Author: Bella Bathurst, The Observer

Mike Scott is a very angry man. He is standing on the drive at Overburns Farm in Lamington, overlooking the Clyde, glaring around at the rose garden, the Georgian farmhouse, the newly planted orchard, the restored farm buildings.

Behind is the fabulous backdrop of the river and the great landmark curves of Tinto Hill. None of this timeless tableau of birds, sheep, hills and water is soothing his soul. In fact, that very view is currently his biggest problem.

Scott is a farmer and landowner in South Lanarkshire, with 900 ewes and a stretch of land sandwiched between the A702 and the Clyde. Aside from the scenery, the land has one very powerful attraction: it is rich in minerals.

Back in 2007 he approached Patersons, a large quarry and waste management company, with a view to exploiting the site. Patersons has now applied to the local council for permission to extract nearly five million tonnes of sand and gravel over the next 11 to 15 years.

The plan has gone down badly, to say the least. Patersons, opponents claim, has a habit of turning small operations into large ones, spent excavations into landfill sites, and old quarries into licensed dumps. As a result, the row has turned very public, very quickly, and Overburns has become the focus of one of the bitterest environmental rows in Scotland in recent years.

The land follows a spectacularly beautiful route along the Clyde towards the Pentland Hills. The river is alive with birds and brown trout, clear of silt and easily accessible. I know it well; this is where I’m from. Until recently, the main sources of controversy were decorous standoffs between anglers, twitchers and canoeists over who had the right to the bank.

Now this tranquillity faces a threat that has led objectors to form a campaign group called Crag – Clyde River Action Group – to take on Patersons and the Scotts. Patersons says it plans no more than a relatively small-scale operation extracting sand and gravel above and below the water level, taking it out via the A702 and restoring the site in phases afterwards. Crag supporters don’t believe what they are being told; once the quarry is there, they say, it would be a relatively small step to have the whole valley redesignated as an industrial zone.

Mary McLatchie now lives opposite Overburns, but grew up next to Mount Vernon in Glasgow’s east end, a former Patersons quarry that was turned into one of the largest landfill sites in Europe. She does not believe Patersons’ assurances. “I would bet my life that they’ll turn that into waste management. You hit clay very quickly down there, and clay is very good for landfill sites.”

McLatchie says she has known since childhood what it is like to live beside a Patersons quarry. Mount Vernon, Coatbridge and Baillieston (all in Lanarkshire) were affected by what Patersons did, she added. “Mount Vernon went from being a small quarry to a huge landfill site; we lived with dirt and muck constantly… They’ve got massive pipes coming out of the ground because they’re trying to get rid of the smell – they had a licence to dump 27 different waste materials down there.”

These views are rejected by the plan’s supporters. “There’s absolutely no landfilling going to take place at all,” says Mike Scott. “No question whatsoever. Categorically no.” Kemp Lindsay, estates director for Patersons, says the same. “I can categorically assure you there will be absolutely no landfilling on this site. Ever. Full stop. Any allegation there will be is nonsense and scaremongering.”

But those closer to Overburns are concerned for more immediate reasons. Ian Parker runs a 160-hectare (400-acre) farm on the other side of the river. It is the second largest organic dairy farm in central Scotland, and Parker is worried. Organic land has to go through a two-year conversion process, so if one part of his farm is polluted with silt, he can’t just rent land elsewhere.

“The quarry will destroy the upper Clyde valley in less than two years,” he says. “So what happens in 15 years makes no difference.” The anglers agree. The Clyde floods regularly on to the proposed quarry site. If silt gets into the river, the fish disappear. As do the tourists. Local angler Mark McGee says: “The thought of coming to South Lanarkshire with your family to find your B&B has a superquarry next door is not that appealing.”

As Ian Parker points out, there are seven quarries within a 15-mile radius of Overburns, three producing sand and gravel. “There’s a new quarry five miles up the road and it’s not working at capacity: why do they need this?” The area certainly has a lot of very big holes. Over the centuries, its mineral resources and its proximity to the coast have ensured that Lanarkshire has been taken for everything it has: coal, iron ore, lead, zinc, copper, sand, gravel, rock, peat – even gold. There is little question that quarrying can be an ugly business. A little farther up the M74 at Strathaven, Patersons’ Dunduff quarry is working at full stretch extracting sandstone, grit and hardcore. Walk over the high moors and abruptly the ground drops away, revealing layers of earth, past red Lanarkshire grit through grey shale, right to the black stuff. Ground water clogs the deepest parts, thick with silt and lime deposits. Far below, diggers scratch at the high faces while dump trucks file in and out. It looks like Tolkie’s Mordor.

The comparison, insist Scott and Patersons, is unfair. Scott claims the quarry will enhance the area when it’s finished. “By the time the third phase is done, the first phase will have been restored into a recreational area, a nature reserve. We’re going to landscape it with pretty shrubs all round the site … There’s absolutely no fear of the river being affected at all.” But people – and birds and fish – seem to like it the way it is. “Quite honestly, when this is done, it will be a damn sight nicer than it is now. The actual site is a very plain, dull field… This is creating a certain amount of ill feeling, I know, and I’m just ignoring it, because I know that when this is done it’s going to be absolutely smashing.”

Only time will tell. The planning application is in, and both sides have three weeks to present their arguments to South Lanarkshire council. Whatever the outcome, the affair has opened a much deeper seam; how long can anyone go on taking from a landscape before the landscape itself starts to fight back?

Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations

Response to the Draft Housing (Scotland) Bill

August 2009

Enhancing the Role of Community Based Housing Associations in Regeneration and Neighbourhood Management

Draft 31 July 09

Summary

1.1               In the Housing Bill Consultation Paper, the Scottish Government has stated its wish to lead a national debate about “the role and purpose of social housing, what it should be delivering for current and future tenants, and how it can contribute to wider policy objectives”.  The proposals we have set out in this paper are intended as an initial contribution to the debate.

1.2               Through the Housing Bill, GWSF would like to see much more explicit recognition of the role that social housing providers such as community-based housing associations (CBHAs) can play in developing safe, popular and sustainable neighbourhoods.

1.3               We also want to discuss, with national and local decision-makers, how local communities can play a bigger part within their neighbourhoods, acting through locally owned and resident controlled bodies such as CBHAs and development trusts. 

1.4               So this paper sets out ideas about how local communities can become more actively involved in the management of their neighbourhoods, by working in partnership with local authorities and others, or through an enhanced role in helping to manage the way services are delivered to local people.

2.           CBHAs and Regeneration

2.1               CBHAs have played a leading part in promoting community ownership of housing in Scotland for more than 30 years. 

2.2               We have shown that community ownership of assets can help achieve a wide range of benefits:

2.3               In the last decade, many Scottish housing associations have diversified beyond their core landlord role, to address the wider issues in their local communities.  This has been a particular priority for CBHAs. 

2.4               In comparison with other types of housing providers, CBHAs typically work in some of Scotland’s most disadvantaged communities.  As housing providers, we see at first hand and on a daily basis the effects of poverty, poor health, worklessness and other types of inequality on individuals and whole communities.  Because we are community-led and community-controlled organisations, we have a direct interest in wanting to address these issues.

3.           Community Regeneration and the Housing Bill

3.1               The contribution that CBHAs already make to community regeneration has been acknowledged in the recent Community Empowerment Action Plan, published jointly by the Scottish Government and COSLA. ^[1]   But community regeneration issues do not register as a priority for the present Scottish Housing Regulator, and the Housing Bill Consultation Paper does not identify this as an area for change.

3.2               The Community Empowerment Action Plan is clear that empowered and engaged communities will be a key factor in areas such as health and poverty, and in supporting people to become part of the social and economic mainstream.

3.3               Fresh thinking is needed on this part of the Housing Bill, because:

3.4               We would like future work on the Housing Bill to address this in two ways:

·        The outcomes set in the proposed Scottish Social Housing Charter should deal explicitly with issues relating to neighbourhood management, community empowerment and community regeneration;

·        The new Scottish Housing Regulator should address these outcomes, and place a positive value on them in its assessment methods.

3.5               In this regard, the statutory duties of the social housing regulator in England include a requirement for it to address the following fundamental objective:

3.6               We would like to see the new Scottish Housing Regulator having a similar statutory objective.  This would recognise that addressing these issues is not just incidental part of some housing organisations’ purpose, it is an integral part of what they do.

3.7               Policy-makers and regulators have recently been highly critical about the value provided by the social housing sector.[3]   So it is no surprise that the Housing Bill and Consultation Paper emphasise the importance of outcomes for tenants and of delivering value for tenants and the taxpayer. 

3.8               We do not disagree with these principles, but it is essential that the national debate should address outcomes and the measurement of value in much more meaningful ways.

3.9               Neither present methods for assessing value, nor those proposed in the Consultation Paper, address a wide range of outcomes that CBHAs are either directly responsible for, or to which we contribute through our work with local authorities and others.  For example:

3.10           Measuring impact and value in relation to these types of outcomes is undoubtedly challenging, but that is not a reason for ignoring them.

3.11           It is likely that some of these “bigger picture” outcomes would be better addressed through thematic studies or periodic evaluations rather than routine regulatory processes.   

3.12           The new Scottish Housing Regulator may not be best placed to make these types of assessments, given the range and complexity of issues involved.  In addition, assessments would need to consider the role of local authorities, community health partnerships and community planning partnerships, as well as service providers such as housing associations and voluntary organisations.

4.           Improving the Effectiveness of Regeneration and Neighbourhood Management at Local Level

4.1               The Scottish Government/COSLA Community Empowerment Action Plan provides welcome recognition of the value that “anchor” organisations such as CBHAs and development trusts can bring to community empowerment and regeneration.

4.2               The Action Plan is clear that empowered and engaged communities have a key part to play in tackling poor health and poverty, and in supporting people to become part of the social and economic mainstream. 

4.3               The Government and COSLA have said that they want to build on existing community empowerment schemes, structures and processes, rather than inventing new ones.  In this regard, the Action Plan recognises that community empowerment can take many different forms, for example through:

·        Community ownership of assets

·        Controlling budgets for the delivery of services at local level

·        Having a stake in shaping the services delivered by others

·       

Forty-eight Scottish towns will benefit from a share of millions of pounds of government cash to help revitalise their town centres and sustain jobs.

Nearly £40 million has been allocated in this round of funding out of the dedicated £60 million fund with applications invited for a £20 million second round to be shared out later this year.

It is estimated that the town centre projects will help support 640 jobs in Scotland.

Better retail, business, community and leisure facilities will be created, while many town centres will see public access and transport links improved. The funding will also kick start a number of town centre housing developments.

For a full list of who got what :

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/town-centres/tcrf/FirstTrancheAllocations

Author: David Ainsworth, Third Sector Online

The Welsh Assembly and Big Lottery have set up a £13m fund to help Welsh community groups acquire public buildings and develop them to suit their needs.
“There are many public assets in Wales that are not being used to their full potential, and empowering the community to use these buildings to suit their needs is the main aim of this initiative,” said Leighton Andrews, deputy minister for regeneration. “This is a win-win situation.”

He said the programme would regenerate disused buildings and provide new facilities for third sector organisations.

Funding to acquire the buildings will come from the Welsh Assembly Government, and the money to develop them will come from the BLF, which will also process the applications. Organisations will be able to apply for cash from mid-October

Author: Wendy Alexander, Labour MSP

Gerry Braiden’s analysis of Glasgow Housing Association rightly points to the complexities involved in assessing its performance (” GHA has taken on a life of its own … it must return to the original vision’ “, The Herald, August 4). Rising tenant satisfaction on the one hand, but slow progress in delivering local community ownership on the other.

There is little doubt GHA’s first chief executive saw his role as moving the homes into the local ownership of other organisations; some were pre-existing housing associations, others were new associations. What is the GHA board’s current vision? Is it still that or a continuation of a “DIY” approach by GHA itself to both investment and management?

The new investment programme was always timetabled to take a decade as rents increasingly funded repairs and improvements, not historic debt. But the ambition was for local community ownership and involvement to lead to rapid management improvements. An old damp house is made infinitely worse by anti-social neighbours, no cleaning of the close, faulty door-entry systems and tardy minor repairs.

GHA argues convincingly that it is better than what went before and so, by implication, its “DIY” approach is the right one. But it was not set up for this purpose. The vision was not one dominant landlord. By choosing to retain so much stock, one monopoly landlord has been traded for another. Sadly, in doing so, it has forfeited the goodwill of many and emboldened its enemies.

Financial circumstances past or present are not an adequate explanation for the emerging ownership pattern. GHA, despite its uniquely challenging stock, has benefited from complete historic debt write-off, a large asset base and more than 70% of its rental income coming from UK taxpayers through housing benefit.

GHA’s mission was to move the houses into local community ownership with a diversity of providers improving management and delivering sustainable investment which avoided mistakes of the past. With that mission largely unrealised, the GHA board appears to be attempting to fulfil a function for which it was not established: long-term, large-scale management and investment. Regulatory concerns were inevitable.

This was never a Treasury-inspired project. It was “made in Scotland”, championed by Donald Dewar, Calum McDonald (then Housing Minister) and, later, myself and others. Donald Dewar was impressed by the achievements of local housing associations in his constituency. The critical figure influencing him was a visionary civil servant, Peter McKinlay, who, as chief executive of Scottish Homes, had overseen the large-scale transfer of its stock to a range of local landlords. If Scottish Homes could move management to local organisations, so could Glasgow.

Critically, Scottish Homes had a leadership committed to moving management to local communities. Can the same be said in Glasgow today?

On financing, the Treasury’s hand was forced by its own previous public commitment in parliamentary answers to Birmingham to full debt write-off following transfer.

There was no case for denying Glasgow the same terms, even if the price tag was unusually high.

The issue now is the best way forward. Welcome new investment has been made possible, as have some important transfers. But “better than the past” is not enough. The board must be clear if it favours the decentralised vision at the outset – or wishes the DIY of recent years to continue.

The scale of Glasgow’s housing challenge means the Scottish Housing Minister should take an interest. I counsel Alex Neil against a partisan approach. Glasgow’s housing was, and is, too big a responsibility for point-scoring. Ten years ago, the weekly steering group I chaired had, at my insistence, known SNP supporters on it. Similarly, the original GHA leadership team seconded the brother of one SNP minister and the husband of another SNP minister, based on their housing expertise. The team was stronger for it.

Such non-partisanship is too rare these days. Ten years ago, it helped build a coalition that commanded tenant confidence. Significant improvements have been made. But management issues must also be addressed. Glasgow deserves better than leaving a tough task half done.

Author: Bob Hamilton

A Critique and Riposte – The Edinburgh Papers 2008
 
The Edinburgh papers under the general title “Reclaiming Social Purpose in Community Education” were written by members of staff from three University Departments with a vested interest in the education of Community Learning and Development workers formerly known as Community Education Workers
 
An electronic copy of the papers can be obtained by contacting either: mae.shaw@ed.ac.uk or david.wallace@strath.ac.uk

A full version of Bob Hamilton’s critique of these papers can be viewed here

Below is an edited version of Bob’s concluding comments……
As far as Community Education as an entity is concerned it is in my view, a spent force. That is if it ever was a potent force. A major problem has been the central contradiction of a ‘service’ tied into a power structure through the control exercised by the major employers and funded by the government. Its rhetoric has always been around a commitment to the community’s agenda and often within that to those who lack power. The result of this often conveniently ignored contradiction has been the inability to pursue the logic of a commitment to those with little power and few resources. This would almost certainly cause problems and is usually discouraged. Instead those with a vested interest in the preservation of the status quo have followed the conventional route of attempting to establish an elite group whose major task was to serve that status quo often in the name of democracy.
 
In simple terms they decided whose side they were on and you can be assured it wasn’t on the side of the communities that they claim a commitment to serve.
 
Too simple – yes it is too simple, unfortunately that fundamental decision to follow the well worn path of establishing a profession helped emaciate Community Work as a genuine educational force. There are of course other forces at work whose aims are inimical to initiatives that aimed at establishing a much wider involvement of people in the affairs which influence their lives.
Somewhere some people lost the plot and instead of nurturing the ability, integrity, commitment, experience and humanity of those who wished to get positively involved with people who for whatever reason were having a rough time.  They turned the whole thing into a charade where competition, elitism and the hunger for power became paramount. Thus creating room for the charade that is New Labour’s answer to involving the poor in their own affairs.
 
From the acceptance of the recommendation that “Entry to the career of community education worker should be limited to graduates” the Carnegie Report 1977. The battle to have integrity, talent and ability as benchmarks of a worker gave way to mediocrity as the standard. Fortunately some of those who possessed the original qualities still applied and were accepted but overall the focus changed and along with the change so did the quality. And certainly not for the better.
 
While there is no way of going back and that is just as well. I must admit that I am loath to think that Community Work will wither on some bureaucratic vine constructed by New Labour. Fortunately, whether the values of community work survive is not down to the current hegemony whose stewardship is to say the least questionable. If, however, the values underpinning Community work need to be nurtured the recipe spelt out in the Edinburgh Papers simply won’t do. It is rather ironic that the situation Community Education is in reminds me of New Labour. Change is desperately needed with no sign of anything happening. Why? Because what is being proposed is more of the same and in both cases the empire was built on sand and people can sense it. If the Edinburgh Papers do anything it may be to at least kick start a debate which could act with other developments as a catalyst for fundamental change. If not then the withering will come sooner rather than later. The real tragedy lies in the misuse of resources that could have encouraged people to get involved and instead effectively excluded them.
 
Bob Hamilton has worked in a variety of Community Work jobs over the past 40 years. During this time he has had responsibility for the delivery of a number of Certificate, Diploma and Degree programmes in Community Work and has contributed to other undergraduate and post graduate courses. As Head of the Youth and Community Department in Aberdeen College of Education, and working with local authorities in the North of Scotland, he was responsible for the development of a 3-year work based Community Work diploma. This was funded by the ‘first in Europe’ programme run by the European Social Fund. Subsequently, he was involved in it’s metamorphosis into a work based Degree programme based in the University of Glasgow. He is currently working as a Tutor and as a part time Development worker.
 
 

Robert Hamilton

Author: Herpreet Kaur Grewal, Regeneration & Renewal

The long-awaited Communitybuilders fund is intended to help third sector organisations gain long-term financial stability and move away from grant dependency.

Organisations will be able to apply for loans and grants and have access to expert support and mentoring services. Communitybuilders is specifically designed to strengthen the financial base of “community anchor organisations” such as development trusts. The fund will open for applications later this summer.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has picked ACF to lead the scheme in partnership with third sector fund Futurebuilders England and third sector consortium the Community Alliance.

ACF has also secured a commitment from Unity Trust Bank to provide up to £40 million match funding for the programme.

The Communitybuilders fund was first announced in July last year by then communities secretary Hazel Blears.

However, earlier this year the Conservative Party attacked the DCLG for the length of time it had taken to start the fund (R&R, 1 June, p6).

Third sector minister Angela Smith said the fund would support community organisations through the recession and help them to “emerge stronger”.

Author: SCVO

Introduction

A civil society roundtable, chaired by Dr. Alison Elliot, Convener of SCVO, was held in Edinburgh on 25th June 2009 to test the appetite for a shared response from civil society to the global crises: economic, environmental, of civil liberties and of poverty. Around 20 participants were selected as individuals from a wide range of civil society backgrounds to start a conversation from a civil society perspective on Scotland and the global crisis.  An initial paper drafted by Stephen Maxwell, SCVO, was used as the starting point for this discussion.  This paper aims to capture some of the key elements of this initial discussion.

Is there an appetite for a shared response? Yes

• There was an evident concern shared by the participants around the multiple crises affecting our economy, environment, politics and growing inequalities affecting both our own society and countries around the world.  We identified an appetite for harnessing that concern and several possible courses of action were proposed.
• There was agreement that the normative role of civil society, in offering alternative visions of the good society, had been neglected and could be recovered and developed.
• It was suggested that the principles of sustainable development, (in its fullest sense, which captures economic, social and environmental dimensions) alongside good governance and sound science, could underpin a shared response to these crises by civil society.  It provides a ready-made and considered framework.  More analysis of its potential in this respect would be useful.

Form vs. occasion

• The global crisis needs a response that goes beyond Scottish Parliament or UK Government and beyond the party political sphere.
• Should structure precede vision, such as a civil society forum e.g. a renewed Civic Forum or an Open Democracy style website?  Or should vision precede structure, such as shared cause to bring civil society together e.g. Make Poverty History, Stop Climate Chaos?
• A structure-based approach could be a forum or a website, but crucially involves people as individuals rather than as organisations and thereby avoids difficulties with representing organisational positions/remits. There is a danger however of all talk-no action or resorting to the lowest common denominator position.
• A vision-based approach would involve reacting to the global crisis on specific ventures such as climate or poverty, where the vision statement is formed before any structure is put in place.  The advantage here is that civil society itself is transient, of the moment and can make a big impact if its energies are focused over a short space of time.

Structure and vision

• The global crisis needs a response that goes beyond Scottish Parliament or UK Government and beyond party politics.
• Should structure precede vision, through the creation of a civil society forum e.g. a renewed Civic Forum or an Open Democracy style website?   Or should vision precede structure, as happens when a shared cause brings civil society together e.g. Make Poverty History, Stop Climate Chaos?
• A structure-based approach could be mediated by a forum or a website.  A crucial issue here is whether people come together as individuals or as representatives of organisations.  Acting as individuals allows for more creative thinking but also limits the potential for collective action.  Being bound by organisational remits creates the danger of resorting to the lowest common denominator position.
• A vision-based approach would involve reacting to the global crisis on specific ventures such as climate or poverty, where the vision statement is formed before any structure is put in place.  This capitalises on civil society’s capacity to be transient, of the moment and to make a big impact if its energies are focused over a short space of time.

Building a wider response to the crises

• There is a sense that civil society in Scotland, as in other parts of Western Europe, has fallen back from offering alternative visions of the ‘good society’. Significant parts of it now work more closely to the State and some are increasingly market-driven.
• Civil society at an institutional level can be economically and politically elitist.  Just as it is important to have more economic engagement of the wider public in order to democratise business, so civil society needs wider political engagement to reduce its dependency on elites.  Can civil society learn from mutualism here?
• What civil society organisations have in common is their associational nature where people come together to make a difference. The lifeblood of civil society therefore comes from its involvement of people from the grassroots of society. Yet attendance within faith communities has been falling, trade union membership has been in decline, co-operative movements such as credit unions are stronger in neighbouring countries, the Scottish Press has been in decline and there is a continuing effort to ensure the supply of new volunteers and trustees for voluntary organisations.  Is there a collective ambition for civil society at an institutional level to enthuse and build its constituencies to respond to the multiple crises we face?

Next steps

The roundtable was strong on energy, ideas and commitment but not on conclusions!  Some possible courses of action were identified which would require further consideration.

SCVO suggests holding a conference exploring all of these issues and taking the discussion to a wider civil society audience to test the appetite for a shared response to the crises. Would colleagues be willing to be involved in setting the agenda for such an event?

Issues to be covered could include:

• How can civil society in Scotland be mobilised round a specific issue?
• What kind of forum is needed to foster opinion forming at a civil society level?
• How do we connect the economic and political energies of the wider public to the issues and challenges society faces?
• Others…..? 

Over recent years the English Govt. has introduced both legislation and policy with the intention that the transfer of publicly owned assets to communities should become mainstream rather then exceptional as it is in Scotland. Two new studies evaluate the pros and cons – A UK report commissioned by Rowntree and a Scottish one commissioned by our Lottery.

Asset ownership may not be vital
Big Lottery Fund Scotland

Background
Project: Growing Community Assets.
Period of evaluation: November 2007 to March 2009.
Evaluating organisation: SQW Consulting.
Evaluation commissioned by: The Big Lottery Fund. Aims and outline of project: The programme was developed by good causes distributor the Big Lottery Fund to enable communities in Scotland to gain more control over their future by owning and developing their own assets. Community groups can apply for funding of £10,000 to £1 million. The programme started in May 2006 and the last grants are due to be awarded in March 2010

Key Lessons
The key lesson to be drawn from the evaluation of Growing Community Assets is that a community group may not need to own an asset to be able to use it to its advantage. Some of the projects funded by the programme decided against buying an asset, while some bought assets only because they had to act short notice and there was no alternative.

One of the projects that chose not to buy its asset was Balgonie Bleachfield in Fife. This project was concerned with turning a former landfill site into a public park and wildlife habitat. Balgonie Bleachfield chose not to buy the land because the group risked becoming liable for the cost of remedial works to remove pollutants from the former landfill if it owned it.

The evaluation also concluded that projects such as Balgonie Bleachfiles showed that ownership of assets was not a crucial factor in ensuring desired outcomes such as an increase in community confidence. The report says this has been demonstrated by other similar schemes that had been funded under a previous Big Lottery Fund programme. In such instances, community ownership was achieved in a metaphorical, rather than financial, sense.

The report adds that projects applying to the programme found its approvals process much slower than that for other funding streams, with the resultant risk that any additional funding that was dependent on getting match funding by a certain time could be lost before a decision was made on bids for Growing Community Assets cash.

Another lesson to be learned is that bidding for funding as a consortium tends to work less well than bids from individual bodies as, with more links in the chain, it takes a long time for information to filter up and down. Consequently, projects involving consortiums experienced long delays before they heard whether their bid was successful.

Evaluation of Growing Community Assets: First Year Baseline Report is available via www.regen.net/doc

Community Assets: What is the Future
Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Community assets go back some 400 years and they sound like a good idea. But there is a downside to the community owning and managing assets. The authors look at the challenges that community ownership of assets bring to the organizations charged with the job of managing them. They suggest a way forward to securing the benefits of community assets for the community. There has been a high degree of policy interest in community ownership and management of assets such as buildings and land in recent years, and a significant amount of community activity has taken place to justify this interest. It has been less clear how much was known about the issue, particularly from independent evaluations and research. This study reviewed the evidence base to identify gaps in existing knowledge. It was undertaken by analysing a wide range of documents from policy, research and community organisation sources and through discussions with practitioners in the field.

Policy interest and initiatives

Since 2002 there has been an acceleration across the UK in government policy initiatives, particularly in England, which have encouraged community organisations to own and/or manage assets. By 2007 the Quirk Review of community management and ownership of public assets had signalled that the transfer of public assets to community-based organisations should become a mainstream rather than an exceptional activity. The 2006 Local Government White Paper, the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act and the 2008 Community Empowerment White Paper are just three recent examples of legislation and policy in this arena. These, alongside dedicated funding programmes (including the Adventure Capital Fund, Futurebuilders and Community Assets Fund), have given a prominent role to community asset ownership.

There are some differences in the policy frameworks between the four countries of the UK. In Scotland, the 2003 Land Reform Act gave communities the right to buy land and buildings in certain circumstances. The Welsh Assembly’s 2005 Social Enterprise Strategy set specific targets for contracts, asset transfer and asset refurbishment for social enterprises. In Northern Ireland, the 2007 Community Support Programme was targeted at community centres and other facilities to underpin economic and social development. Despite these initiatives, the assets agenda has been developed most proactively in England.

History

The idea that communities might own or manage physical assets goes back at least 400 years in the UK. The Diggers in the 17th century aimed to take on under-used land for the common good. Early charitable organisations owned land and buildings (for example, almshouses) to support poor people. The collective ownership of assets also had roots in the co-operative and mutual tradition of shared ownership by members. Settlements and social action centres, community centres and village halls have frequently managed a building as part of delivering their service.

From the 1970s a new community economic development movement arose that used assets as a way of meeting social and income-generating goals. It included co-operative housing, development trusts and other local community-run facilities. City farms, community gardens, village halls and community land trusts are also an important part of the contemporary shared-ownership sector.

Scale and type of community-owned assets

The scale of asset ownership by community organisations is not clear. Research by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) calculates that charities in England owned assets (defined as land, buildings, shares and investments) of over £86.1 billion in 2005/6, with just four charities holding 20 per cent of the entire amount. Three-quarters of assets held by the largest charities were in the form of investments rather than tangibles such as land and buildings. The Development Trusts Association (DTA) is a network of practitioner organisations engaged in ownership of buildings and land with the aim of bringing about long-term benefits to communities. Its mapping exercise suggests that DTA members held £436 million of assets in mid-2007.

There is limited evidence concerning the scale and type of community ownership of assets. There is no consensus on what an asset is or which organisations can be included as ‘community-based’.

Benefits

The potential benefits of asset management and ownership are clearly spelled out by practitioners, although they focus mainly on the advantages gained by organisations. There is less evidence on benefits accruing to communities.

Policy initiatives have often implied there are benefits that may occur as a result of transferring the ownership or management of assets to community organisations. Where benefits have been described, they include improved public services, increased local employment, restoration of unused buildings, organisational and financial sustainability and greater independence for community organisations. At times the empowerment of a local community has been cited as a possible outcome.

There has, however, been little independent evaluation of benefits. Such work as there is has suggested, cautiously, that organisational benefits might include increase in turnover, capital assets and financial reserves. There is also a lack of research that shows the combinations of factors that may lead to good results – either in the technical aspects of asset management or in improved outcomes for local people.

Risks and difficulties

Very little information has been published on the risks and difficulties associated with community ownership or management of assets. The available evidence highlights concerns about the liabilities of asset management. In some locations there can be an imposition of rules by local authorities that effectively prevent community organisations benefiting from revenue streams they derive from an asset, and the dilapidated condition of some assets. In addition, community organisations may be drawn away from their main work and become preoccupied with the technical and regulatory burden of asset management.

There may be a lack of technical aid available from other organisations and expert advisors to provide support. Some organisations, including rural or black and minority ethnic groups in particular, may be too small to experience benefits.

Evidence from practitioner organisations

The largest volume of evidence on asset ownership and management comes from practitioner organisations. The DTA, which has had a consistent and specialist focus in this area for over 20 years, sees asset ownership as a means to achieve long-term social, economic and environmental improvements. Other accounts give more emphasis to the role of assets as just one form of engagement with communities or point out the high cost of maintaining buildings, which may detract from delivering services or organising activities. Elsewhere it has been felt that the extent and type of asset ownership in rural areas has been overlooked. In Scotland and Wales there is a particular focus on community assets connected to renewable energy, sometimes in conjunction with social inclusion activity, involving people from across the local community.

International perspectives

Asset ownership and management is not just a UK phenomenon. However, it is conceived and practised in different ways in other countries. The difference between community and public ownership is not seen as so distinctive in Poland as it is in the UK. In Sweden, the local state and community organisations co-determine policy and implementation to a higher degree so the ability to use, rather than to own, an asset is more important. The tradition of collective common land in Italy – private properties that are managed by a community for the benefit of all – presents a different kind of stewardship of community assets. In the USA, legislative mechanisms ensure that commercial and financial institutions engage with community organisations both as partners in local developments and as funders. In addition, there are a wide variety of support organisations that offer technical assistance. Meanwhile some indigenous groups around the world associate the notion of assets – such as land or fishing – beyond ownership to
a rights-based agenda concerned with self-determination.

Conclusion

The authors conclude that the available information and data (the evidence base) on community ownership and management of assets should be improved in order to help shape and guide future policy and practice. The focus should be on an inquiry into the wider importance of assets for rebuilding society; learning from the experience already gained in asset ownership and management; identifying the needs of existing practitioners; and examining the benefits for communities.

Proposals for building the evidence base

The following recommendations will address gaps in existing information and help to build a strong evidence base:

• a multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder inquiry to examine how asset ownership and management relates to the wider issues of rebuilding societies in the four countries of the UK and internationally.

• research into study areas identified by the authors:

– Learning the lessons of asset development. Capturing the retrospective experience of practitioners, organisations and communities of asset management and ownership would help new entrants.

– Identifying the key variables associated with the organisation of asset ownership and management to achieve good outcomes. Testing and refining the assumptions underpinning asset development would assist practitioners and policy-makers.

– Developing an effective supportive infrastructure for asset ownership and management. Finding out what kind of organisational infrastructure needs to be developed to support communities in areas where it is weak or absent would support existing initiatives and new entrants.

– Examining the benefits of asset ownership and management for communities. An examination of benefits accruing to communities would offer evidence to policy-makers and support practitioners engaged in existing and future asset transfer initiatives.

– Knowledge sharing. Data and evidence collected through this and other studies should be made easily and openly available to practitioners, academics and policy-makers in one location, probably online.

About the project

Evidence was examined from a wide variety of sources in the four UK countries, including policy documents, accounts from community organisations, evaluation reports and academic commentaries. Over 200 UK documents were studied and analysed, a selection of key practitioners were contacted directly and the review was informed by discussions at three stakeholder forums organised by Renaissance Consultancy. In addition, a small sample of evidence was collected from documents and informants in mainland Europe (Poland, Sweden, Germany and Italy) and the USA. The review was carried out between April and July 2008 and was led by Mike Aiken and Ben Cairns (Institute for Voluntary Action Research, London) and Stephen Thake (London Metropolitan University).

For further information

The full report, Community ownership and management of assets by Mike Aiken, Ben Cairns and Stephen Thake, is published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and available as a free download.

Author: Andy Wightman

Community Land Rights is the first comprehensive overview of land rights that belong to communities in Scotland. It focuses on the range of common land that exists throughout rural and urban Scotland and provides a how-to guide to undertaking research into common good land, commonties, commons and other forms of commonly held land.

The Guide explains how to use sources such as the Register of Sasines, Land Valuation Survey 1909 and the National Farm Survey to identify community land rights as the first stage in a process of asserting and restoring rights that belong to the people.

Read more here and buy the book http://www.andywightman.com/shop.htm