Author: LPL

A long-awaited report into the capital’s Common Good assets fund found that the city council pocketed thousands of pounds meant for the people.

The report by officials to go before councillors at the end of the month came after an expert in common good assets – properties historically owned by the taxpayer and managed by local authority custodians – claimed around £20m worth of such land had been mishandled.

The investigation fund that £70,000 from the sale of such property at Granton Road, between 1996 and 2003, was paid into the housing revenue account rather that the common good fund.

The Council was told that the money should be repaid to the common good fund and it has also called for changes in the “management and accounting principles governing the common good fund”.

The investigation also found that the Council’s city chambers, The Meadows parkland and some roads, but not property across the Old Town, New Town, Leith and Portobello, are assets of the common good fund.

Andy Wightman, a recognised Scottish land reform expert, claimed that the former Waverley Market on the south side of Princes Street was transferred out of the common good fund by councillors in 1982 before it was replaced by Princes Mall shopping centre.

The centre has since been sold on, but it was estimated that if it had remained in the common good fund it could have earned millions in rent and still be worth around £20m as a capital asset.

However, the new report by the director of finance, Donald McGougan, said that the council of 1937-8 transferred the fruit and vegetable market from Waverley to East Market Street.

He said: “Accordingly Waverley Market ceased to be part of the common good at the time of the transfer of the fruit and vegetable market to East Market Street.”

The balance of the fund as at March 31, 2007, was £1.67m, which has increased from a balance of £0.88m inherited from Edinburgh District Council on April 1 1996.

Author: LPL

If this position statement is to provide the basis for consensus across our community sector, it will need to be improved and filled out by our supporters. In particular, the achievement of a comprehensive menu of Action Points is only possible with extensive input from front line activists.

Download Position Statement here

Author: LPL

Meadowbank is still seen as a Council Cashline by many in the new administration. At the recent Full Council meeting (Dec 20th), councillors were presented with a report by Council officials that recommended the sell-off of part of the Meadowbank site to finance the upgrade of the Royal Commonwealth Pool, and to put the fate of what remains of Meadowbank on hold.

The only small concession that was made to public opinion (deputations from this campaign, athletes, cyclists, and Trinity Community Council voiced their opposition) was that councillors agreed that land at Meadowbank ‘may’ have to be sold, rather than ‘will’ have to be sold!
Clearly this is unacceptable to the centre’s users, the local and wider public, and consequently, the Save Meadowbank Campaign.

The main success of the public pressure exerted on councillors in the run-up to and during the meeting was the exposure of the Council’s plan to sell out our world-leading cycling community by selling off and not replacing their cycle track. They had intended to keep this quiet until it was too late; instead, now, if they decide to go ahead with their plan, they will have to do so openly, and in the face of strong opposition.

Their is no scope for any reduction in the range of sports provision currently on offer at Meadowbank, and the concept of selling off any part of this sporting land to finance the upgrade of the RCP is one that is lost on anyone who has been subjected to the pro-sport, pro-health, anti-obesity rhetoric of the Westminster, Holyrood, and local governments.

A long-term approach to the financing of sports provision in Edinburgh must replace the unsustainable sell-off now, pay later approach of recent decades. Meadowbank has enormous social and cultural value, on top of its obvious sporting function. It has a clear role in addressing health, social inclusion and anti-social behaviour issues, and the many thousands of people of all ages and social backgrounds that use the centre will vouch for its value in improving community cohesion. If the effort is made, many different budgets should be accessible.

This campaign continues to fights for the interests of all those who were originally (and deliberately) kept well out of this debate.

Please contact your local councillors and MSPs to let them know your opinion. Their contact details and more information can be found on our website: www.savemeadowbank.org

Author: LPL

The SNP made clear in its manifesto that it wants to support community empowerment and LPL understands that the Government’s proposed strategy on this will surface by the end of March. Many LPL supporters have been helping with the consultation led by Communities Scotland.

Download Position Statement here

Author: LPL

Most importantly, our position statement is an Action Plan which identifies the specific measures required to create the environment in Scotland for a thriving community sector. Some of these measures are structural requiring Government to take action but mostly empowerment happens at community level.

Download Position Statement here

Author: LPL

Our position statement outlines what we understand community empowerment to mean and the implications this has for current Government policies like community planning. We also outline why we consider community empowerment to be essential for the future prosperity of our country.

Download Position Statement here

Author: LPL

Statement from Dharmendra Kanani (CEO BIG Lottery) re Strategic Partnership Board

Dynamic Inclusive Communities

I confirmed that the Scotland Committee agreed a timescale and process for considering the responsive strand of this funding which would mean Outline Proposal Forms would have to be submitted by 31st January 2008. This is likely to result in decisions being made in this area in October. The Scotland Committee is keen to have an overview of funding in this area about how we can add real value to National Voluntary Sector Intermediaries and to reflect how this funding has synergy with the supporting voluntary action solicitation from SCVO. It is this desire to have a strategic overview which has led to this new timescale and process. Details of this are on our website. It should be noted that we recognise the impact of this new timescale on organisations and their plans and as a result the Scotland Committee will take a view on this timescale early in the New Year when we have a better idea of the number and quality of bids submitted to us.

Strategic Partnership Board

There appears to be confusion about the role and purpose of the Strategic Partnership Board (SPB). The establishment of an SPB is a result of the Scotland Committee’s consideration of and decision on SCVO’s Supporting Voluntary Action (SVA) solicited bid. The Committee is keen to ensure that there is a strategic overview of SVA to ensure that there is a wide cross-sectoral engagement in and delivery of this significant change agenda for the voluntary sector in Scotland. BIG is conscious of the fact that its investment needs to respond, be aligned to and form part of a wider set of institutional structures and funding across Scotland. The Chair of the SPB would be independent and the Board would be made up of a wide cross section of stakeholders and interests. Clearly, the interests and the needs of social enterprise will form part of the consideration of the board and its composition.

Author: LPL

Possible actions for inclusion in LPL statement on community empowerment:

Improving representative democracy

• Community call for action (petitions)
• Community Councils – pilot enhanced powers
• Community kitties/ delegated budgets

Resourcing communities

• New focus on wider role for community controlled RSLs – embed sustainability into wider action programme
• Actions to facilitate increased levels of ‘direct’ community benefit from windfarm developments
• Asset transfer. Acknowledge the findings of Quirk Review and publish a Scottish Action Plan as a response.
• Land Reform Act. Agree timescale for wholesale review of Act. (Extend to all communities in Scotland. Review and simplify process of registration of CRtB)

Building local capacity

• Community Anchors – acceleration programme
• National training programme for activists and community workers
• National intermediaries – support and better cross sector working?
• Recognise the community sector as a discrete sub-sector within 3rd sector
• Formalise mechanisms for community influence at Community Planning Partnership
• Minimum of 50% community representation in local allocation decisions of the new Fairer Scotland Fund.

Author: LPL

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears today launched radical proposals to make people’s voices heard on the key issues they care most about, such as tackling anti-social behaviour, helping older people or improving local parks.
Under these proposals, councils would be required to respond to petitions submitted by local people, which could be on any issue for which the local council has responsibility, from abandoned vehicles to youth services.
Currently there is no requirement for councils to respond to petitions, no matter how many people sign up. But under these proposals, councils would be legally required to respond to any petition gaining significant local support.
Under the proposed new measures if the council ignores the petition or the response is unsatisfactory, they could ask their local councillor to trigger a ‘select committee’ style hearing within the local authority to ensure that an issue affecting the people living or working in his or her ward is raised and debated, under the new “councillor call for action”, which Parliament recently passed.

Adding the duty on local councils to respond to petitions to the call for action will give people an additional, direct route to ensuring that their concerns and ideas are considered properly by those who have the power to do something about them.

Petitions already have legal teeth in Germany, the United States, Canada, Sweden, Italy and New Zealand and a recent survey found only two countries in Europe were found to sign petitions more than Britons. If approved, the plans could come into force from as early as next year, or later if legislation is required.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears said:
“We have a rich history of writing and signing petitions: 60 per cent of us do so each year, but do we have a rich enough history of answering and responding to them? These new powers would mean the concerns of local people can no longer be filed away and ignored, and ensure we have a more responsive culture.

“Governments are elected to serve the people, and that applies locally as well as nationally. New petition powers would put more influence, power and control in the hands of communities, leading to greater action to tackle their concerns and improving the health of our local democracy.
“Giving local people a greater say is not a threat to local government’s legitimacy – good councils actually do this already. Listening to the concerns and priorities of the people who use local services can only strengthen our local democracy.”

Author: LPL

Scottish housing and regeneration policies do not give priority to local community action – and with the demise of Communities Scotland things could get worse. It is critical to the LPL campaign which bit of Scottish Government `does` community empowerment. This is still unresolved

See www.localpeopleleading.co.uk/downloads/structurechart.doc