Author: Govan Workspace

Community-buyouts of industrial land
Govan Workspace

One of the largest community-buyouts of industrial land in urban Scotland has
been completed by Govan Workspace with the purchase of a five-and-a-half acre site
on the banks of the Clyde. The acquisition marks the start of a new era in the
continuing development of the company.Read about their plans forthe next 10 years.

Read their annual report here www.senscot.net/docs/govananualreport.pdf 

Author: BBC

An island community has secured the funding it needed to buy a filling station, shop, vehicle repair workshop and a house.

Sleat Community Trust in the south of Skye has been awarded £280,000 from the Big Lottery Fund and £42,000 from Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE).

The Skye Ferry Filling Station was managed for almost 40 years by Donnie and Colleen MacKinnon.

They placed the business on the market following their retirement.

The filling station is close to where cars come off the Armadale ferry.

Author: Andy Wightman

Introduction

In Session 1 of the Scottish Parliament there were a number of significant Acts passed relating to land reform including the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003. Session 2 of Parliament saw a number of these Statutes coming into force but no further land reform legislation. Session 3 provides the opportunity to both review the effectiveness of this first tranche of

legislation and to begin the process of taking the land reform agenda forward by initiating a series of further measures, six of which are outlined in this paper, namely;

• Common Good Act

• Community right to buy – review & extension

• Crown Estate reform

Each of the areas builds on existing work and thus much of the groundwork has already been done. Each of these proposals seeks to extend the opportunities for ownership and control of land to many more people across Scotland.

Common Good Act

Across Scotland there are millions of pounds of assets that were gifted to communities or acquired in their name in the former burghs of Scotland. Under the 1973 Local Government Act, title to these assets was transferred to District Councils and then in 1996 to unitary authorities. Local authorities generally have a poor record of stewarding these assets on behalf of the former burgh inhabitants. In many cases, assets have gone missing, revenue and receipts have been misappropriated and record keeping remains generally poor.

These assets belong to the 4.5 million people (over 87% of the Scottish population) who live in the 196 former burghs (as listed in Schedule One of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973). This Act would seek to clarify the status of these assets and provide communities with a statutory right to take back title to property which used to belong to them in some cases for centuries prior to the 1975 re-organisation of local government.

This wealth belongs to the local community and not to the Council and can be used to begin a process of civic renewal and physical regeneration, to deliver wealth and

prosperity, and to give back to towns across Scotland some self respect, belief and power to better the welfare of their community.

The Labour Party election manifesto promised Town Centre Trusts and a fund to allow local communities to take ownership of property. The Liberal Democrats promised a Common Good Act and the SNP promised a review of community council powers.

A Common Good Act would secure all three commitments and more.

Community Right to Buy Review and Extension to the whole of Scotland

Part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 provides communities in rural Scotland with a right to apply to Scottish Ministers for consent to register an interest in land. If such consent is given, the land cannot be sold without the community having a right of first refusal to acquire it.

In light of significant problems with the administration of this legislation, there is an urgent need to review the provisions of this legislation to ensure that they can be used easily and speedily by interested communities. There is also a strong case for an independent inquiry into the administration of the Act.

Furthermore, it is increasingly clear that the rational for restricting the community right to buy to areas of Scotland outwith settlements of 10,000 people not only disenfranchises over 3.5 million citizens (the 69% of the population who live in settlements of over 10,000 population), but denies the opportunities afforded by asset ownership to some of the poorest and neediest communities where the impact could be greatest.

There is thus an opportunity to eliminate this divide and make the community right to buy available to communities across urban and rural Scotland. This does not require revisiting the Act but can be achieved by amending the existing Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2006 (Scottish Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 486).

Crown Estate

Under Scots law, the ownership of a number of distinct property rights is vested in the Crown. These Crown property rights are a form of public land and the powers both to change them and to regulate their use are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Government is responsible for the administration of some of these Crown property rights with the revenues going to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. However, other Scottish Crown property rights are still administered by the Crown Estate Commission (CEC) as part of the UK wide Crown Estate with revenues going to the Treasury.

The property rights administered as part of the Crown Estate in Scotland include

Scotland’s ownership of its territorial seabed or 53% of Scotland’s total territorial area, as well as around 50% of Scotland’s foreshore. There are major issues about the current lack of accountability and benefits in Scotland over the CEC’s management of this vital marine estate and the other Crown property rights for which the CEC is responsible.

A report by a group of public bodies operating as the Crown Estate Review Working Group, has recently provided a detailed and authoritative account of the Crown Estate in Scotland. The report set out a compelling case for changes to the current arrangements and calls for a review of the position with the Crown Estate in Scotland to implement these.

This review should be carried out by the Scottish Government without delay so that Scotland can regain control of its own seabed and the other Scottish Crown property rights still administered by the CEC. This will make substantial contribution to the delivery of public benefits in Scotland.

—————————————————

For more info` on Andy`s work and other reports, see

http://www.andywightman.com/

Author: Senscot

Jim Mather, MSP for Argyll and Minister for Energy, will open Our Power’s wood chipping plant on Friday 2nd November at Cairndow, at the head of Loch Fyne. The wood chips produced by the plant will fuel the biomass boiler – previously fuelled by oil – which heats water for Lakeland Smolts.

This is a small but significant development that could hold lessons for other parts of Scotland. Though 40% of energy consumed in Scotland is for heat we are still behind much of Europe in wood fuel usage. Many European countries are way ahead in boiler manufacture, standards of delivery, storage systems, and specifications on the quality of chips and firewood.

Our Power is owned by the community charity Here We Are (HWA), and profits from the chips (and perhaps other micro power projects in future) will provide revenue for it. But it could not have come about without a grant from the Scottish Biomass Support Scheme (SBSS), a Forestry Commission and Scottish Executive intervention that aims to improve our national carbon footprint. Out of the 78 projects funded by this scheme (all have to be up and running by March 08) only 24 were for wood fuel supply projects and only one of those was community owned – Our Power, Cairndow. Our Power’s grant from the SBSS was for 50% of capital expenditure for biomass equipment. HWA raised £22.5k from its own supporters. Money for set up costs, the purchase of a tractor and 50% balance of equipment – £75k in total – has had to be sourced from the banking sector.

The 2nd November event will be the culmination of an initiative begun two and a half years ago by HWA. It raised funds to research and put on an exhibition at the HWA centre on the history of the power that has been generated within the Cairndow locality – water mills, old micro hydro including the turbine installed at Ardkinglas House in 1907, and the great Hydro Board schemes of the 1950s. Three of these used water from within the Cairndow parish.

A feasibility study to explore all sources of renewable energy was commissioned from Renewable Devices, Edinburgh. Sun and wind proved insufficient. There were two potential hydro schemes, impractical for different reasons, the remaining one with potential was a biomass plant to heat water for Lakeland Smolts, the Norwegian owned local salmon hatchery. Lakeland saw the attraction of reducing its oil consumption and a guaranteed energy price for a 5 year period.

This has finally materialised in the shape of a three -way project. Lakeland Smolts, Mawera (the boiler manufacturers, installers and now Energy Supply Company ) and HWA. Lakeland and Mawera between them also received SBSS 50% funding to help get the project off the ground.

A crucial element in the initiative is, of course, the timber – in Argyll trees grow fast and well. With Forestry Commission’s assistance HWA has negotiated a 5 year contract – for the quantity and at the moisture content needed by Lakeland at a price that makes the project viable. The timber will be sourced within a 30 mile radius. HWA now needs to look beyond its one (good sized) customer for others within the same radius. Long distance transportation of timber for chips is not sustainable. And if the SBSS grant scheme is intended to reduce carbon emissions and help regenerate fragile rural areas of the Highlands the current support to the large scale co-fired power stations of the South and East should be discouraged, or the timber/chips price increases will threaten the future viability of the small rural initiatives.

HWA has received support and encouragement from Argyll, Lomond and the Islands Energy Agency (ALIenergy). Neither it nor the SBSS were set up specifically for communities or for social enterprise. However Highlands and Islands Community Energy Company, (HICEC), Communities Scotland Seedcorn Fund , and the Development Trust Association’s Business Accelerator scheme all were. Our Power has been the beneficiary of all these schemes for feasibility, research and development.

The staff and committee of Here We Are – and directors of Our Power – are now looking forward to putting the “social capital ” they have acquired to good use. A timely reminder to heed our first First Minister Donald Dewar: “There must be ways of integrating the economic the social and the environmental and the desire to live 21st century lives while still maintaining Scotland’s beauty.”

For further info`, contact;

Here We Are
Clachan
Cairndow
Argyll
PA26 8BL
e-mail mail@hereweare-uk.com
Website www.hereweare-uk.com
Tel 01499 600350
Fax 01499 600331

Author: Scottish Government

The Scottish Government is committed to doing more to empower individuals and communities to have more control over their own lives and more choice in how their needs are met. They are particularly keen to see people living in areas of deprivation more empowered.

To turn this into a reality Ministers want to hear the views of a wide range of people. They have asked us to organise a dialogue across Scotland from now until the end of December 2007.

This paper sets out the key issues that we believe have an impact on empowerment. It also makes some suggestions about what might be done to ensure that more communities become more empowered. The paper has been shaped by early discussions with a few people with a key interest in empowerment. [DN include names if we can get agreement in time]

The questions in each section are designed to help us understand your views on our suggestions. Your views, along with the views of everyone else who will be involved in the dialogue, will help to inform the decisions Ministers take to make community empowerment a reality.

What is Community Empowerment?

Community empowerment is very complex. It can mean different things to different people. Over the years community empowerment has often proved difficult to achieve. Also, trying to achieve empowerment can lead to increased tensions in the relationships between the people involved.

Any attempt at making community empowerment a reality that does not recognise these complexities or the scale of the challenge will not succeed. However, we believe that community empowerment can be achieved with the right level of commitment, and practical skills and understanding.

Our vision of community empowerment is based on the upper levels of what is often called the ladder of participation. In the 1960s, a woman called Sherry Arnstein described these as citizen control and delegated power. Here is a description of what these two ideas can mean:

Delegated power: Citizens holding a clear majority of seats on committees with delegated powers to make decisions.
Citizen control: Public handle the entire job of planning, policy making and managing a programme.

Community empowerment should offer opportunities for everyone living in a community regardless of their background or personal circumstances. The promotion of equalities must be at the heart of any community empowerment work. An approach that empowers some people in a community at the expense of others is not community empowerment.

Question: Are the concepts of delegated power and citizen control helpful?

Why Community Empowerment? – Strategic Context

Our proposal is not to develop a stand alone community empowerment initiative with a separate grant scheme attached. Neither do we want to impose another level of bureaucracy or governance. Our suggested approach aims to recognise the long term nature of empowerment and to achieve sustained change.

We see community empowerment as part of the broader agenda of community engagement in service delivery. It should be seen as part of a wider debate on how people engage in decision making and influence what happens in their communities. It forms the community led dimension to that agenda. It is about developing models that will see people deciding for themselves what should be done to achieve positive change in their communities.

We also believe that community empowerment should be a shared agenda across Government at national and local level and across the public and voluntary and community sectors. We believe that there is currently widespread support across a range of sectors for delivering a higher degree of community empowerment. However, being serious about community empowerment will mean real culture change across a range of sectors.

Question: Is this the right context for community empowerment?

Suggested practical models

To help make a concrete reality of empowerment we believe that we need to identify possible models that could be developed locally. We have suggested three possible models here – but there may be more. We believe each of these models fits within the upper levels of ladder of participation. We know that across the country some work along these lines is already taking place and our aim is to see more of it happening.

Model One

Budgets and other resources, for example assets like land and buildings, are identified locally and devolved to local community led organisations. This model would use the concept of Community Anchor Organisations (CAOs) as the catalyst and driver for change. CAOs are described later in this paper.

Model Two

Communities would scrutinise services. Public sector service delivery agencies (and perhaps parts of the voluntary sector) would make a binding commitment that communities would assess the quality of the delivery of agreed service within an area. Careful consideration would have to be given to existing scrutiny regimes and legal accountability for service delivery.

Model Three

Devolved decision making to neighbourhood level with the community in the majority on decision making structures. This could build on existing models of governance at community level and could involve community bodies like community councils, community forums or Registered Tenant Organisations.

Question: Are these models helpful and do you know of others that might work?

Role of the Scottish Government

Our proposal is that the key role for Scottish Government is to provide leadership at National level to encourage and promote community empowerment. This is in line with the Government’s determination to avoid duplication at local level and to take a strategic approach to supporting change in communities. This role could involve leading discussions with other key sectors, for example Local Authorities and other public bodies, to ensure there is explicit, strategic level buy in to community empowerment.

The Scottish Government could also develop and resource a national support programme for community empowerment. This might include support for skills development, for evaluating the impact of empowerment and to help networking across Scotland to make sure people learn from each other about what is working. Any programme along these lines would be developed in partnership with people involved in community empowerment.

Question What do you think the role of the Scottish Government should be?

Role of Local Authorities

Communities can’t be empowered by someone else. Communities must empower themselves. However they will often need help and support to achieve their goals. In each of our proposed models we see Local Authorities as having a key role to play to create the conditions where communities can empower themselves. This will be true of both elected members and officials.

We want to encourage Local Authorities to make firm commitments or pledges about what they will do to help local communities empower themselves. In doing this we would expect Authorities to think very carefully about the complexities involved and how empowering communities fits with their overarching strategies on community engagement and service planning and delivery. In particular we would see Local Authorities having a key role in co-ordinating the Community Capacity Building that underpins empowerment and in identifying resources which could be devolved to local community led groups.

However, Local Authorities should not be seen amongst the public sector as responsible for community empowerment As we said earlier this should be an agenda shared across the public sector. Local Authorities in turn need the support and commitment of the wider public and voluntary sectors. We believe that the key mechanism for co-ordinating public sector support for community empowerment should be Community Planning.

Question What do you think the role of Local Authorities and Community Planning should be?

Role of Community Anchor Organisations

One key element which could make a lasting, long term difference to community empowerment, is the role played by locally based, community led organisations.

These strong community led groups are sometimes referred to as Community Anchor Organisations. We think this could be a helpful term to identify a particular kind of local community led group. The attached draft definition is being adopted by the Local People Leading campaign and is based on an existing definition produced in England.

Community Anchor Organisations could play a number of key roles on a day to day basis in community empowerment. They could ensure that local people have a say in identifying the priorities for change in their neighbourhoods; they may deliver services directly themselves; and they might influence the public sector on behalf of local people.

In particular, in the first of our proposed models they would be the bodies who control devolved resources.

The type of organisation that would play the role of a Community Anchor Organisation would vary from place to place across Scotland, but crucially they would have a fairly high level of existing capacity to work on behalf of the wider community. We think models might include Housing Associations, Development Trusts, Community Councils, Registered Tenant Organisations, Community Forums, and other forms of locally based social enterprises.

Question: What do you think about the potential role of Community Anchor Organisations?

Outcomes and evaluation

We obviously want to see community empowerment making a difference to communities. From previous research the kinds of outcomes we would expect to see from community empowerment would include:

More innovative and responsive solutions to local problems;
Increased confidence and skills amongst local people;
Higher numbers of people volunteering in their communities;
A greater sense of pride in a neighbourhood; and
Higher levels of quality of life in a local neighbourhood.

Some of these would be more immediate outcomes related to the process of community empowerment and some would be longer term outcomes.

The issue of measuring empowerment and the change that is brought about in communities because of empowerment is tricky. There are issues around establishing baselines, identifying indicators and the process of monitoring and reporting on progress that need to be resolved. We are interested in people’s initial views on the challenges of measuring progress in community empowerment and any experience they have which may be helpful.

Question What do you see as the main challenges in measuring progress and do you have any experience that might help?

Making Community empowerment a reality – How to make it happen?

As we said earlier, communities cannot be empowered by other people. But others have a clear role in developing the right conditions for empowerment and in supporting communities. This suggest that to move forward to a Scotland where more communities are more empowered, the first step will be a process of local negotiation between communities, often led by Community Anchor Organisations and the local statutory bodies through Community Planning Partnerships.

As a catalyst and framework for those local negotiations, it would be possible to build on the outcomes of this dialogue to develop jointly owned guidance on what we would expect to see from community empowerment.

Question Do you think that issuing jointly owned guidance is a helpful step in starting the process of community empowerment? Are there other ways you could see the process working?

Author: BBC News

Soft drinks site buyout goes flat
BBC News
10.09.07

The firm which owns the Struthers site in Lochwinnoch – where Krystal Klear soft drinks were made for almost 100 years – has opted not to sell.

Residents hoped to raise £1m and refurbish the site.

The government, which had approved the scheme, expressed its disappointment at the decision.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: “The community Right to Buy legislation requires a willing seller who retains the right to withdraw from the process at any stage prior to the conclusion of the missives.

Original building

“The community buyout group has registered an interest in the site and this interest remains active for five years.”

He added: “No reason need be given for the withdrawal from sale of any land or property.”

The Lochwinnoch Community Buyout Group planned to restore the original building to provide a museum, leisure facilities and wildlife habitat.

Secretary Dave Mellor said: “We’re disappointed because we are prepared to offer the official market valuation.

“The company has a responsibility to Lochwinnoch.

“It would’ve been a very good development, it still might be.

“We’re going to keep our right to buy, stack up our resources and stick it out – we hope the company will discuss it with us.”

The company which owns the land and property – once operated by Struthers – is called the trustees of Alfano Brothers Retirement Benefits Scheme.

Solicitors for the firm declined to comment.

Mike Danson, professor of Scotland and regional economics at the University of Paisley, said the decision to remove the site from sale was unprecedented under the legislation.

He said the site was owned by an absentee landlord – a situation that had occurred in Scotland for centuries.

“Why they’ve chose to withdraw is not clear,” he said.

“It is a negative move, here is a community coming together, being enterprising – all the things the government says it wants to happen.

“We should be concerned.”

Professor Danson say there might need to be a change in the law to bring Scotland into line with crofting communities, where the landlord cannot withdraw from a sale under right to buy legislation.

Author: School for Social Entrepreneurs Fife

The School for Social Entrepreneurs Fife – Scotland’s first established school, is currently recruiting for a new and innovative learning programme commencing mid October. The “Enterprising Solutions” course is a 6 months course targeted at Housing Association residents who have business ideas that could benefit their community. The pilot course will be based in Grangemouth and will be targeted at all housing associations within easy travelling distance eg. Falkirk,Stirling, Alloa and surrounding areas.

The programme is largely funded by Communities Scotland and offers a training allowance in addition to travelling and childcare expenses for participants eager to change their local community for the better. Projects of previous SSE students have ranged from developing an organic food outlet to recycling aluminium cans, from creating a multi media organisation engaging with a specific target group to establishing a community farm. At a national level, students have worked on projects ranging from after school care to text guides for the visually impaired, from women’s education in Africa to cross community sports clubs in North Belfast.

For the last five years, the SSE Fife based at BRAG Enterprises Ltd has offered learning programmes of action tailored learning to these characteristics. Our programmes are built on learning by doing, an approach that emphasises experience, experimentation and personal needs; and our students have ranged in age from twenty to seventy; from twelve year’s unemployment to running a community organisation full-time. There is no SSE student mould except for being open to learning and taking on new ideas.

Author: Peter MacMahon

Tenant-power housing plan faces the axe
Peter MacMahon
18.09.07

An ambitious plan to break up Scotland’s largest block of former council homes into small, tenant-run associations is set to founder because of a lack of resources and lukewarm support from ministers.

The blueprint to transfer 80,000 local authority properties first to the Glasgow Housing Association (GHA) and then on to more than 60 local groups was drawn up by Labour ministers in the previous Scottish Executive.

However, a report from Communities Scotland, the housing watchdog, yesterday found there was now “strong evidence” the plan will not happen because of a lack of money.

The report warned the GHA that it has just eight weeks to produce a “fundamental review of its purpose and future direction” including on the transfer to smaller associations, known as the second stage transfer( SST).

According to the report “there is now a broader understanding about the difficulties in achieving” the second stage transfer and “the financial barriers to progress”.

It added that there was “strong evidence that SST, as originally envisaged, is not possible”.

The GHA is planning to spend £10.5 billion – including money from rental income, grants and private funding – over the next three decades.

Karen Watt, director of Regulation and Inspection at Communities Scotland, said: “We found that the onward transfer of its houses to local organisations has been a major challenge. GHA should now lead a fundamental review of its purpose and future direction, including the future of SST.”

Taroub Zahran, the chief executive of the GHA, said: “The report says that we have done everything we could possibly do to deliver the second stage transfer but the evidence is that the finances are not enough to deliver that.” She added that differences of opinion over the second stage transfers amongst the tenants would have to be taken into account.

Stewart Maxwell, the housing minister, said the second stage transfers would now only take place where they could “be sensibly achieved”, effectively ruling out most of them.

Mr Maxwell, whose party opposed the transfer from Glasgow city council to the GHA, added: “It is immediately clear that the previous administration failed to put in place a coherent long-term plan when the GHA was created.

“What’s important now is that the interests of tenants are safeguarded. The clock is ticking – GHA now has eight weeks to produce a comprehensive improvement plan that addresses the concerns highlighted in the report.”

Bill Aitken, a Tory MSP for Glasgow, said: “We supported the transfer of housing stock to the GHA on the basis it would be transferred efficiently and rapidly to local housing associations. This report confirms the urgent need for that still to happen.”

• The Communities Scotland report graded the GHA’s performance as only “fair”, third place on a four-point scale which runs from “excellent” to “poor”. Ms Zahran said fair was “good enough”.

Author: Regeneration & Renewal

Community asset fund offers £30m
Regeneration & Renewal
14.09.07

The Community Assets programme, funded by the Cabinet Office and managed by good causes distributor the Big Lottery Fund, opened for applications last week. There will be a single bidding round for all applications, which will close on 15 November.

The fund, announced in last year’s pre-Budget report, will offer grants of £150,000 to £1 million for the refurbishment of council buildings such as community centres, so they can benefit the community organisations that take them on.

Third sector minister Phil Hope said: “This is a real opportunity for community groups and local authorities to transform assets like community centres and other buildings into more vibrant and valuable resources of the whole community.”

Sanjay Dighe, chair of the BLF’s England Committee, said: “The Community Assets programme will give communities a greater stake in the buildings they use, making them a long-term sustainable resource for a wide variety of groups.”

– Application materials are available via www.regen.net/doc.

Author: HMIE

The report was published on 9 September and  is based on a significant range of inspections on local authority and voluntary sector CLD providers across all of Scotland over the last five years.It is the first time HMIE has published a ‘state of the nation’ report on CLD.  The Scottish approach of bringing together youth work, adult learning and community development into CLD,which in the other countries of the UK are separate professions, means that this is an unprecedented national overview of  practice and
policy implementation.

the report seeks to empower CLD providers and communities by:
* improving the quality of practice through exchange of good practice. The report contains numerous examples of good practice drawn from HMIE reports
* further supporting self-evaluation and quality assurance processes that empower young people, adults and community /voluntary organisations
* providing an independent and central source of information about CLD practice and implementation of policy on the ground in Scotland’s communities and the present state of development of CLD in Scotland.

The reports’ key messages are that:
CLD is a significant element of the Scottish education system and within community regeneration activities.  It has emerged in the new millennium as an area of practice that cuts across the boundaries of institutional provision and puts communities at the heart of the learning and development agenda.

There is much good practice in CLD in Scotland – this is often sector leading in the UK and Europe.

The ‘reach’ and impact of CLD has significantly diversified.  Whereas community education was primarily regarded as a discreet local authority service, sometimes working in partnership with the voluntary sector, CLD is a practice and an approach that is now used by an increasing range of practitioners in voluntary and community organisations, in community health and health promotion, community enterprise,schools, housing, culture, sport, and further education.

However, there is too much variation in the overall performance of authorities and their partners and also variation in performance within the CLD national priorities.”

I have attached a copy of the report for you and the URL is: http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/Making%20a%20difference%20in%20Scotland’s%20communities%202007.pdf