Author: Malcolm Fraser, Fraser/Livingstone Architects

Wyndford high-rise resident Norman Cunningham put it best when talking to Chris Leslie, as he took these elegiac photographs: ‘Did Cop26 actually happen? In Glasgow?’

What can we say about a council and social landlord – the Wheatley Group, beneficiary of the council’s housing stock transfer – who seek to demolish 600 social homes in four tower blocks in the midst of a housing crisis? A compound crisis, affecting in particular young people and the less-well paid, ‘clapped-for’ classes but also, increasingly, students, and leaving Ukrainian refugees crammed into floating hotels in Scotland’s docks. 

And, as for Mr Cunningham’s comment, what can we say when that very council seeking to waste 600 homes to landfill, hosted COP26, and blandly states, in its Glasgow City Region policy statement of 2020: ‘Retrofitting our homes to make then more energy efficient offers us both a challenge and an opportunity.’ They never stint in banging-on about their green and net-zero credentials, as do the Scottish Government, which will supply our money to fund this ‘regeneration’. 

The estate lies just north of the city centre and is a modernist classic, referred to by Docomomo as ‘one of the high water marks of post-war housing provision in Scotland’. It was designed by Harold Buteaux and built between 1961 and 69 for the SSHA – the Scottish Special Housing Association – which, significantly, was a national organisation, with aspirations and budgets a wee bit above a council’s and the estate has quality to match. It totals 1,900 homes, with the to-be-retained, larger, east portion of the site a mix of 15-storey point blocks and four to nine storey maisonette slabs, nicely arranged to enclose a series of green squares with planting now fully mature. This end has had a bit of money spent on it and looks tidy, loved and nicely-continental – a perfect Glaswegian exemplar of the post-war ideals of light, landscape, air and openness that we need to cherish. The west end, next to the lovely River Kelvin and, significantly, some leafy Glasgow inner-city suburbs, has our four, brave, 26-storey towers, which have suffered a bit from inappropriate tenant placement, and have now been substantially cleared. They are down to their last, lonely 5% occupation, and have seen the surrounding landscape stripped rather than invested in, allowing their general neglect to fuel the argument for their demolition.

There is huge local resistance to this, and the first thing to make clear is that this was initiated and is led by local residents, in particular the Wyndford Residents Union, who live in and care for the place. They need no visiting architectural academics and brutalist dreamers to tell them that, first, these demolition plans are a carbon crime, for the towers are embodied and useful carbon, which can and must be saved and improved; and, second, that their estate is being socially-cleansed.

But our small group offering them assistance – Kate Mackintosh, Alan Dunlop, Miles Glendinning, social enterprise EALA Impacts, some students and me – see it as good to try to understand the opposite side’s arguments, and I’ve reached out to politicians, urban champions and others to try to broker a conversation and understand their reasoning. Amongst the regeneration boosterist puff, the proponents of demolition talk about the need to improve energy performance. But the buildings already attain an EPC Rating of C, set against a Scottish average of D, so they are good, and a solid platform on which simple improvement can be wrought.

And we, of course, know that high-rise retrofit can be done – has been done decently in Glasgow, for the Queen’s Cross Housing Association, and brilliantly elsewhere, like at Lacaton & Vassal’s Tour Bois le Pretre. So that point doesn’t hold water, and when pressed it’s clear that their main argument for demolition is that, just as their post-war predecessors demonised Glasgow’s stone tenements and slum-cleared them (Swing, Hammer, Swing), so they like to demonise the modernist heritage that replaced it, except with a demolition blast rather than a wrecking ball. 

Famous 1960’s psychiatrist R. D. Laing wrote of his home city and its ‘violence and tenderness, and great warmheartedness’. Happily, the city, in its people, has lost some of that violence, with its warmheartedness to the fore; but still, in its approach to its built fabric, it tears at itself, every generation destroying it anew. The apogee of that violence sits like carbon porn on the Wheatley website, where an extraordinary video celebrates the blowing-up of maybe two dozen tall blocks as lovingly-filmed climactic carbon gang-bangs. Did they even notice the COP that played-out in their city? Did not the tiniest hint get through to them, that we are past the time when we can heedlessly consume vast resources, bin them then consume more? Wheatley, emboldened by the stock transfer that removes democratic scrutiny from this huge social landlord, seems keen to follow this route elsewhere, advertising for a demolition officer to lead the Wyndford project and ‘Future projects [which] will be across the Group, including Dumfries and Galloway’ – they have huge holdings across Scotland, communities beware!

Their second, real reason may well be monetary. Though Wheatley are constituted as a ‘not-for-profit’ it has long been dinged into our public institutions that they need to act like they are privatised and so, here, look at the site as a developer would. (As an example, a housing association I was working for told me that I could not put a wee green at the heart of a development, as ‘children might play there’.) Development is cost-neutral for the Wheatley Group, as it is central Government funding that pays for the demolition and pays for a rebuild – our money, our taxes.

But on revenue, under a simple calculation the 600 homes on the site are social rental, for nurses, bus-drivers, cleaners – as well as the retired, refugees and the odd Buddhist priest. The planned 300 replacements will be mid-market rent, remembering the leafy surroundings of the River Kelvin and its posh suburbs, and attract a higher income (‘better class’ of person) than the 600, thus levering public money to raise the profit of the not-for-profit. 

I’ve used the term ‘social cleansing’ but it’s not deliberate cleansing – the chasing-out from their city of ordinary, old and new Glaswegians. It is not the purpose and the evil plot of some malignant landlord but rather the inevitable consequence of that landlord’s disregard for their social responsibility, on top of their climate one. But – stop-press! – in the face of the residents’ vigorous campaign Wheatley are suddenly talking about more social rent, but without the trust or firm commitment needed to convince residents they will not revert to mid-market and, if true, leaving as sole motive their orgiastic love for blowing things up. 

I should note the ‘consultation’, and Wheatley’s claim of ‘overwhelming support’. Consultation is important in Scotland, with the new National Planning Framework 4 making much of it. Developers therefore need to look at how to manipulate it, and be sure to only consult on what they want to do. So, residents have been told about ‘a bright new dawn for Wyndford’ and asked ‘Do you want to have £73m invested in your community?’ Seventy-three million quid – what’s not to like? And, as a supporter of the campaign says, ‘far from being presented with options and ideas, or being allowed to influence the general direction of plans, residents were asked “what excites you most about the regeneration plans?”’. The only real option for investment in the wider community was demolition: ‘Do you support the regeneration plans including the demolition of the four low demand high rises?’ was how it was worded. And residents were misled when they were told that the flats were impossible to make energy-efficient.

‘Consulting’ like this on one option, with the path already set, is not consultation but boosterism, as are the glossy leaflets the estate is being deluged with.

Two things, to finish. First, we need to get better at valuing carbon. Our carbon analysis report found the impact of the demolition and rebuild is nearly twice that of retrofitting – at approximately 22,465 tonnes CO2 emitted for demolition against 12,098 tonnes CO2 for retrofitting. But the demolition itself had little impact, as much current evaluation sees no difference between carbon that makes a nice home, and carbon tipped into a landfill site – only the emissions of the demolition processes count, like the TNT strapped to the building and that wee mannie’s push on the plunger. We need to get smarter – our overlapping crises are about resource depletion and waste, as well as carbon and climate. We are talking to those leading the resistance to the downing of the M&S Building on Oxford Street and ITV Building on the Thames. We know the Mayor of London now has a framework requiring a Whole Life Carbon Assessment over 60 years, and that for demolition it requires the assessment be done with 95% recycling, which will always be expensive and, in itself, carbon-consuming. We need to spread such thinking around.

Lastly, we need to recognise our profession’s complicity in all this. Colleagues sometimes look askance at retrofit – not proper architecture, for where’s the glory – and the fees – to be gained from a landfill-rebuild cycle with its pontificating about style, green gizmos and good urbanism. And, here, we are right in-tune with our wider industry where, at least in the Scottish context I know, our bankers, construction conglomerates and government enablers whisper the term ‘dealflow’. This describes their wish for an unending river of public money to finance the regular decay, landfill and replacement of our public stock of homes, schools, hospitals and the like.

And I cannot be the only one who looks on some of the Profession’s parade of self-declared “Climate Champions” with incredulity – whose careers embrace wholesale demolition with, sometimes, a schtick based on the conspicuous, luxurious consumption of carbon (never use a bit of wood when aluminium will do), lecturing us about how wonderfully virtuous they are because their newbuild has some whizz-bang bit of low-energy kit in it.

The guys on the Wyndford Estate are our true Climate Champions.

 To sign the petition against Weatley’s proposals, visit: https://www.change.org/p/stop-wheatley-destroying-our-community and keep in touch with the campaign https://www.facebook.com/WyndfordResidents/ to hear what comes next.

Author: Reform Scotland

COUNCILS across Scotland should be headed by directly elected mayors – who should meet the First Minister on a regular basis, a think tank has suggested.

Reform Scotland said that having elected mayors, who could then meet with the First Minister every three months, would allow for the “voices and experiences of Scotland’s local areas to be heard nationally”.

The think tank made the plea in a new paper which argued for a “shift away from central command and control” in Scotland, calling for a “new and better balance of powers between Holyrood and local government”.

Reform Scotland said: “By ­providing a forum where the mayors and the First Minister have regular public meetings, there is an ­opportunity to listen more, improve policy, learn from good practice and increase accountability.”

The think tank’s Localising Power report is published in the wake of blueprint for reform former prime minister Gordon Brown produced for Labour, which said in Scotland “consideration should be given to establishing new forms of local and regional leadership, such as directly elected mayors”.

And Alison Payne, Reform Scotland’s research director, called on Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar to ensure such a policy is ­included in its next Holyrood election manifesto.

On the issue of mayors for Scotland, Payne said: “Gordon Brown’s intervention is the ­latest in a long list, but we need to start seeing action rather than simply words.

“In this case, it should start with Anas Sarwar confirming that ­Scottish Labour will campaign at the next Scottish Parliament election on a pledge to introduce them.”

Reform Scotland called on Anas Sarwar to include Gordon Brown’s proposal in Labour’s manifesto for the next Holyrood election

In its paper, Reform Scotland ­argued that currently council leaders “can be viewed as a lower-level politician than a backbench MSP, despite occupying a prestigious role running a city”.

The report also noted: “Back-bench MSPs have higher ­salaries than the council leaders who run Scotland’s councils, including ­Edinburgh and Glasgow.”

Elected mayors would be a “clear figurehead” for their local area, with Reform Scotland claiming the ­introduction of such leaders in places like London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester had not only given these areas a greater voice but had also stimulated “interest in and awareness of local government”.

Reform Scotland suggested that Scotland mayors should “be directly elected by the public across the whole council area, giving them a strong, personal democratic mandate”. Mayoral elections could take place at the same time as ­council elections, while giving voters the choice would mean the ­successful candidate has “direct accountability to the local population rather than just to party colleagues and voters in a single ward”.

The report added: “The mayor would play a bigger role in terms of representing the area at Holyrood, Westminster and internationally. They would be the people’s representative, rather than a party’s representative to the people.”

Reform Scotland also insisted that there needed to be “genuine empowerment of Scotland’s councils”, saying this could help local authorities deal with the “varying situations they are facing as a result of Covid, the cost-of-living crisis and the economy”.

It concluded that “localism needs to be a priority for 2023”.

Payne said: “Scotland is far too centralised and needs to see a shift in power from Holyrood to local ­authorities. Although councils run many of the services that are most ­important to our everyday lives, few of us know who is in charge and who we should be holding accountable. Scotland is unusual internationally in the ­weakness of its local authorities.”

Author: Mull and Iona Ferry Committee

BBC Interview 

The Hebridean ferry system is under the spotlight on the back of widespread disruption, chronic reliability issues, an ageing fleet, and the debacle of hulls 801 and 802.

That is being added to by the anticipation of a new Clyde and Hebrides Ferry Services (CHFS) contract from 2024. In advance of that, Scottish Government have commissioned ‘Project Neptune‘, a piece of consultancy that examines the options for future ferry provision. (Including such fundamental matters as whether the separation of CalMac and CMAL should continue, what shape contracts should take, and what type of organisations should operate ferry services). In the Scottish Parliament, two separate ferry enquiries are underway – one by the Audit Committee examining the circumstances around 801/2, and another by the Transport Committee asking what the future shape of ferry services should be.

As well as those potential policy and structural changes on the horizon, we on Mull and Iona are soon to have the biggest change to our main ferry service in fifty years, with the up-coming retirement and replacement of the MV Isle of Mull and the re-building of Craignure Pier.

With all of that background, MIFC have been considering whether our main ferry services could be delivered differently. An intriguing and potentially revolutionary suggestion is that a community-controlled company could run our ferry services. First suggested by ferry expert and author Roy Pedersen, we thought it was worthy of further exploration. Having experienced the appalling decision-making of CMAL and the harm done to our services by a remote and largely unaccountable quango, could a community-controlled company do better?

It would be a big undertaking, that’s for sure. There are pros and cons, and there are risks. Many we don’t even know about yet. But we thought it was at least worthy of full exploration. So last year we commissioned Roy Pedersen to put together a full proposal paper, and you can read it below. It makes for interesting reading. But to really understand how this could be done and whether it’s feasible, we need to do more work.

To that end, Highlands and Islands Enterprise have awarded us a grant to pay for a second phase of consultancy, and today we are issuing an invitation to tender for that work.

At this stage, the main arguments in favour are:

• More direct accountability of the ferry operator to the community
• A more island-focussed service, with decisions made by the people directly affected
• A more cost-effective service that can afford to operate more frequent services
• Any operating profit would be returned to the community

On the other hand, there are uncertainties and potential negatives:

• Is there the appetite on the island for the work and commitment needed?
• How would the business be financed?
• How would the service integrate with other ferry services operated by others?
• In the end, would we get a better ferry service than one provided by CalMac Ferries Ltd?

We also need to be clear that ultimately, this will be decided by Scottish Government. It is they who decide how public ferry contracts are issued – ie whether they want one company to operate all services across the whole network (as CalMac Ferries Ltd do now), or whether they are open to allowing small parts of the service (or individual routes) to be contracted to other operators. This is the concept of ‘unbundling’, and it is explored in more detail here.

We hope that the report we are commissioning will be complete early next year, and we will then have enough detail for the communities of Mull and Iona to consider it properly. This would be a community undertaking, and it should only go further if it has community backing. But there will be no opportunity for this at all, unless Scottish Government allow it. There is no opportunity to compete with CalMac Ferries by operating the same route alongside them, particularly when fares are set by government. Without subsidy and the certainty of a long-term government contract, no ferry company could survive. So if a community ferry company is to get off the ground, it will need the backing of both the community and Scottish Government.

So far, both the First Minister and the Transport Minister have said “there will be no unbundling”. We think that before coming to that conclusion, we should at least explore the prospect fully. Unbundling has been tarnished (sometimes deliberately) by being associated with privatisation, where subsidy is removed and only profitable routes operate. No-one wants that. Our ferries are essential public infrastructure. We utterly rely on them to be affordable, reliable and available.

So as we explore the possibility of a community ferry company, we hope that Scottish Government will be equally open-minded and assess it objectively and in detail alongside us.

So today we have written to Transport Minister Jenny Gilruth and our MSP Jenni Minto, inviting them to discuss the idea and to work with us on it.

Once the feasibility study is complete we will be holding consultation meetings on Mull and Iona, but meantime if you live on Mull and Iona and have thoughts on this idea we would be glad to hear them.

Author: Calum MacLeod

This blog is part of a monthly series about community-led housing in Scotland shared by the Communities Housing Trust and South of Scotland Community Housing. 

This month’s guest blog is written by Dr Calum MacLeod, a freelance sustainable development consultant.  Calum is originally from the Isle of Harris but is now based in Glasgow. He is a Board member of MG ALBA.

The Scottish Government is committed to introducing a new Land Reform Bill to Parliament by the end of 2023. Key proposals for the forthcoming Bill, contained in a recent consultation paper titled ‘Land Reform in a Net Zero Nation’, focus on imposing statutory requirements on large-scale rural landholdings, partly defined by Government as landholdings exceeding a minimum threshold of 3,000 hectares.

The Government proposes that such landholdings be subject to a public interest if they are to be transferred into new ownership by sale or other means. It also proposes that they should be subject to compulsory Land Management Plans, and a duty to comply with the currently voluntary Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement. The Government further proposes a requirement on the part of owners of such landholdings to provide prior notification of their intention to sell their holdings, to eradicate ‘off-market’ rural land sales that limit opportunities for community ownership.

Lowering the minimum threshold for landholdings from 3,000 hectares to 500 hectares for the above proposals, and considerably lower still for the ‘prior notification of intention to sell’ requirement, would greatly enhance the likelihood of them addressing the lack of affordable housing contributing to the depopulation and demographic crisis facing many economically fragile rural communities.

The new Land Reform Bill could also help tackle the lack of affordable homes in rural communities by amending the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 to introduce a new-use category in the land-use planning system, as previously proposed by Andy Wightman when the Planning Bill was going through Parliament. That would enable planning authorities to classify homes as primary residences, second homes or holiday lets, with planning permission being required for a change of use.

Community-led housing provision has long been a distinctive feature of community land ownership in rural Scotland, with both the Communities Housing Trust and South of Scotland Community Housing playing crucial roles in facilitating its delivery. The forthcoming Land Reform Bill therefore also needs to amend the suite of existing Community Rights to Buy to ensure they fit for the purpose of bringing more land and assets into community ownership to help provide more of that housing.

There is now an opportunity to take a genuinely joined-up approach to land reform and community-led housing development by including the above measures in the forthcoming Land Reform Bill. All the more so, if they are aligned with rural housing planning policy detailed in the recently published draft National Planning Framework 4 and the future Community Wealth Building Bill that is also on the Government’s legislative radar.

Author: Stop Climate Chaos Scotland

A report published last week by the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) assesses Scotland’s overall progress in achieving its legislated targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The report highlights serious concerns about the lack of a clear delivery plan and an explanation for how policies will achieve targets, resulting in a danger of these becoming ‘meaningless’. 

Reacting to the report, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland (SCCS) – a diverse coalition of over 60 organisations in Scotland campaigning together on climate change – is deeply concerned that ‘the integrity of the Scottish climate framework is now at risk’ due to inadequate action taken by the Scottish Government to meet targets. 

Mike Robinson, Chair of SCCS said:

“We welcome this expert and comprehensive report from the UK Committee on Climate Change, which provides the Scottish Government with a loud and clear wake up call. Scotland needs bold, decisive and immediate action to reduce emissions. Without this, the trend of missed targets, and failure to tackle the climate crisis will only continue.”

“Having previously made more progress on decarbonising than the UK, this report shows that Scotland is now falling behind on a number of key areas, undermining credibility on the international stage just a month after COP27 and highlighting the need for more cooperation on reserved matters. The time for positive rhetoric is over – the Scottish Government must urgently redouble efforts to meet targets. Action is needed now to achieve the crucial 2030 target, while the forthcoming Climate Change Plan will be important for further actions, after 2030, to achieve longer term ambitions.”

The report focuses in particular on the action needed to reduce emissions from transport, buildings and land use:

• On transport, SCCS agrees that the Scottish Government has some positive ambition but is falling behind on implementation strategies to deliver policy changes. Urgent action is needed to promote alternatives to private car use such as active travel and public transport and to put measures in place to make journeys by car a less attractive option. The report also rates the Scottish Government poorly on efforts to reduce air travel – not using devolved powers to discourage flight growth.
• On land use, the forthcoming Agriculture Bill must have a clear, legally binding purpose for reducing emissions. The report also highlights the need to ‘shift to lower carbon diets’ and for more effort to be made to expand woodlands and restore peatland. 
• On buildings, a swift, properly funded and coordinated approach to retrofitting and insulating homes is not only urgently needed to ensure Scotland meets its targets, but can also address the cost of living crisis. 

To respond to this challenging report SCCS expects to see the appropriate action taken through these forthcoming opportunities:

• Next week’s budget, where steps must be taken to ensure action is properly funded with additional money raised through making the biggest polluters pay more. It should also allocate more money to emissions reduction and less to the most polluting activities. 
• The delayed Energy Strategy, now expected in early 2023, where the Scottish government needs to set out a strong position opposing new oil and gas licences and plans for reducing demand.
• The Circular Economy Bill, where consumption targets must be set out to address the rising emissions from imported goods and services.
• The Just Transition Plans, which, in light of this, report must deliver clear, credible and equitable paths for all sectors 
• Engagement with Local Authorities, where greater clarity and more resources must be given to support local authorities in their role to deliver the actions needed. The Scottish Government should review and embrace the Net Zero Committee’s recommendations on this issue.

Author: Art Walk Porty

About The Neighbouring Orchard

‘The Neighbouring Orchard’ created by artist Annie Lord involves a network of apple trees planted in local front and shared gardens across Portobello, Craigmillar and Musselburgh.

The Neighbouring Orchard project offers young apple trees to households in Portobello, Musselburgh and Craigmillar, providing the possibility of apple harvests in years to come. At a time when we are physically distant from each other we look to planting trees as a way to forge links with people in neighbouring streets and suburbs. This individually planted, socially distant orchard is rooted in community and as the trees grow, bud, blossom and fruit we look forward to a time when we can gather together to enjoy the harvests.

The trees are planted in front gardens or shared gardens, ensuring that they are visible to the wider community, acting as markers for people on daily walks, seen from bus windows and from other household’s windows.

The apple varieties we offer each have a historic link to the area, having previously been grown in local orchards in the 19th Century. Most apple trees need to have different varieties of apple trees nearby in order to be pollinated. The Neighbouring Orchard trees will form a network across individual gardens, linked together by bees and other pollinators who will fly between them.

The project was supported initially by funding from the National Lottery Awards for All Fund. In 2021 further funding from Creative Scotland and Musselburgh Common Good Fund (East Lothian Council) was received to further develop the project.

Author: Locavore

Locavore is a social enterprise which exists to build a sustainable food system which is better for people and planet. Over the last 11 years we’ve grown from a tiny Shawlands shop into an organisation that’s at the forefront of laying down the foundations for the type of food system we need in the future. A food system that meets the needs of the climate and biodiversity emergencies while creating a fairer, more redistributive local economy.  

We’ve built a market for good food that’s given new food businesses the confidence to start up and others the ability to scale up and grow. We’ve helped farmers convert to organic, nudged producers who’d never considered organic to take the plunge, and created a blueprint for other aspiring shops and farmers to follow.

All this local sourcing, focus and care means our economic impact is pretty impressive too. In our investigation (Locavore and the Leaky Bucket) we found that when £1 is spent in our Govanhill shop it was worth £1.92 to Glasgow, £2.36 to Scotland and £2.87 to Scottish and progressive producers. This is because that money stays local or with ‘good’ businesses. For comparison £1 spent in a normal supermarket is generously expected to be worth £1.24 to the local area. 

We currently have four shops across central Scotland, 4 organic market gardens and a central hub where we pack our veg boxes and deliver wholesale orders to other retailers around the country. On top of that we have a kitchen supplying our cafes and shops, and run projects like our community plots at Bellahouston, and the Good Food Fund which gets good food to those in most need.

Unfortunately this is all now under critical threat as we face the most difficult period in our 11 year history.

We really need your help.

What went wrong:

Since launching our Bigger Plan in early 2021 we’ve gone through a period of rapid growth and expansion. We opened new shops in Garnethill, Kirkintilloch and Edinburgh, bought Narrowboat Market Garden near Linlithgow and took on and fitted out a warehouse from which we run our wholesale business, and veg box deliveries.

Over this timeline we gained widespread recognition winning Scottish and then UK Social Enterprise of the Year in 2021 and in November 2022 we won the BBC Food & Farming Award for Best Shop and Market.

Unfortunately from early in 2022 the cost of living crisis started brewing and this combined with other factors meant we knew that we had a serious cash flow problem developing. Our new shops opened less busy than we had anticipated and at the same time our other shops were a bit quieter than they had been previously, and veg box numbers were reducing.

Much of our expansion was financed by lending from Social Investment Scotland (SIS), a social lender that distributes loans from government funds. We made them aware of the situation and the need for further investment to bridge the gap till we would make new locations profitable and make other changes in the business. We were encouraged to apply to the Recovery & Resilience Loan Fund, we matched the fund purpose well and put in an expression of interest for the deadline which unfortunately wasn’t till the end of June. We were told a decision could be made fast and all going well we could have money in our account as early as the end of July.

It didn’t work this way. A catalogue of delays from SIS meant we did not get a solid answer till late October. They said they would give us no support, we appealed this, but they won’t budge.

If we had this decision in July we would have lots of options. Now however we have almost none. We believe Social Investment Scotland have failed to manage the process in a timely manner and we have become the collateral damage of this. We will be putting in a formal complaint to the Scottish Government… but for now we need to focus on securing our future by another route. It’s going to be very challenging.

Our Recovery Plan:

Our turnaround plan is not the plan we wanted to implement. Our original plan was one in which we buy the time to slowly grow our way into our new shops and communities, with the resources and funds to work towards success in the medium term so that we maximise our impact and long-term position.

The new plan is to do what it takes to survive without any immediate investment while keeping as much of Locavore intact as possible so we can minimise damage to our long-term ambitions. This is a plan focused on cutting costs fast and improving profitability to quickly bring the business to a position where it ends each month in a slightly better position than it started. 

Here’s our immediate actions:

• We closed Locavore Garnethill – We struggled to make this branch work since it opened and sales were no longer growing. Closing it now frees up stock that can be sold in other branches, and allows the manager Tatenda to return to our Govanhill Branch as the new manager. We wish we had more time to spend making this shop work, but we didn’t.
• We have reviewed and are changing opening hours at our branches so we only open at the times it’s profitable to. Look out for changes soon.
• Alongside changes in opening hours we need to reduce staff hours in all shops. In some branches this will have limited impact on the team as it’ll be achieved through not replacing hours that have become available; but in others there will almost certainly be redundancies. We don’t want to do this but it needs to be done, we are sorry.
• We raise £50k through crowdfunding. This will give us the breathing space we need to move from making a loss to making a small profit again. With this time we take forward other actions we have identified to increase profitability including improving our margins, reducing waste and bringing in new income from renting out little bits of offices and sheds we have dotted around. Fancy a potting shed, art studio or office for your sustainable business or project? Get in touch bigplan@glasgowlocavore.org
• Once we are breaking even we take on new investment through loanstock or private investors and use this money to catch up with overdue invoices to many of our dear suppliers. You can register interest in investing here.

This plan isn’t bursting with butterflies and rainbows. It’s not exciting, it’s not fun, and it’s going to be difficult – but it’s now our best shot at securing a future for Locavore and everything that we exist to achieve.

The direction of sales right now does set us up well. Customer numbers at Edinburgh and Kirkintilloch have grown by 8% since spring and September and October were our the busiest months to date at these locations. Our Govanhill and Partick shops have been recovering too, with October being the best month for them both in quite some time. Our veg box numbers have been growing fast too, they have increased by 25% since the summer. These sorts of improvements are what we need to continue to achieve in the coming months, alongside making cost savings. 

These coming months are going to be the most difficult days of Locavore but we’re confident we can pull it off. Our founder Reuben started Locavore with just £3,500 and our team have achieved great things on a shoestring budget again and again. We always operate against the grain of what makes business easy; and we usually pull it off. We’re pretty sure we can do this, but we do need your help .

Please help us do everything we can to Save Locavore. Pledge to our crowdfunder and make some of the other actions below if you can as well. Then let your friends and family know!

How else you can help:

• Use our shops in Govanhill, Partick, Kirkintilloch & Dalry in Edinburgh.
• Sign up for a veg box, and invite your friends to do the same. We deliver all over central Scotland and down into Ayrshire.
• Get in a Christmas order with us for everything from trees and turkeys to seitan roasts and hampers.
• Find out about investing in us.
• Share our crowdfunder and sign up to raise funds on our behalf.
• If you buy for a business then find out about our wholesale service info@locavoretrading.org

Author: NESCAN

I would be really grateful if you could spread the word and we got as many of those that live in Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire & Moray to vote and really care about these fantastic projects as possible -in whatever way SCCAN can. Some suggested wording for the messaging is below and there is an electronic flyer attached, social media images and text supplied to help you spread the word. Any questions etc. let me know. Thanks for your help.

“VOTING IS OPEN NOW – community climate action projects in Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray need your votes!  This is an opportunity for you to have your say about how Aberdeen transitions to Net Zero. With £333,333 up for grabs in each Local Authority area, there is everything to vote for. Everyone with an Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire or Moray postcode has 10 votes and can decide which projects get funded.  

Vote here: 

Aberdeen City (ACVO): https://acvo.org.uk/vote  

Aberdeenshire (AVA):  https://www.avashire.org.uk/jtfundvote

Moray (tsiMoray): VOTE NOW for your favourite community projects (tsimoray.org.uk)  

Choose your top 10 favourites from the list and vote today.   

To find out more about participatory budgeting and how vote in Aberdeen City & Shire go to www.nescan.org/pb “

Author: Scottish Housing News

Reidvale Housing Association’s decision to seek a larger association to take it over is a matter of deep regret and one that will be a betrayal of the local community, according to the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations (GWSF).

The Forum says it has had serious concerns about the proposed move since it was announced in May 2022, but it has held back from criticising a member organisation in the hope that the decision might be reviewed.

Founded in 1975, Reidvale is one of Scotland’s and Glasgow’s original community-based housing associations, established through a grass roots campaign to prevent the mass demolition of traditional inner city tenements. GWSF says Reidvale was a pioneer, an exemplar of what community ownership can achieve, and that. Glasgow’s historic inner city community of Dennistoun is now thriving and vibrant because of Reidvale.

The Forum’s position statement says that Reidvale has:

• No loans over any of its properties (this is highly unusual, with typical debt in Scotland being in excess of £20,000 per unit).
• Among the lowest rents in Scotland at around 14% below the Scottish average.
• Among the best performance and tenant satisfaction figures in Scotland, covering such things as repairs service, overall service, standard of homes and rent collection (see the latest Charter data for Reidvale here)
• Reserves in excess of £2m.

GWSF director David Bookbinder said: “This proposed takeover should not be happening. The decision has been steered by what are effectively external parties, all with the apparent approval of the Regulator.

“We recognise that from time to time, a Transfer of Engagements may end up being the better option for an association’s tenants. But nothing we’ve read in the Association’s engagement plans – including as recently as last month – or in other publicly available documents suggests that its issues couldn’t be dealt with by a committed staff team and governing body.

“GWSF’s primary purpose is to promote community ownership, so it’s impossible for us to remain silent when we see a community based housing association disappearing and the evidence suggests it could sort out its issues and continue to thrive as an independent organisation.

“In my address to our Annual Conference last month I warned members about the degree of control which a combination of external influences could have on an association facing problems. At Reidvale this has included a professional ’housing consultant’ co-optee recommended by the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR), and professional consultants acting as interim directors and ‘transfer specialists’. These consultants have a history of working closely together and in some cases will obviously benefit financially from the course of action they have influenced.

“Steering the Committee in the direction of takeover appears to have been carefully planned throughout. One example is that prior to the Committee taking its decision earlier this year, it was advised that arrangements had been made for it to meet with a consultant who could provide a fully independent view of the options. The chosen consultant was (using their own title) a ‘transfer specialist’.

“In situations where external consultants in these positions know each other and have worked together in other associations, it is very difficult for anyone to make legitimate challenges to stop the takeover process.

“Any larger association bidding for these homes will do so primarily for the benefit it brings to their own organisation, not the community Reidvale serves. Interested associations will have their eyes on 900 debt free homes which will enable them to finance improvement or new build work anywhere they choose in Scotland. This is nothing more than the stripping of the assets that a local community has built up over decades through rents and the initiative of countless volunteer Committee members.

“It’s clear to us that many failings in the process – including the absence of tenant consultation in the Options Appraisal in contravention of regulatory standards – have been ignored by the SHR. The SHR ‘talks up’ the interests of tenants when it suits them to do so, but remains silent when it doesn’t.

“The SHR’s steering of some associations towards employing interim directors on a consultancy basis always increases the prospect of takeover, as does ignoring an association’s failure to properly use the AGM process to attract new members to fill vacancies.

“As it always has, the SHR will say it has no merger agenda. But the GWSF considers it has an unwritten ‘merger culture’ rooted in an indifference to smaller scale community ownership which can give tenants real power and influence. Many in the sector now just accept this, but GWSF can’t.

“If community empowerment and community ownership really matter to ministers, we should have a Regulator whose role includes supporting local associations to address their issues and retain their independence wherever this is possible.

“The tenants and then the members of Reidvale will have the final say on this matter. They need to know how things have got to where they have, and they must be accurately and honestly informed as the transfer proposal is considered.”

Author: BBC

Proposals to conclude the sale on 31 October 2022 have been put on hold following this briefing note issued by Isle of Rum Community Trust. 

Land reform campaigner, Andy Wightman, has blogged on The Future of Kinloch Castle

BBC News 

Kinloch Castle, and most of the island, are owned by Scottish government agency NatureScot.

The property was used as a hostel, but it closed in 2015 and parts of the site require restoration work.

Scottish government minister Lorna Slater confirmed the situation with the sale following talks with Isle of Rum Community Trust.

The trust had voiced a number of concerns, including what it said was a lack of information about the prospective owners’ plans for the building.

In a statement, Ms Slater said that the Scottish government was keen to find a sustainable solution for Kinloch Castle that eased the burden on taxpayers, and worked for islanders.

There have been previous bids to buy the property.

A bid by community group Kinloch Castle Friends Association to take over the lodge and turn it into a 51-bed B&B with a museum was rejected in 2019.

Kinloch Castle was built between 1897 and 1900 as a hunting lodge for Lancastrian industrialist George Bullough and he had it luxuriously furnished.

It is the only example of a house designed by Leeming and Leeming, London-based architects specialising in commercial and municipal properties.

The property fell into decline after World War I and was taken over in 1957 by NatureScot’s predecessor, the Nature Conservancy Council.

It has required extensive restoration work over the years.