Author: Judy Wilkinson

Comment on growth of Conferences as big business

I feel that there is a gap opening up between the professionals who can afford to go to the increasing number of expensive seminars and conferences that are now on offer like and community groups or small organisations like mine who simply cannot afford these fees.

Can LPL help local organisations have more accessible conferences?. I realise that everyone needs to generate income so probably have to charge for their conferences but on the other hand the local community groups and planners, community workers etc need a common ground to meet and engage views. It may be this can be done through bursaries and other support mechanisms.

A possible community model is our Annual Scottish Allotments Conference in Dunblane each year. This is completely free with a request for a £5 donation for lunch. Admittedly the Hall (with three break-out spaces) is a community resource and very inexpensive. We send out all information via email apart from to those who request snail mail. We only offer expenses to our speakers if they come from outwith Scotland – Richard Wiltshire the English allotments guru came last year and we paid for his travel but put him up in a committee members house. We usually have two MSPs (chairing morning and afternoon sessions), and really good speakers including government officers, local authority officers, SNH and environmental organisations representatives all of whom give their time and input as part of their responsibility to the community. Our members run the rest of the proceedings with a session to update us on latest developments across Scotland and a variety of workshops. In this way we spread information across our membership, inform other interested bodies and enable professionals to meet the grass roots.

It works well and is most enjoyable.

Judy Wilkinson
Committee member Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society

Author: Ian Alexander, Newstart Magazine

Government considers delegating authority to make Social Fund loans

Credit unions and other third sector organisations might be empowered to issue loans on behalf of the government’s much-maligned Social Fund under proposals announced this week.

The fund, which provides more than £770m-worth of loans and grants to benefit claimants, is set to be over- hauled so that advice on budgeting and saving could also be provided to tackle underlying financial issues.

A government consultation paper also pledges to look at how community care grants could have a greater focus on vulnerable people and proposes a single loan system to replace crisis and budgeting loans.

The minister responsible for the Social Fund, Kitty Ussher, said: ‘What has struck me is in some parts of the country there is fantastic expertise and enthusiasm from a variety of external organisations -including, but not limited to, charities, debt advice and credit unions -that we could, in theory, work with to make our service even better, making affordable credit available to more people and providing greater financial advice and support in difficult economic times.’

Around three million claimants benefit from the one-off Social Fund payments, which help steer vulnerable people away from loan sharks.

But the performance of the fund, currently administered by Jobcentre Plus, was heavily criticised last year by the work and pensions commit- tee, which said it was ‘letting down’ the poorest in society and claimed attempts to centralise the system had failed (New Start, 23 May 2007).
`
Moves to contract out the provision of Social Fund loans and financial advice to private sector firms and the voluntary sector were rejected in a feasibility study earlier this year due to the economic climate.

Mark Lyonette, chief executive of the Association of British Credit Unions, said: ‘With proposed new legislation which will allow credit unions to expand to more areas of the country and enable more people to access their services, we would be happy to work with the government to explore the possibilities of delivering this service; something which would be far more accessible if credit union services were to be made avail- able through the post office network.’

The proposed changes could be in place from 2010.

Consultation responses should be sent tosocial.fund@dwp.gsi.gov.uk by 23 December.

The Social Fund: a new approach, www.dwp.gov.uklconsultations/2008Isocial-fund -new-approach.asp

Author: Gerry Bariden, The Herald

City tenants in five areas vote to ditch GHA and go it alone

Tenants in five areas of Glasgow have voted overwhelmingly to break away from the country’s biggest social landlord and run their own housing associations.

A total of 2100 properties will leave Glasgow Housing Association (GHA) and fall under the ownership of smaller locally controlled housing organisations under the process known as second stage transfer (SST).

The move was welcomed by Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell, who described it as “great news for tenants” but called for further movement on SST, which has become a major political issue.

Senior sources in the housing sector said the move was “the first significant step in the dismantling of a monolithic landlord” .

Ardenglen and Castle Stuart on the south side of Glasgow voted 89.2% and 93.7% in favour of going alone, Shettleston and Crossview, both in the east end, voted 95.2% and 86.6% in favour, while the Glasgow West Housing Association had 83.8% supporting leaving the GHA umbrella.

Turnout ranged from 50.6% to 76.9% during the secret ballot which began in November and ran for three weeks.

Scottish ministers will now be asked to give their consent and the houses could transfer as early as March 2009.

A further 31 local housing organisations which currently manage 21,000 houses on behalf of GHA are still progressing through the various stages of the SST process.

Mr Maxwell said: “At long last the tenants of Glasgow Housing Association have been given their chance to have a say on second stage transfer.

Chris Cunningham, of Shettleston Housing Association, said: “This is a huge vote of confidence in community-based associations and we look forward to many more transfers.”

Rum set to choose own future

The New Year may at last bring community ownership to the Isle of Rum.

Environment Minister Michael Russell announced that the Scottish Government was ready to transfer land and assets worth around £250,000 to the community from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) along with responsibility for the development of these assets.

The transfer of the community hall, village shop and tearoom, campsite and surrounding land will take place after February 2009 providing there is a positive vote from the community. The ballot will be held in early January and the transfer will allow the trust to develop visitor accommodation and designate land for crofting.

Speaking during a meeting of the Isle of Rum Task Group in Arisaig, Mr Russell said:

“In June this year, I announced that the principle of a transfer of land and assets to the Isle of Rum Community Trust had been agreed.

“I am delighted today to announce further progress towards realising the goal of establishing a viable community with a thriving local economy.

“The planned transfer of land and property in Kinloch Village and Glen will provide a platform for development of a thriving and sustainable community. It will create opportunities for local enterprise while improving the facilities and services available to visitors to the island.

“I should like to take this opportunity to commend the Task Group and the Trust for the progress that they have made over this past year.

“The support and commitment of SNH has been significant in helping to move the process forward, as has Lesley Riddoch’s contribution as Chair of the Task Group. I am pleased that she has agreed to continue to support the community as we more towards the first phase of land and property transfer.

“Much has been achieved in the last year, but there is much still to be done to conclude the final arrangements and to build towards the transfer of other assets to community management in the future.”

Andrew Thin, Chairman of SNH said:

“I am delighted we have got to the stage where we are almost ready to transfer land to the Community Trust. So many people have put in so much time and effort into this process and I believe we have the right solution at the right time.

“This is a key step in the establishment of an independent community and economy for the island and we look forward to working closely with the Trust on its future plans.

“This will also allow SNH to get on with the business of managing the island’s outstanding natural heritage and working with the community to enhance the visitor experience.”

Rum has been owned and managed by the Government conservation agencies since 1957. It passed from the Nature Conservancy Council to SNH in 1992.

The Rum Summit, convened by Michael Russell on December 3, 2007, brought the island’s community and the key Government agencies together to discuss the economic, social and environmental potential of the island with the principal objective of developing a joint approach to realising the full benefit of the isle’s resources.

The summit led to the formation of a task group which aimed to identify and facilitate actions in support of the development of a dynamic community on Rum which is not solely dependent on SNH. The task group reported to the Minister on progress in June. Today’s meeting will hear progress reports from the task group.

Achievements on the island over the past year include:

• Investment of £500,000 by SNH to improve the water supply and initiate a feasibility study to improve the electricity supply. These are essential pre-requisites for further development on the island.

• Formal establishment of the Isle of Rum Community Trust as the future custodian of community interests on the island.

• Recruitment of a development manager to work with the community and task group partners to take forward planning for community development on Rum.

• Endorsement for the Village Development Plan.

• Creation of three crofts in Kinloch Village with the potential for creating a further two.

• Devising a clear plan of the future housing needs of the community encompassing the self-build of 20 house plots, potential renovation projects and affordable housing.

The land and property identified for the first phase of the transfer by February 2009 is: the community hall, village shop and tea room site, campsite, boathouse, potential hostel development site, land for the construction of holiday accommodation, the designated croft land and other miscellaneous land not proposed for agricultural use.

The community are to be balloted on the proposal that the whole package of assets is transferred to the Trust in a phased manner. The ballot is expected to take place in January 2009.

IT is a small but thriving community, with a primary school attended by about 50 children, a parish church which was extended and refurbished in 2005 and an award-winning community hall that was rebuilt in 2003.

The Village Hall at Finzean, on Royal Deeside, was originally a gift to the community from the Farquharsons of Finzean as a memorial for the fallen in the First World War.

The original timber building constructed in 1922 fell into disrepair and was on its last legs when the local community decided to try to resurrect it.

It started as a millennium project and, although considered too small by the commissioners, it subsequently succeeded in winning a lottery grant.

An award-winning design by local architect Mike Rasmussen has trebled the size of the building to provide multiple-use spaces combining traditional materials and modern technology. Locals raised around GBP300,000 to transform the hall.

As a local institution it has fared better than most, according the first comprehensive survey of village halls.

Its findings reveal two thirds of Scotland’s village halls, once the mainstays of rural community life, are more than half a century old and not fit for purpose.

According to Kevin Strachan, the chairman of the community association which runs the Finzean hall, it truly is the beating heart of the community.

“We are out in the sticks and it is the centre of everything, ” he said. “The underfives, the badminton club, the dancing class and the old folks all use it. It is used by more than 20 groups on a regular basis. It is the hub of this village life.

“If there is anything going on here nine times out of 10 it involves the hall and takes in everyone from five to 95.

“We do well for a small hall and if we ever have a deficit it is minimal and probably because we have done work in the hall.”

He said the hall attracts several weddings a year not least because it nestles in the beautiful countryside often featured in the landscapes of the acclaimed artist Joseph Farquharson, “the painting laird of Finzean”.

“We are charging about GBP350 for a wedding, which is very cheap compared to other venues. People are coming from all over for weddings and we have all sorts of other functions, like golden and silver weddings and birthday parties.”

The survey to be published today shows that 80-per cent of rural community facilities (RCFs) are community owned, and one suggestion is that they could become the focus for providing better health facilities.

The report says many villagers have found imaginative ways to approach the considerable challenges they are facing.

It suggests further consideration should be given on how to successfully share experiences and advice in relation to the facilities’ physical condition and maintenance; provide assistance, guidance and templates for administrative and regulatory responsibilities; share experiences of how management committees could be encouraged to build on their existing catchments through more diverse service delivery for health, education or governance; and share good practice on better engagement with the wider community.

“It may be worthwhile considering whether there could or should be greater partnership between public sector service providers and rural community facilities, ” the reports says.

“As well as understanding local needs, committees need to be aware of their proximity to other service venues and providers that could complement or compete with them, and the implications this has for business planning and their longer-term sustainability.”

The findings suggest that RCF committees might benefit from improved and readily available support of a consistent standard, particularly in relation to energy conservation and renewables, legislation and regulatory responsibilities, business and budget planning, and the evaluation of their potential to be multiservice outlets.

Author: CREATE Consortium

Community Allowance was in the Welfare Reform White Paper.

The DWP has “agreed that CREATE can pilot Community Allowance within the existing Employment and Support Allowance system”. It goes on to say, “If pilots show that Community Allowance improves the Employment and Support Allowance customers’ chances of moving into work and off benefit, we will consider introducing it on a larger scale.”

We are still going ahead with our Right to Bid application to pilot the Community Allowance for people in receipt of any benefit, but we wanted to share this positive, significant step forward with you and to take this opportunity to thank you for all your support.

Author: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Community ownership and management of assets

Community organisations have owned or managed assets, including buildings and land, for many years. Current government policy encourages the transfer of assets to community organisations. This study reviewed existing evidence to explore the scale of community ownership in the UK, the benefits and outcomes that arise from it, and differing international approaches.

The research

By Mike Aiken and Ben Cairns, Institute for Voluntary Action Research, London, and Stephen Thake, London Metropolitan University.

Key points:

• Since 2002 there has been heightened policy interest in community ownership and management of assets across the UK.

• The tradition of UK community organisations’ involvement in assets dates back over 400 years to early charities, social movements and mutual
organisations (including co-operative housing).

• Contemporary organisations owning or managing assets include development trusts, community centres, settlements and social action centres, village halls, city farms, housing co-operatives and community land trusts. The scale of community ownership of land and buildings across the UK is unclear.

• The suggested benefits include financial sustainability for community organisations, support for better public services and an empowered community.

• Some ‘assets’ can be liabilities and ownership may distract from the original mission of the organisation. Smaller organisations may face barriers to acquisition.

• Community control of assets is conceived differently in Europe, the USA and elsewhere. For example, in Sweden the focus is on use rather than ownership of assets.

• The authors conclude that existing information/data (the evidence base) should be improved through an inquiry into the importance of assets for rebuilding society and research that both captures the knowledge gained from experience and examines the benefits for communities.

Introduction

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.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/details.asp?pubid=1042

Author: LPL

The Moderator of the Church of Scotland last night urged parishioners across the country to lobby their MSPs about a ground breaking green Church initiative.

Right Reverend David Lunan called for action ahead of the Scottish Parliament’s debate on Eco-Congregations which will take place on 17 December.

Details of the motion, put down by Labour MSP Des McNulty, were revealed at yesterday’s event in Edinburgh, celebrating a major milestone for the scheme.

At a packed ceremony in the Scottish Storytelling Centre, Strathfillan Church in Argyll was unveiled as the 200th member of the Eco-Congregation network in Scotland.

The Moderator praised the group’s success, and asked parishioners across Scotland to raise awareness of the Eco-Congregation movement in Parliament and beyond. “I would like to ask all congregations to write to their MSPs, both constituency and regional MSPs, to let them know about their efforts through the Eco–Congregation network” he said.

“Our excessive consumption is having an increasingly adverse effect on the poorest people of the world and we must begin to think now about how we respond to this challenge and what actions must be taken.

“I congratulate the people of Strathfillan, and hope that many other Churches across Scotland take inspiration from their success.”

The Green Party’s Patrick Harvie gave a short speech, and also presented a special certificate to the minister at Strathfillan, the Reverend Liz Gibson.

The Green MSP enthused about the grassroots scheme across Scotland: “It’s fantastic to see churches taking action on environmental issues through Eco-Congregations, both by making practical changes in the church and by encouraging local community involvement and awareness.

“In order to beat climate change we need all hands on deck – it may be a global problem, but it is also the great moral issue of the day, and local communities must be central to the solution.”

Reverend Liz Gibson agreed with his sentiments: “Sustainability is a big issue for us, and we are looking forward to working with a variety of local groups, including the community trust and the primary school.

“The congregation has already come up with a number of suggestions, including a compostable toilet, and we will investigate these possibilities further.

“We are delighted to become the 200th Eco-Congregation in Scotland.”

Author: The Fabian Society

The importance of developing an active and vibrant democracy is self evident. We believe that offering a voice to those seeking change, wishing to develop community solutions to meet needs, as well as regenerating neighbourhoods, should be heeded and supported. Proposals for ‘empowerment’ are therefore welcomed, but voluntary community and charitable approaches should seek to be more than simply an alternative methodology for delivering services. It is important that they are seen as partners in developing new approaches, creative and responsive solutions, and a restoration of the glue which holds society together.

In simple terms, they should encourage people to both campaign for, but equally to be active in bringing about change; contributing to a climate in which government itself can act and engage recipients of services in speaking out and in tailoring the services to their needs.

In this way, a functioning civil society can both underpin the role of enabling government and change the relationship between formal politics and informal action, thus restoring confidence in both participative as well as representative political processes.

Labour recognises the role that Third Sector organisations can play in achieving social change and building stronger, fairer communities. The continuing drive to create a fairer society lies at the heart of Labour’s values – a society in which poverty is eliminated, communities can thrive, and individuals are able to use their talents to best effect.

A number of organisations have already discussed the values which those working in the Third Sector should see as core to their activity. We believe such values which we seek to espouse and to reinforce through government action include:

• Independence: Embodying people’s right to associate and organise to help themselves and others, independently of the state.

• Social justice: Making a difference and promoting lasting social, environmental and economic change, for example through different ways of doing business; campaigning; and giving people a voice in the community and in the workplace.

• Valuing people: Valuing volunteers and the paid workforce by striving towards best practice terms and conditions, good HR and training and development.

• Diversity, dignity and respect: Recognising and celebrating diversity and viewing this as a strength, both in relation to society and to the sector; promoting social inclusion and equality of opportunity by reaching out to and engaging with the most disadvantaged and excluded communities.

• Participation and empowerment: Enabling people to participate in their community and places of work; give their time and money to causes they care about; have a greater say in the decisions that affect their lives, collectively and individually; and greater control over their local economy.

• Collective wealth creation and social entrepreneurship: Using surpluses to further social objectives; investing in human and social capital.

• Responsiveness: Providing quality goods and services (including support and advocacy) in response to people’s needs.

• Sustainability: Working towards sustainable economic and community development, for example through economic regeneration; developing people’s skills and capacities; and building social capital within and between communities.

Full document here http://fabians.org.uk/images/stories/mutual_action_common_purpose_freethinking.pdf

Author: LPL

EDINBURGH MAY have retained its World Heritage status, following the visit of two Unesco inspectors last week to assess whether the city was still worthy of the title. Their trip came in the light of a number of planned new developments – including Caltongate, Leith Docks and Haymarket- and has led to soul-searching about the future direction of our capital city. Debate has raged over whether World Heritage status is desirable, or if it is a hindrance to development. Meanwhile, it has become clear that there is an intensity of feeling around the way the city is changing, often expressed most vocally by the people who live in those areas. Is this a rash of Edinburgh nimbyism? Or is it, in fact, the case that it is those who live in a place who care about it most; that they are the ones who are most likely to notice and object to any unwanted arrival in their backyard? Three development protesters present their case.

Caltongate: Sally Richardson points to a bag of plastic rubbish assembled for the recycling bins. “Sometimes, I wonder why I do this. We’re telling our children to recycle, and yet they’ve got to see listed buildings in their neighbourhood be knocked down.”

She is referring to a series of buildings on the Royal Mile, including the C-listed Sailor’s Ark and the Canongate Venture school, which are due to be demolished to make way for a development of offices, leisure facilities and a hotel, known as Caltongate.

Richardson points out a non-listed tenement, designed by EJ MacRae, whose windows are dark and lifeless. “They’re being let to go to wrack and ruin. How many tenancies are empty in there, and how many people are on the waiting list in Edinburgh? You could wash those windows and paint them and that building would look as good as the day that it was built 70 years ago.”

For the past four years, Richardson has devoted around 15 hours a week to the Save Our Old Town campaign. She had not been looking for a cause like this, when, in 2004, she joined the local community council, hoping to find something to keep her brain ticking over while looking after two children.

Nor did she have any idea how all-consuming it would become, when, while hanging washing, she mentioned the development to neighbour and town planner, Julie Logan, saying, “We really need somebody to look at this plan. I think it’s going to be enormous, and it’s for the Canongate.”

The next four years would see her transform into an Erin Brockovich of town planning. Save Our Old Town would launch petitions, come up with slogans such as “Old Town, Not Clone Town” and even manage to rile a councillor enough to stick a single finger up at them. Their campaigning has prompted others to look into the methods of Mountgrange, the developer, leading to the revelation that the company had donated £4000 to the Scottish Labour Party for a champagne reception.

Save Our Old Town has been, over the years, a predominantly female-driven campaign. “Maybe that’s got something to do with this area,” says Richardson. “In the past, women here campaigned and made banners to save their wash-houses.” She believes that for all our local and national governments’ talk about promoting community engagement, it’s the last thing they want: “I’m just considered to be a troublemaker.” For her, the “ugly gap site in the heart of the city” described by Jenny Dawe, city council leader, is a once active neighbourhood that has been allowed to slide.

She is a believer in the principles of Patrick Geddes, the 19th-century developer of Edinburgh’s Old Town, who advocated that by changing spatial form it was possible to change social structure.

In some ways, the Save Our Old Town campaign has failed. The Caltongate development has now been given the green light by both the city council, in August, and, in September, the Scottish government, who rejected pleas for a public inquiry.

For Richardson, however, the process has not been entirely in vain. “I think what we’ve done is delayed it, and now it may be market forces that will decide its ultimate fate.”

Leith Docks: When Shaeron Averbuch and Ross McEwan held a public meeting of the organisation JUMP (“Joined Up Master Planning”) in April, they advertised it with flyers carrying images of fleas. Their point was that “enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable”.

The dogs they were planning to make itch were Edinburgh City Council and Forth Ports, whose master plan, prepared by RMJM architects, was set to transform the Leith Docks area, creating nine urban villages within it and 22,000 new homes along the Edinburgh Waterfront. Some 120 people turned up to that meeting.

Averbuch and McEwan point out, this figure, along with all the names that signed their petition against the development is equivalent to the around 700 members of the public that Forth Ports initially consulted.

Averbuch recalls that when she first moved to a flat on Dock Place in Leith in 1995, “you used to be able to cycle through a lot of it, but you really haven’t got a chance of doing that now”. Ten years later, she noticed how the green spaces were disappearing. At the time, the outline of the Forth Ports plan was first proposed, she and McEwan, who declares himself an “urbanist”, and who worked on master planning social housing in London, had formed a design studio, Art in Architecture. Something they cared about was happening on their turf and they wanted to act.

This kind of development, is, they point out, the equivalent of the creation of a new town. “It’s the same size as Glenrothes or Cumbernauld,” says McEwan. “The difference is that those towns were created by a development corporation. Here we have one land owner following a model that is all about land value.” It is because the plan is on this scale, the pair believe that “this should have been an open international competition for master-planning”.

Both are advocates of modern architecture, yet feel that this is not the kind of design that looks to the long term. “There’s no intellectual rigor to it,” says McEwan, “no concept about how people are going to live for the next 50-100 years.” JUMP has issued its own principles, around which the group believes believe any future development should revolve. They include no (or reduced) cars, plenty of green space, an emphasis on social enterprise.

Averbuch and McEwan are in accord with many of the views of Prince Charles, and cite examples from The Passionate Prince, broadcast on Wednesday night. “We like how Prince Charles’s Poundbury is sustainable and looks to the community. This whole holistic approach seems to have gone out of the window with what’s happening in Edinburgh.”

Their attempts to galvanise the community have not always worked. Few of their fleas have bitten. One problem, McEwan believes, is that “local people don’t think it’s their business, because, as yet, it’s not affecting them. Until the lorries start running down the streets, they won’t worry about it.”

Its this knowledge of the often “all too late” nature of public protest which drives them. “It means we have to work harder for local people’s benefit,” says McEwan, “for that moment in the future when they might become interested, but by then it will be too late.”

Haymarket: Iconic gateway is a phrase I’m sick of hearing,” says engineer Maria Kelly . “I think, we pay our taxes, we’re entitled to our opinions. Many of us are going to be walking past these things. I don’t want to walk past that horror that they’re planning.”

The “horror” she is describing is the planned architectural “super hub”, including a 17-storey hotel, Richard Murphy-designed, known as the Haymarket Gateway, which, last Thursday, the Scottish government announced is now going to be put to a public inquiry.

The news of this was, for Kelly, a “huge relief”. As head of the Dalry Colonies Residents Association, she has spent many evenings over the past two years negotiating with developers and pestering councillors in a bid to alter the course of the development that is set to overlook their homes. “We look forward to contributing to the inquiry,” she says, “which will hopefully result in a development which reaches economic goals as well as contributing to Edinburgh’s wonderful architecture.”

The Dalry Colonies Residents Association is a small but vocal force. When Kelly, originally from Wales, moved into the area, she noted how, because of the way the paths along gardens are shared, everyone knew each other very well.

In the tightly packed buildings there were many long-term residents, pensioners who had been there more than 40 years, and this enhanced the impression that this was a proper community.

It also meant that, as Kelly describes, “we can organise ourselves reasonably well”.

This they have done. The fight has, she says been “non-stop” since she took over the chair.

Among their concerns was the 17-storey height of the main hotel, the disappearance of public toilets and the fact that one of the hotels, which ran close alongside would have bedroom windows looking down on their homes. Kelly recalls starting the consulting process feeling positive. Recently, however, she felt more jaded. It seemed that many of their points were disregarded.

Meanwhile, the architectural plans would suddenly be unexpectedly altered. “When they first consulted with us the hotel was only 12 storeys, and it suddenly became 16 storeys, then 17. That automatically makes you quite distrustful.”

For her it is not change itself that she objects to. “It just seems to me,” she says, “that this solution is an economic solution.

“It’s not that I object to the area changing. It’s just, why does it have to change in the way an architect wants it to look when everybody lives in a city? “