PEOPLE: Scottish Civic Trust My Place Civic Champion Award 2016

The Awards acknowledge and award an individual who makes an outstanding contribution to:

• The heritage sector either generally or in a specific area

• Their local community

• The civic movement in Scotland

Author: Community Land Scotland

A Community Land Scotland contribution to public discussions on the need and justifications for full disclosure of who owns Scotland’s land.

Introduction

An essential question that must be answered in the Scottish Parliament using its legislative competence to require the full disclosure of who owns Scotland’s land, including the beneficial owners of legal entities which own land, is whether there is a public interest justification for such a general disclosure which outweighs any individual protections that may be given for non-disclosure under ECHR, particularly Article 1 Protocol 1, Article 8 and Article 14. In the public dialogue about this issue arising from the provisions within the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill (as introduced 2015), the Scottish Government’s response to the Stage 1 Committee report on the Bill reveals that it has yet to be fully convinced that there is sufficient public interest reasoning, such as to justify the general disclosure of such information. Current proposals seek to provide a mechanism which might allow disclosure when a justification to know can be reasoned by an individual with a specific issue with an area of land. Even then, there would be no guarantee the information sought would be forthcoming. This paper seeks to capture key clear benefits which justify requiring full disclosure (public interests reasons). It sets out general public interests arguments which we believe are compelling, and the action needed to effect disclosure proportionate.

What are the public interest reasons for maximum disclosure?

There are at least three sets of public interest justifications for maximum disclosure and a further significant issue which touches on discrimination and equality of treatment under the law. The public interest reasoning builds around the following:

 · A general and legitimate interest of citizens’ in who owns land, as all of Scotland’s land uses and management impact on all Scottish citizens all of the time, and land use and management is consequent upon who owns, controls, and ultimately benefits from that ownership.

 · Citizens’ democratic participation in the policies and life of the country is only fully enabled by maximum disclosure of ownership.

 · The effective administration of a variety of statutes and policies, not least the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, as amended by the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, and the provisions envisaged in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill 2015, are only fully effective with maximum disclosure.

 Each of these matters is dealt with in turn in the full contribution of Community land Scotland which can be accessed here

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.

Author: Scottish Mediation Service

The third sector is made up of highly committed staff and volunteers providing vital work in the community and therefore relationships are always happy and constructive with everyone working together towards shared objectives. True? Unfortunately not!

As in any group, people do not always agree or get on easily with each other and in charities and voluntary organisations difficult situations can easily arise out of the complex relationships between volunteers, staff, committee members and boards.  The very passion, drive and commitment that draws people into the third sector can heighten issues and very quickly escalate disagreements into major disputes. This is not only stressful and unpleasant for everyone involved but can lead to the loss of valuable individuals who choose to walk away from the stress and in some cases can jeopardise the future of the whole organisation.

Usually an informal discussion can resolve most issues but not everyone has the skills or confidence to handle potentially sensitive and difficult conversations and sometimes the informal approach just isn’t enough.

This is where mediation can help as it involves a skilled, independent mediator who supports both parties in finding a solution to the issues they are facing. The mediator helps people work out and express what their issues are and then explore what options might be available for moving forward.

The mediator does not take sides or make judgements but will make sure that everyone gets a chance to tell their version of events, hear the other side, work through the issues that are important to them and make an agreement. The parties to the mediation are in control of finding the solution.

Mediation is one of the most successful ways of resolving a dispute or disagreement and is particularly effective in “nipping issues in the bud” before they become too disruptive. It is a flexible process and can be used in a wide variety of situations. It is entirely voluntary and is usually much quicker and more effective than traditional dispute resolution methods such as grievance and complaints procedures.

Disputes can be very costly not only in terms of the financial impact on the organisation and the time spent trying to resolve the issues but also in the personal stress of those involved and their colleagues. Mediation is an effective way of minimizing these costs but even so the nature of the third sector and its financial limitations means that in many cases costs will be seen as an insurmountable barrier to the use of mediation.

To overcome this barrier the Scottish Mediation Network have launched a new service tailored to Third Sector organisations. Anyone in the third sector can phone the Scottish Mediation Network for advice on whether an issue is appropriate for mediation. If it is and both parties are happy to participate, SMN will arrange for a professional, accredited mediator to conduct a mediation at a low cost depending upon the size of the organisation.  Organisations with an income of under £50,000 p.a. may be eligible for pro-bono mediation at no cost.

For more information or to discuss a specific case contact the Scottish Mediation Helpline on 0131 556 118 and quote “Third Sector”.

Author: Scottish Govt

The first Land Use Strategy was published in March 2011. It initiated a step change towards a more integrated and strategic approach to land use. It is a requirement of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 that the Strategy is reviewed every five years and that a revised Strategy is laid before the Scottish Parliament.

This consultation draft Land Use Strategy 2016-2021 builds on the first Strategy and retains the strategic Vision, Objectives and Principles for Sustainable Land Use. These are considered fit for purpose in terms of continuing to provide the strategic direction for sustainable land use matters. The consultation draft provides a focussed set of priority activities for the next five years and policies and proposals have been developed around the following themes:

Policy Context – policies and proposals which provide further clarity on current Scottish Government policy and reinforce and ensure consistent messages.

Informed Decision Making – policies and proposals which underpin decision making with improved data, increased accessibility and wider empowerment of communities and stakeholders in decision making.

Applying the Principles – policies and proposals which apply the Land Use Strategy Principles on the ground, either as specific projects or in ways which influence direct change on the ground.

The draft second Land Use Strategy is subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEA is a process applied to take into account the potential environmental impacts that may arise from the implementation of a plan, programme or strategy. It seeks to mitigate adverse effects and encourage enhancement of identified positive effects where possible. SEA is an open and transparent means of documenting how the environment has been considered in the plan making process. The results of this assessment process are set out in an Environmental Report. The consultation document should be read alongside the accompanying Environmental Report and comments are sought on both.

How to respond to the consultation: click here

Author: Maria Arnold, Third Force News

Council Finance and Resource Committee meetings are not normally known for drama, but a procurement decision stirred up controversy in Edinburgh’s Council Chambers recently. The issue of who would provide the city’s four Adult Community Treatment (otherwise known as Recovery Hub) Services in the city proved to be a very heated discussion. The decision to award three to the large UK charity Lifeline, and one to Turning Point Scotland, on the face of it seemed logical as these providers had scored highly in the bid process. However, its failure to consider the back story and local experience highlights one of the major problems associated with health and social care services commissioning.

The reality is that councils have far more discretion than they would have us believe. For the last two years a group of local voluntary organisations, including current providers Castle Project, Community Help and Advice Initiative (CHAI), North Edinburgh Drug and AlcoholCentre (NEDAC) and Turning Point Scotland have been working collaboratively as a Hubs Alliance to redefine the service model.

The Edinburgh Alcohol and Drugs Partnership (EADP) realised early on that the smaller third sector providers would lose out in a new competitive tendering process, and so it aimed to address this with a coproduction process that would ensure local knowledge and expertise wasn’t lost.

Throughout the process, the importance of the hubs being anchored in their local community hasbeen emphasised. Considering the stigmas around substance use and the sensitivities aroundgetting potential services users to a point where they are willing and able to engage, the need for aknown and trusted organisation cannot be underestimated.

The decision to recommend Lifeline, a UK wide organisation that has delivered the Edinburghand Midlothian Offenders Recovery Service in Edinburgh for just 18 months, for three servicesgoes totally against this. Its local knowledge and community links cannot compare to that of thethree smaller organisations, which have grown up within their communities over 30 years.Despite the narrative, it doesn’t seem that this element has been significantly valued in this process at all.

The experience of any provider in writing tenders has far too much influence on the outcome ofthe process. Large organisations have skilled teams for this, whereas for smaller providers itoften boils down to managers (who have often never before been through such a process) makingtime out of working hours to get it done.The outcome in this respect was entirely predictable – EDAP identified that many providers werenot equipped to manage a full tender process, and they were right. Providers have been left withthe distinct impression that for the council, coproduction takes you so far, after which time it’sback to business as usual.

Procurement decisions are often presented as being unavoidable, with terms such as “EUlegislation” thrown in to trump further questions about how to create a better system. The realityis that councils have far more discretion than they would have us believe and decisions areactually made after weighing up different kinds of risk.The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act has picked out health and social care services for goodreason – they are often very complex, with human relationships at the heart of them. Competitivetendering is simply too blunt an instrument to take the broader spectrum of factors into accountto achieve the best results for all concerned.

The recommendation, if passed, will result in a massive loss to the community. Castle Project andNEDAC will almost certainly cease to exist without this funding and CHAI would be massivelyreduced in capacity. But beyond this there are broader questions to be asked about the inevitabletensions between coproduction and competitive tender in the longer term.We at Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations’ Council (EVOC) are left with some significantquestions. How can this decision possibly be in keeping with the transformation agenda andlocality working? Equally, how can the council commit to the principles of coproduction if this isthe likely result?

There is a real danger that rather than being a constructive process working with providers,service users and carers to get the best outcomes for all concerned, coproducation will be seen asa mechanism to leach local organisations of their expertise before they are then replaced by largerorganisations in a competitive tender. Another Finance and Resources Committee meeting has been called for 14 December to discuss this further. EVOC will continue to be involved both for the specific issue in hand and for the longer term review.

We accept that these decisions are all about weighing up risk, and that we need to achieve best value for services, but there are more creative ways of doing this. We firmly feel that the risk of undermining the principles of coproduction and collaboration, and the risk of losing trusted and effective local organisations rooted in their communities should rank far higher on the list of considerations.

Author: James Trimble, Falkirk Herald

Community centres being run by members of the community could be the light at the end of a long dark tunnel of cuts and closures.

Proposals contained within Falkirk Community Trust’s latest business plan include closing Grangemouth Town Hall, Hallglen Sports Centre and Denny Football Centre and cutting opening hours at Callendar House and Grangemouth Sports Centre crèche in a bid to cut costs and make savings.

The plans will be going before Falkirk Council for its approval, but residents and community groups have already voiced their anger at the moves, which many see as extreme.

Falkirk Community Trust was set up four years ago to run cultural, sporting and leisure services on behalf of the council and is now having to make some difficult decisions due to its current financial situation and the fact it failed to hit nearly half of its performance targets last year.

However, another group was set up last year in Grangemouth – without much fanfare or publicity – and may be one of the organisations which could provide the blueprint for the way community facilities will be run in the future.

Bowhouse Community Association took a run down and tired Bowhouse Community Centre and, with the help of £250,000 investment from Falkirk Council, turned it around to make it a vital, well used facility.

Local hairdresser and businesswoman Michaela Tripney became chairperson of the newly formed association last September and immediately got the ball rolling.

She said: “I was asked to have a wee look at things. I grew up six doors away from the centre and would play there as a wee girl, but the place was in quite a state of disrepair and the accounts were not up to date – it needed to be taken into the 21st Century.

“I invited people to come along and join the association committee. We now have a strong committee made up of residents and representatives of groups who use the centre. We meet every month and everyone has their own roles and responsibilities.”

Thanks to a major refurbishment programme, the centre now boasts new toilets, disabled facilities, new ceilings, a lighting system for the stage, audio loop technology and wi-fi.

The centre is now used from early in the mornings, by a regular fitness class, right into the night with social dancing and other groups, including slimming classes, a childminding group with 40 youngsters, table tennis and football sessions for children.

It is also becoming a popular venue to hold children’s birthday parties and a meeting place for everything from volunteer groups and migrant support organisations to local councillors holding their regular surgeries.

The successful turnaround of Bowhouse Community Centre and its growing popularity has not gone unnoticed by other bodies in the town. Michaela said representatives of under threat Grangemouth Town Hall had invited her to a meeting being held to discuss possible ways forward for the historic building.

She said: “They said they saw the success we have had with Bowhouse Community Centre and wanted to hear how we did it and what business model we used.”

Visit www.bowhousecommunitycentre.com for more information.

The success a group of local volunteers has enjoyed running Bowhouse Community Centre is something which can be applied elsewhere for various facilities.

News of the proposed closure of Grangemouth Town Hall and other Falkirk Community Trust-run premises have spurred a number of individuals and groups into action, with several public meetings being held to discuss the issue.

The threat posed to the town hall may in fact be the driving force behind the reformation of Grangemouth Community Council and the incentive people need to question the community trust approach and ask is there a better way of doing things.

While people are getting active to protect their local facilities, members of Bowhouse Community Association continue to do their utmost to run their local community centre because they know how important it is.

Andy Daly, secretary, said: “It’s now an excellent facility, run by the community for the community.”

The association, which has charitable status, earns its money from the hall lets it receives from the groups which use it and all profits are poured back into the running, maintenance and improvement of the premises.

Chairperson Michaela Tripney said: “Everyone on the committee is a volunteer, there is no financial gain in this for anyone.”

Irene Daly, lettings officer, said: “Facilities like this bring and keep people together and are a vital resource in the heart of the community. We were lucky because we got a good team together on the association from the very start.

“Communication is important too – you have to provide a reliable contact which people can get in touch with at all times if they want to use the hall.”

The centre reached its 50th anniversary in November and the association is looking to celebrate the milestone with an event planned early next spring. There are also future plans for a car park, garden and a community cafe.

Author: DEMOS

A new report from cross-party think tank Demos calls on the Government to support local authorities to do more to tackle the UK’s housing crisis, by encouraging community-led developments and pushing for greater transparency in decision-making.

The report, Community Builders, finds many councils – particularly those in rural areas – are dragging their heels on approving new planning applications –including some councils where a third of all proposals for large developments are being rejected in the face of significant population growth.

Rather than arguing for Whitehall to step in to drive projects forward, the report argues that it is only through empowering communities to be more involved in housing projects that sufficient homes will be built – with the support of local residents.

Developed following extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis – including focus groups with residents throughout the country – Community Builders shows that concern for collective, community goods, such as local aesthetics, green spaces and community facilities are the primary drivers of opposition to development. Many participants in focus groups cited a lack of trust in the planning process, and a scepticism over whether local people would benefit from the availability of new housing, as their motivating factors in resisting new projects.

By contrast, the report finds that – when sufficiently democratic, transparent and inclusive in their structure – projects driven by community-led building schemes can help local residents to feel greater ownership over developments, and encourage them to support new house-building. They are also able to ensure they meet local needs, for example, by ensuring the homes provided are genuinely affordable for local people.

The report found that the legitimacy these groups have in the eyes of residents and councils means community-led projects are more likely to gain planning permission.  However, they are also slower to be approved, suggesting that the sector could benefit from more professional expertise and greater understanding of their benefits amongst council officers.

Overall, urban districts were found to approve the highest proportion of planning applications, and more quickly than their rural counterparts, but local hostilities towards house-building are stopping many much-needed developments from even reaching application stage. And of the modest number reaching councils, almost 20% of applications are being rejected nationally, in the face of one of the most acute housing shortages in our history.

Analysing local planning data between 2010 and 2015, Demos finds:

•        Local authorities in the North of England are granting a much higher proportion of planning applications for large housing developments than those in the South (89% in the North East compared to 75% in the South East) – where the housing market is suffering most from a shortage of supply.

•        Northern councils are also more likely to meet the 13-week target for making decisions, compared to those in the South (68% in the North East compared to 57% and 59% in the South West and East).

•        Metropolitan districts are approving a far higher percentage of residential applications (90%) than shire districts (78%) – although London boroughs (81%) were found to be performing relatively poorly.

Overall, Copeland, Gloucester, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Oldham, Wigan, Scarborough, Halton, Corby and Westminster were found to have approved the highest percentage of planning applications – with Copeland approving 100% of 40 applications. This compares to Maldon, where only 25% of 64 applications were approved.

When factoring in positive decisions, the decision timeframe and the overall number of applications, Scarborough came out on top, having granted 96% of 120 applications, almost 80% of which were granted within the 13-week time target. This was followed by Westminster, Barnsley, Birmingham, Newcastle and Plymouth. By contrast, Croydon Council in London was found to have granted only 63% of developments – despite its population estimated to have grown by over 10,000 people over the same period.

To encourage greater local support for house-building, across both metropolitan and rural districts, Community Builders recommends:

•        Local authorities should be supported to create hyper-local housing waiting lists, to ensure people in need in the immediate vicinity are prioritised for housing;

•        Community-led groups should have formal, democratic decision-making structures that enable the wider community to participate – such as through community shared schemes;

•        Those groups that have gained support among local residents should become more involved in the planning process, as their visible participation, such as being formally named as the applicant for planning permission, can help to generate active support among residents;

•        The Government should ensure that all community-led schemes are exempted from the extension of Right-to-Buy; and

•        Councils should ensure they have formal policies in place that encourage planning decisions to be made in consideration of the wider benefits of community-led schemes.

Commenting on the report, its author, Charlie Cadywould, said:

“The shortage of affordable housing is one of the biggest problems we face. It’s good to see that the Chancellor is committed to building more homes, with last month’s doubling of the housing budget. However, money is just one side of the equation. We also have to find a place to build all these new homes. At the moment, the Government’s will to get building is rarely matched by local residents who will be most directly impacted by new developments. By engaging local residents, by being democratic and acting as a credible, representative voice, community-led groups can ensure new developments match the needs and desires of local residents, and in doing so turn concern for the community into active support for more local housing.”

Gary Hartin, Programme Manager from the Nationwide Foundation, said:

“The UK faces a serious and growing housing shortage. This is adversely affecting people on lower incomes who are struggling to access decent homes which they can afford, especially when they want to remain living in their local community.  It is our desire for this research to lead to greater confidence from both local and central government in the value and contribution of community-led housing. The report also makes the case for community-led groups to take a more visible role in engaging local communities so that the benefits of housing developments to existing residents are more widely understood and considered.”

Author: Harry Wallop

I’m sitting in a large tree house in Hoxton Square, east London. It’s not a day out with the kids: this is a quirky new office space, complete with electric sockets, eight desks and available to rent for meetings by local businesses.

It is one of a number of initiatives designed to help fund public parks, the fortunes of which are on a downward trajectory since their genesis in Victorian Britain exactly 175 years ago. The first was created some 130 miles north of where I am today, in the Midlands city of Derby. It was there that in 1840 Joseph Strutt, whose family had made a fortune from textiles, donated an 11-acre plot of land and commissioned a leading horticulturalist, John Loudon, to design a haven amid the smog of the industrial town. The result was the Derby Arboretum – an urban green space that provided a template for the many Victorian public parks that followed in its wake.

 “It was for the mill workers and citizens of the town,” says Prof Paul Elliott, who specialises in the history of parks. “It’s significant because it was free for two days each week.”

Of course, there had been plenty of other green spaces in the country previously, such as village commons, and there were parks and pleasure gardens already in existence, but these invariably charged an entrance fee. The Derby Arboretum, which featured 1,000 different species of trees and shrubs, was specifically created for the public to educate themselves about botany and the glory of God’s creation. It was an immediate hit, with thousands flocking to visit every Sunday and Wednesday.

Before long, similar parks were cropping up around the country, from Victoria Park in Hackney, which was designed to alleviate the terrible health among dock workers, to Birkenhead Park in the Wirral.

It seems odd that these historic green spaces, whose names – Holyrood, Regent’s, Sefton, Wythenshawe – are as much a part of our landscape as the Peak District or the Lake District, would ever charge an entrance fee. But that is precisely what is on the cards once again, because park budgets are being cut. They are not a statutory service and local authorities, which fund the great majority, are under little obligation to maintain the planting of trees and shrubs or the upkeep of paths.

And so it is that some parks are starting to cast around for alternative sources of funding. The Hoxton tree office is one such source, but it is not without its problems: the £40,000 structure is leaking slightly and is clearly not designed for soggy autumn weather. It is also sited just four feet off the ground, making it impossible for park users to play football or picnic beneath. After a year in situ, it has only reached 25 per cent capacity.

If a library closes it is immediately obvious. But if you gradually cut back a park’s funding, it’s harder to notice. Grass is mown less frequently, trees start to decline and die

But Lydia Ragoonanan, programme manager for the charity Nesta’s Rethinking Parks project, says innovations that don’t work are just as important to trial as those that do.

Formerly the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, Nesta helps fund various innovation projects, giving small amounts of money to test out new ideas. Over the last year or so it has been funding 11 different schemes for parks to cut their budgets and raise more money.

“We’re here to help stimulate new ideas and test new ideas, to find new money or cut costs to maintain public parks,” Ragoonanan tells me in the treehouse.

Some ideas are fairly basic. In Sheffield’s Heeley Park they are trying to develop a subscription model by offering members preferential treatment for concerts held in the park. Others, like the Hoxton treehouse, are quirkier.

The aim is to find more crowd-pleasing solutions than some that have already been put into practice elsewhere. There was uproar among residents last year when Battersea Park in south London turned over part of its much-loved – if slightly dilapidated – adventure playground to a private company, Go Ape. Locals will now have to pay an estimated £25 a session when it opens later this year, whereas previously it was free.

In Liverpool, more drastic action is afoot. The city’s mayor has announced plans to sell Sefton Park Meadows, an 11-acre green space, to a house-builder. Kim Cattrall, the Liverpool-born actress, has expressed her horror, and duly been attacked by the mayor, who claims she is out of touch and he has to cut the £10 million annual parks budget by half.

There are no figures for how much it costs to maintain the estimated 27,000 public parks in Britain, which cover more than a third of a million acres, an area nearly the size of Greater London. But a survey by the Heritage Lottery Fund last year found 86 per cent of park managers had seen their revenue cut in the previous three years.

We are having to make huge savings. We will have lost 50 per cent of our staff – down from about 90 to 45. But the area of parks remains the same and the public expectation as to the quality of the parks remains the same.

At the Derby Arboretum the dwindling of funds is starting to show. Many of the gates are locked up, the public lavatories are out of order and there is some litter under the trees, including those ubiquitous little metal canisters that contain the legal high nitrous oxide. Four years ago there were 33 full-time rangers. Now there are just 13.

Walking around the place, I meet Michael McNaught, the community park manager. Would he consider charging an entrance fee?

“I must confess my thinking is how you keep it free for the locals of Derby but maybe charge for people coming to visit,” he says.

Ninety miles north, Burnley’s 400-acre Towneley Park has converted well over 100 acres to wild flower meadows. This move away from mown lawns is not just because natural planting has become fashionable. It is also much cheaper. Simon Goff, the head of green spaces in Burnley, says each acre they no longer have to mow using tractors saves around over £1,000 a year.

Other ideas they are testing out include asking farmers to mow the grassed areas and keeping the hay as payment; selling timber grown from the park’s woodland; replacing biennial bedding plants with perennial flowers; using felled trees to fuel woodchip boilers that heat the park buildings; and growing the herb borage, used to make starflower oil, on a commercial basis.

“We are having to make huge savings,” says Goff. “We will have lost 50 per cent of our staff – down from about 90 to 45. But the area of parks remains the same and the public expectation as to the quality of the parks remains the same. So do we just spread the butter very thinly or do we try and find a different way of managing some areas?”

It is simply not possible for all areas of the park to be just as well maintained as before, he warns, yet the public should be able to enjoy just as good access to nature after the changes.

But as Prof Elliott says, parks need long-term funding. “If a library closes it is immediately obvious. But if you gradually cut back a park’s funding, it’s harder to notice. Grass is mown less frequently, trees start to decline and die. It’s incremental.”

To allow public parks to decline would see a diminishment of public life, he argues. “They are part of the character of Britain.”