Author: Climate Scotland

People of Scotland have their say on the climate and nature emergency

Climate Scotland is a new campaign to demonstrate to leaders that many people in Scotland want strong and meaningful action to tackle the climate and nature emergency.

Members of the public can add their voice to the campaign, and the messages plan to be displayed at COP26 in November.

The global climate summit COP26 will be a major opportunity to re-energise efforts to tackle the climate emergency. Organisations including RSPB Scotland, Christian Aid and National Trust for Scotland have come together to create a new campaign, Climate Scotland, to bring the messages of thousands of people in Scotland to the talks.

Through Climate Scotland, people in Scotland can send leaders a message to show they want strong and meaningful action to protect the things they love, and create a better future for people everywhere.

Climate Scotland is a sister campaign to another running in Wales, Climate Cymru. Together, they will represent voices from two of the four UK nations and their devolved governments.

Individuals visiting the Climate Scotland website are able to add their voice to the campaign by selecting a topic that is most of interest to them and adding a comment to say why. The topics, as follows, cover a broad range of perspectives:

• Flourishing communities
• Future generations
• Greener, fairer livelihoods
• Wildlife and nature
• Sustainable food systems
• Protecting the world’s resources
• Health and wellbeing
• Beautiful places
• Solidarity with global neighbours.

The campaign aims to collect 10,000 messages and share them at the COP26 talks in November, either at the Green Zone (an official UK government space) or another high profile venue. Through this, everyone in Scotland has the opportunity to show world leaders how much they care about the climate and nature emergencies.

Over 30 charities, civil society groups and non-profit organisations have already signed up to be a campaign partner.

“The climate emergency threatens our communities, the Scottish nature we know and love, and our prospects for a healthier and fairer future. It’s happening now, and it’s particularly affecting those around the world who have done the least to cause it. In November, the eyes of the world will turn to Glasgow as world leaders gather for the COP26 UN climate summit. This gives us a unique opportunity to shape global action and help achieve a fair outcome for communities around the world. Through the Climate Scotland campaign, we can show our leaders just how much we care.”

Becky Kenton-Lake

Coalition Coordinator at Stop Climate Chaos Scotland (SCCS), a diverse coalition of over 60 organisations together on climate change

“People around the world need to transform their lives to avoid climate chaos. Here in Glasgow, homes need to be heated with clean energy, active travel needs to become easier and we all need to eat more seasonal produce. To achieve this in such a short amount of time, action needs to start now – not just at policy level but on the ground where we need it. If communities can be enabled to start making these transformations, we are more likely to achieve net-zero in time. Decision-makers should be supporting and enabling us all to lead lower carbon lives now – that’s why we support the Climate Scotland campaign.”

South Seeds

Lucy Gillie

General Manager of South Seeds, a community-led organisation based in Glasgow’s Southside that supports residents to lead more sustainable lives.

“This last incredibly difficult year has shown us how much we need nature. And now nature needs us to take strong and lasting action to restore and protect it. When we help nature to thrive, we help ourselves to thrive. The nature and climate emergency puts 1 in 9 species in Scotland at risk of extinction. We must address this by protecting and restoring nature, increasing access to nature for everyone and making decisions that support nature, our climate and people. The Climate Scotland campaign is a way for people in Scotland to show how much they care about these things.”

Aedán Smith

Head of Policy and Advocacy RSPB Scotland, the UK’s largest nature conservation charity, inspiring everyone to give nature a home and secure a healthy environment for wildlife.

“Climate change is having a devastating impact on every area of life in the countries in which Christian Aid works – from basic needs such as food and shelter, to issues such as education and women’s rights. The pervasive impact on everyone – and particularly those in the communities in which we work – means the world can no longer ignore it. The coronavirus pandemic has served to exacerbate already-existing issues for the world’s most vulnerable communities, many of whom are on the frontline of the climate crisis. The Climate Scotland campaign is a fantastic opportunity for people in Scotland to show leaders and decision-makers that they care about our global neighbours. We stand together against the climate crisis, raising our voice as one to create lasting change and to ensure that communities are equipped to adapt and respond to the impacts of climate change.”

Sally Foster-Fulton

Head of Christian Aid Scotland, which supports individuals, partners and churches to create a world where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty.

What if negotiating the planning system were as easy as popping to the shops?

At the moment, if you want to know what developments are planned for your street or city, you have to look out for a flimsy sheet of laminated A4 paper tied to a lamp-post. From there, an obscure reference number will lead you to a byzantine website where, if you’re lucky, you might be able to download a jumbled series of PDFs that contain, in the abstruse language of planning application drawings, what is actually being proposed.

“The planning system has always been incredibly opaque,” says Sir Terry Farrell. “It is needlessly complicated for the public to find out what’s going on.” The 83-year-old architect has long crusaded to make it easier for people to have more of a say in the futures of their cities. To that end, his government-commissioned Farrell review of architecture and the built environment, published in 2014, advocated the idea of “urban rooms”: places on the high street where people could go to view and discuss the latest development proposals. Now, Farrell is putting his money where his mouth is. He has donated £1m to Newcastle University, along with his substantial archive, to part-fund such a place and convert an old department store into a centre to debate the future of the Tyneside city.

Newcastle is close to Farrell’s heart, and not just because he studied at the university and has worked on a number of masterplans and buildings around the city in his six-decade career. He also grew up here, in one of the first council houses on the Grange estate in the suburb of Gosforth, and remembers how the postwar city plan was bulldozed through the system with little consultation.

“The ‘Brasília of the North’ happened here in the 1960s without much debate,” he says, referring to the plans of T Dan Smith, the notorious council leader who was busy demolishing swathes of Georgian terraces to make way for motorways when he was arrested on corruption charges. “Newcastle is an incredibly charismatic city, with its dramatic topography, and it needs a proper place for debate.”

Set to open in autumn next year, and operate virtually, online until then, the £4.5m Farrell Centre will occupy a former 19th-century department store close to the university’s architecture school, on a prominent corner facing the civic centre. It is planned to host exhibitions, events, office space for startup companies working in the built environment, and, most importantly, a big scale model of the city where new proposals will be shown for all to scrutinise.

“It’s an experiment in civic activism,” says Owen Hopkins, former curator at the Royal Academy and Sir John Soane’s Museum, who is now director of the centre. “It’s about engaging people in the process of urban transformation – and perhaps making it less possible for developments that don’t positively contribute to the city to happen.”

Funded by the university, and not directly affiliated with the council, the Farrell Centre will enjoy a relatively neutral position, unlike some other similar architecture centres elsewhere. New London Architecture, for example, has provided a useful forum for discussion since it was founded in 1994, but its reliance on paid membership and sponsorship from corporate real estate giants means that those companies tend to feature prominently in its programme, with little critical reflection.

As well as providing an open arena for debate, Hopkins wants the Newcastle hub to tell the history, present and future of the city. Along with a gallery for temporary exhibitions upstairs, part of the building will have a space dedicated to colourful, personal stories, for which an open call will be launched later this year.

“Imagine a cross between the Antiques Roadshow and Pinterest,” he says. “We’re asking people to rummage in their attics for personal things that tell a story about the city. Photos, newspaper clippings, ticket stubs, furniture, works of art, clothes, books, diaries, letters, toys, models, even fragments of buildings – anything that helps to tell the story of Tyneside.” The loaned objects will form a constantly evolving display on the ground floor, combining high and low, the precious and mundane. “There might be a Greggs sausage roll wrapper,” he says, “an everyday item that could tell a fascinating story about the transformation of the high street and how the city has reinvented its image.”

Since Farrell’s 2014 call to arms, about 12 other “urban rooms” have sprung up in towns across the country, from Blackburn and Cheltenham to Folkestone and Dover, despite the absence of any central government funding.

“They have grown organically in a very bottom-up fashion,” says Diane Dever, who chairs the Urban Rooms Network and started Folkestone’s hub, which now occupies the town’s former tourist information office. Some, like those in Sheffield and Reading, are affiliated with universities, while others are council-funded, such as Croydon’s pop-up space in a shopping centre. Many rely on whatever bits of piecemeal funding they can get, including section 106 payments or paid-for design review services for developers, putting them in slightly compromised territory. But at least finding space should no longer be an issue: with high streets now faced with the prospect of a surfeit of empty shops, it could be an opportunity for urban rooms to proliferate.

Dever is optimistic that these bottom-up civic spaces might finally come into their own. “In light of the government’s planning reforms there is a new emphasis on local design codes and public participation,” she says. “It feels like urban rooms might become quite central, as places to consult on local plans, and really engage in community visioning.” If the government is serious about popular participation in planning, it should cough up some money, of which there has been precious little so far.

“The most important thing,” Dever says, “is that these places are not driven by one agenda. They can’t be owned solely by the council or just by developers, who often see them as an easy way to tick the public consultation box. One really has to resist that.”

Author: Rob Edwards, The Ferret

Rob Edwards

The Scottish Government should buy up, break up and sell off large forestry estates to diversify woodland ownership, experts are recommending.

That’s one of the key changes needed if Scotland is to double its tree cover so that 40 per cent of the country is woodland within the next hundred years, they say — with 60 per cent being native trees.

A forestry think tank commissioned by former Green MSP, Andy Wightman, is urging “lateral thinking” to break the logjam on land reform by using “transitional public ownership” – public agencies buying up forests and selling them on. It has outlined a “radical” vision for a “woodland nation”.

The report, published today, has been widely welcomed by campaigners as “practical”, “well-considered” and “thought-provoking”. But the forestry industry described the 40 per cent target as “extremely ambitious” while landowners were critical of calls for changes in ownership.

The Scottish Government agreed that more trees needed to be planted but said this should be done “in a careful and considered way”. It said it was “committed to land reform on an ongoing basis”.

Campaigners hope that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s new ministerial team, installed since the election in May, will bring opportunities for change.

They point out forestry has been shifted from rural economy to the environment portfolio, and that the SNP MSP, Fergus Ewing — seen by some as too pro-industry — is no longer a minister.

The new 73-page report is entitled ‘Woodland Nation: pathways to a forested Scotland owned by the people’. It was written by two experienced foresters, Anna Lawrence and Willie McGhee, from the Forestry Policy Group in Scotland.

They map out how Scotland could hugely expand its tree cover by adding 1.7 million hectares, of which 1.5 million would be native woodland. Currently about 1.47 million hectares of Scotland are woodland.

Such an expansion would mean increasing native forests fivefold, and boosting productive conifer forests by one and a half times. There is “sufficient suitable land” for the extra woodlands, they say.

If tree planting continued at the current rate, 40 per cent of Scotland could be forested by 2120. But if planting was super-charged this could be achieved by as soon as 2040, they argue.

“Scotland’s forest expansion should prioritise a more diverse range of species and forest management systems,” the report says.

“There is a need to proactively stimulate woodland creation which lies between the two current poles of money-oriented clear fell and restock exotic conifer, and biodiversity-oriented native woodland restoration.”

The report urges toughening recommended targets for reducing deer numbers by aiming for three or less per hectare. High numbers maintained by sporting estates inhibit forest regeneration because deer eat saplings.

The report also backs a ban on muirburn — the burning of heather on grouse moors — because it destroys seedlings. It supports moves to licence game shooting.

Essential to meeting the targets for more woodlands is a “shift to more socially just land ownership”, the report says. Scotland has the “most concentrated pattern of private forest ownership in Europe” with 55 per cent of private forests owned by absentee landowners.

Progress so far on communities acquiring land has been slow, it points out. The process has been “exhausting, traumatic, and occasionally thrilling”, with the community’s legal right to buy “experienced as onerous, adversarial and with a high failure rate”.

This needs to change so the benefits of woodland ownership can reach more people, the report says. “Public ownership should be enhanced through a more public-facing national forest agency, and through political support for local government forest ownership and woodland creation,” it urges.

“Public forest agencies and local authorities should act as intermediary owners to facilitate the transfer of ownership between single large owners and multiple smaller-scale owners.”

State ownership could be transitional. “A public land agency buys land as it comes to market, possibly through a priority system which allows it first refusal,” the report suggests.

“The agency then either sells the land on, in small units, or sells shares in the whole forest…A similar idea has been proposed for local authority ownership to facilitate community or community benefit share purchase.”

Compulsory purchase could be required “where large scale national ownership is in the public interest, such as in national parks”, the report adds.

“This approach could be particularly valuable in driving landscape scale restoration in forest habitat networks followed by smaller scale ownership to manage, maintain and share in the benefits of the ecological network.”

The report also argues for “more democratic forestry decision-making”. It points out that the government’s Forestry and Land Scotland has been criticised as “inefficient, bureaucratic, unaccountable and fails to engage effectively with communities and small local businesses”.

More people should take part in decisions about forests, it recommends. “The current forestry decision-making process should be at least as open, accessible and accountable as the current local planning consultation process operated by planning authorities.”

The expansion of forestry should be owned and controlled predominantly by local businesses, communities, individuals and local authorities.

Andy Wightman, a land reform campaigner who was not re-elected as an independent to the Scottish Parliament in May, argued that 40 per cent tree cover was an achievable target. He called on ministers to create a “woodland nation owned by the people and local communities”.

He told The Ferret: “But achieving this within the current model of afforestation driven by external capital and control will exacerbate inequalities and deny communities a meaningful stake in this important economy.

“The expansion of forestry should be owned and controlled predominantly by local businesses, communities, individuals and local authorities. New models of investment through community shares, crowdfunding and mutual ownership will also enable many more people to enjoy a meaningful stake in this important land use.”

He was backed by the Community Woodlands Association, which represents 200 local groups. “The Green New Deal targets to which the report offers pathways are extremely demanding and it is clear that radical actions are required if they are to be achieved,” said the association’s chief executive, Jon Hollingdale.

“In particular the fiscal regime  — tax exemptions, grants and subsidies — which applies to forestry and land ownership needs fundamental review and redesign to ensure the benefits of woodland expansion are fairly distributed and to secure best value for public funds.”

The campaign group, Reforesting Scotland, also endorsed the report’s recommendations. “Large parts of Scotland’s countryside are degraded, unfairly distributed and polarised between different forms of land use,” said the group’s founding director, Donald McPhillimy.

“At its worst, deer numbers are out of control, hill sheep numbers are too high, over simplistic plantation forestry holds sway and large areas of grouse moor are burned so that a few people can shoot birds for entertainment.”

According to Woodland Trust, the report offered “ambitious, radical and practical ideas to break away from the current model and strange practices we have come to think normal”. It came at a “crucial time”, as Scotland has to decide what kind of forest it wants.

The rewilding charity, Trees for Life, described the report as “well considered and thought-provoking”. The benefits of restoring more native woodland in a “gradual and fair transition” would be huge, it said.

Mistakes associated with the last century do not recur when tree planting proposals are given the go ahead.

Stuart Goodhall, Confor

Confor, the forestry industry association, stressed the multiple benefits of woodlands. “Forestry and wood processing is a 21st century Scottish success story,” said chief executive, Stuart Goodall.

“Planting 40 per cent of land in Scotland with trees is an extremely ambitious target and tree planting of all types, owned and managed by a wide range of people and groups, would be needed to come close to achieving that.”

Goodall pointed out that there was cross-party support at the election for more tree-planting, including modern productive forests. Lessons had been learned so that “mistakes associated with the last century do not recur when tree planting proposals are given the go ahead.”

Scottish Land and Estates, which represents landowners, was pleased that a woodland nation would be “predominantly” owned and controlled by local businesses, communities, individuals and local authorities. More than two thirds of Scotland’s forests were privately owned, as well as 89 per cent of broad-leaved woodlands.

“It is unsurprising that land reform campaigners call yet again for changes in land ownership to achieve land use change that is already happening within Scotland. There is a raft of legislation already in place that ensures land is offered to community groups that have registered an interest,” said the group’s chief executive, Sarah Jane Laing.

The Scottish Land Commission, which was set up by ministers, is examining how land markets and rights could be reformed. “We need to rethink how we own and use land, particularly in making a just transition to a net zero economy,” said chief executive, Hamish Trench.

The government agency, Scottish Forestry, welcomed recognition of the important role that forests play. The Forestry Policy Group had been engaged in the development of Scotland’s forestry strategy, it pointed out.

A spokesperson said: “We agree that our forests and woodlands need to contribute more now than ever before. We need to plant more and faster, but increasing woodland cover needs to be done in a careful and considered way.

“The Scottish Government is committed to land reform on an ongoing basis.” Over the last five years 26 community groups had been given £3.7 million towards the acquisition of woodlands and forests.

Campaign groups see the recent decision to move the forestry ministerial brief out of rural economy and into environment as a good sign. They are privately up-beat about Fergus Ewing’s departure from the cabinet, as he was viewed as a strong supporter of the forestry industry.

“The ideas in this report would once have been thought too radical to act on, but the departure of Fergus Ewing from the Scottish Government could be a game-changer,” one campaigner told The Ferret.

Author: Planning Democracy

Email to Graham Robinson, Policy Manager, Scottish Government from Planning Democracy

As you know, Planning Democracy have expressed our concerns regarding Local Place Plans in the past. Our reservations about them, mean that we feel wary of being drawn into a consultation, the premise of which we feel is fundamentally flawed. However we have been encouraged by our network to send in a statement expressing our concerns and reservations so that they are known. We do not wish a response to the consultation to be represented as an endorsement of Local Place Plans.

Our position on Local Place Plans is as follows:

We believe that a Local Place Plan, once agreed by the community, should be given due priority and weight as a material consideration and should have meaningful influence on decision-making. Currently we don’t feel this is the case, the Planning Act Scotland 2019 require LDPs to take into account a registered Local Place Plan, however there is no guarantee that the Local Place Plan will affect the development plan or act as a significant material consideration in planning decisions. We are therefore reluctant to encourage communities to embark on a process whereby they have no recourse on decisions or plans that do not accord with their Local Place Plan.

We believe there should be credible legal routes for communities to question planning decisions by granting communities a right of appeal with applications that conflict with an agreed LPP, until that happens then Local Place Plans can be largely ignored.

We remain unclear as to how LPP’s will be incorporated into an LDP, if the LDP process is already underway or has been adopted. As NPF4 and LDPs are 10 year plans, but it is unlikely that a Local Place Plan is likely to trigger a review of them, so it is unlikely that any community embarking on a LPP after an LDP has been adopted, will be able to have their plan incorporated.

The process of developing community plans we believe has been captured by other interests. As currently enacted in the primary planning legislation, they are not a  expression of  community aspirations, but are merely a device that express the aspirations of the Government and local authorities under the guise of a community plan. Requiring LPPs to have regard for the NPF, LDP and LOIPs effectively ensures that they are a mechanism that captures the soul of the community and denies them a right of self expression. The process limits the plans to land use planning issues and what are considered planning or material considerations. We believe community plans should take a holistic approach that allows a broader range to be explored than merely planning issues.

That is not to say that communities should not develop their own community action plans. We would encourage people to do so, but in their own way, using their own expertise that focusses on their own community, and no others, future aspirations. They should be a form of self expression which should be free of other influences that allows people to self organise and develop activities that can really benefit the community. It is not fair for a process to encourage and distract communities into developing plans that are highly unlikely to be realised.

Any community developing a Local Place Plan under the current guidance should be aware that the plans themselves are not given statutory weight, so expectations should be kept realistic in terms of influencing planning decisions or development plans. Communities need to be aware that their plans carry very little weight and are unlikely, in our market driven planning system, to have much if any influence on development on the ground. If they are not provided with evidence of how the ‘system’ will respond to their aspirations then they are being given false promises that their plans will have some kind of power.

We believe that the current process requires communities to become quasi planners, the amount of documents they are required to have regard for including the NPF4, LDP and LOIPs not only requires a level of expertise and time that should be recompensed, but will exacerbate inequalities between communities further disadvantaging those who are less well resourced. Without adequate allocated funding behind them LPP’s will be a huge burden to many communities, requiring them to rely on specialist expertise. Currently there are not enough options for who can provide this expertise. As a priority, a broadly based pool of expertise needs to be developed which reflects the diversity of Scotland’s community sector. As a guiding principle, peer to peer learning and delivery of the LPP process should be encouraged.

Author: CODEL

Researchers call for a radical change of perspectives and policy for rural and island communities in light of Covid-19

The results of the Northern Periphery and Arctic research project, to be launched on June 4^th, argue that rural and island communities need to be seen in a new light following Covid-19. While the health and economic disruptions caused by Covid-19 are undeniable, on balance many rural and island areas have performed relatively well during the pandemic by drawing on a wide range of resilience factors both for health and the economy.

“We need to redefine how we view rural and island communities, and change policy accordingly,” says Theona Morrison, Director of CoDeL and Acting Chair of Scottish Rural Action.

Evidence for this comes not only from Scotland and Ireland, but also from Finland, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland and Canada through the research funded by the (European) Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme (Covid-19 Response Call). It was delivered by 12 partners from Canada to Finland (universities and research institutes, public, private and third sector organisations) and led by CoDeL from the Outer Hebrides in Scotland. Together they make 18 recommendations for a new approach to policy and action for rural and island communities.

“One of the most stimulating, visionary but also evidenced and well informed documents I’ve come across in relation to post-Covid.” David Bryan, Head of Sustainable Business, Social Enterprise Academy, Scotland

You can read the Citizen Summary here.

Rural and island communities have benefited from their geography, including their remote and sparsely populated regions, and their access to nature. Cohesive communities and responsive local governance have found local solutions, for example to implement test and trace systems effectively, to shut down community transmission swiftly and to vaccinate local populations rapidly. There has been extensive community engagement and participation, volunteering and generosity expressed in practical action to help the most vulnerable in particular.

Economic responses in rural and island communities have been characterised most by flexibility and adaptation, innovation and creativity, collaboration and committed local customers. Over half of 62 entrepreneurs surveyed consider Covid-19 to have brought about new business opportunities. Technology companies across the Northern Periphery, many of them small and micro businesses, innovated or adapted their products, and expanded their markets during the pandemic (see Project C here). And regions in Iceland and Atlantic Canada have continued tourism activities with a switch to domestic tourism.

Thomas Fisher, the Project Manager and Director at CoDeL, says “the research is striking because of the weight of evidence it delivers across many different regions, from Finland to Canada, and across many different sectors, in 10 reports based on extensive desk research, 80 interviews and almost 30 case studies.”

“Above all,” he continues, “our analysis is rooted in the lived experience and voices of rural and island communities during the pandemic. The analysis is not seen through the lens of researchers who have little experience of life in remote areas, but was conducted and evaluated by researchers, many of whom themselves live in rural and island communities. It is they who are challenging traditional perspectives on peripherality, calling for the very concept of peripherality to be redefined.”

“We need to rethink both the concept of peripheries as well as the idea of the economy. I think that with all the case studies the research rigorously shows that there is no other way to think, and act. It is just the sort of academia we need now (and have needed before).” Prof Eeva Jokinen, Department of Social Sciences, Social and Public Policy, University of Eastern Finland

The key findings, recommendations and summaries from the report can be read here.

Policy-makers are taking note. The NPA programme has themed their next annual event in October under Redefining Peripherality. The Nordic Council of Ministers is funding four Nordic Talks by CoDeL and Nordregio on the same theme.

“The resilience shown by rural and remote communities during Covid-19 has been a testament to the inherent engagement, cohesiveness and flexibility of these communities. The pandemic has generated a renewed vigour in re-imagining life on the periphery as a very attractive place for people and businesses to come, work and live.” Liam Glynn, Professor of General Practice, School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Ireland

And people outside of these communities have noticed too. Covid-19 has radically shifted how people view the attractiveness of rural living. Many are fleeing cities and buying properties in rural areas and islands. This is leading to a critical housing crisis, excluding many local and young people from being able to live in these areas, the next “economic clearance” according to young Gaels.

“But these changes were already taking place before the pandemic”, argues Theona Morrison. “CoDeL research back in 2018 on young people returning and settling in Uist, the Islands Revival blog and declaration of 2019, and pre-Covid evidence gathered by this research project shows clearly how demographic trends were already changing. The pandemic has accelerated these trends.”

Author: Planning Democracy

We had an inspirational event on Tuesday 15th June – Scotland’s Housing Crisis: Tackling the Volume Housebuilders. It included a highly informative talk by Bob Colenutt author of The Property Lobby: The Hidden Reality Behind the Housing Crisis followed by some really informed debate and finishing with a call to action. Watch the recording of Bob’s talk here and the slides from the talk here. We have also produced a guide to why housing needs to be done differently and what we are suggesting as solutions – download the guide from our Resources page.

The issue of housing is high on the political agenda, it is a thorny and complex issue. Because it creates winners and losers it is highly divisive.

There is a shocking lack of affordable and social housing. Too many people lack access to decent, affordable homes.

Yet there are increasing numbers of large scale luxury housing estates being proposed on agricultural land and greenfield sites in the central belt, threatening the quality of our towns, villages and urban fringes.

Meanwhile there are 11,000 hectares of unused vacant and derelict urban sites in Scotland, where people do want houses to be built.

The quality of house building is being called into question and the location of many housing developments are unsustainable and inappropriate due to lack of infrastructure.

The Scottish Government declare house building targets every year, yet the problems persist.

Land speculation, powerful lobby groups, the financialisation of housing and an over reliance of the private sector to deliver our housing lie at the heart of the problem. This event helped people understand how we might begin to tackle the issues. Anyone interested in joining our new campaign should email us on info@planningdemocracy.org.uk. We will be meeting on the 5th July to discuss the way ahead.

Author: Local Futures

WORLD LOCALIZATION DAY – JUNE 20 2021

A celebration of the emerging worldwide localization movement which aims to restore the community fabric and human-scale, ecological economies, with a central focus on local food systems.

Click here to learn more

Author: Polycrub

We are the designers, and only suppliers, of the Polycrub. We are based in Northmavine, Shetland and are a successful social enterprise. This makes us a little different from usual businesses. We are a trading arm of Northmavine Community Development Company (NCDC), a charity that works alongside local people to regenerate and develop Northmavine.

Like traditional businesses we aim to make a profit, but it’s what we do with our profits that sets us apart. We reinvest them in Northmavine to create positive social change by supporting community-based projects.

The ‘Polycrub’ concept began as an NCDC community project in 2008. Our community was keen to reduce food miles and grow more fresh produce locally.
Grant aid from the Climate Challenge Fund meant that we could build 12 community polytunnels in Northmavine. Each building was split into shared plots and almost 50 people in our community were able to grow undercover.

We needed our growing spaces to be able to stand up to the Shetland weather so, before we began the project, we considered design ideas. We developed these to create a structure that would withstand our harsh climate.

NCDC had been approached to find an alternative use for redundant equipment from the aquaculture industry which, at that time, was either being sent to landfill, or littering shorelines. We incorporated the waste materials in the design of our hoops.

Once our community growing project was complete, it attracted lots of interest from other community groups and individuals who wanted to buy our design. We branded the structures as the ‘Polycrub’ and we now sell them in kit form as far away as France and the Falklands.

Polycrubs are now popular with individual growers who need a robust growing space. Many schools and community groups have been able to access grant funding for Polycrub growing projects. Crofters and farmers with plans for crofting diversification could also be eligible for funding support through the agricultural grants system.

Polycrub has structural accreditation, our designs are subject to copyright and Polycrub® is trademarked.

Author: Jim Monaghan, Bella Caledonia

Powerful Communities can put a halt to “Community Empowerment”

Back at the end of 2018 stories started to circulate about the future of Whitehill Pool in Dennistoun. Over the next few months details of properties owned and managed by Glasgow Life that were being “reviewed” emerged, and the local people and users of the pool began a highly successful community campaign in support of the pool and other local sports facilities.  In the years since, Whitehill Pool has secured investment and has been guaranteed a future. Glasgow City Council will tell you that this is a story that shows the local campaigners were wrong, that it wasn’t going to close. The reality is that the reverse is true, the council wouldn’t dare close the place after the organised campaign demonstrated that the local people wouldn’t accept it. Last year, when we emerged from the first lockdown, some libraries were re-opening, some were delaying opening because of COVID restrictions, and others were being “reviewed” with no promise of ever re-opening.  A highly visible grassroots campaign began in Pollokshields to protect their local library, meeting outside the closed building to make art, banners and to read books. And here we are again, the threat of closure or asset transfer hangs over dozens of community facilities while Glasgow City Council (GCC) and Glasgow Life (GL) have this annual dance around the Council budget and the GL property portfolio.

Essentially, this dance is about a shortfall in budget. GL operate each year with a flat service fee from GCC and the revenue derived from the operation of their venues. Roughly, each year GL’s books show an income of around £120M and outgoings of much the same. This £120M is made up of two thirds from the service fee (around £80M) and one third (£40M) from their own income. The result of the pandemic is that they have had little or no revenue and are £40M short. About half of this has been covered by schemes such as furloughing staff and the fight is about whether GCC will give GL the shortfall or, indeed, whether the Scottish Government will give GCC the money to plug the gap. The difference between this and any other council Department in Glasgow, or most leisure and cultural services provided by councils elsewhere, is the existence of Glasgow Life.

Glasgow Life was set up in 2006 by Glasgow City Council. They were a private company, wholly-owned by the Council, who then became a registered charity the following year, 2007. It is what is known as an ‘Arm’s Length External Organisation’ (ALEO). Like housing stock transfer from council-owned to independent housing associations, it was very much in vogue at the time and part of what New Labour called “modernisation”. But this is not the argument that many would like us to be having, they would prefere a narrative where one party is the baddie and the other blameless. It is not about whether Labour or SNP are to blame, that is not the debate here. It is still the tactic today, continued on, whoever has been in charge at Holyrood, Westminster or George Square. It is what David Cameron called “The Big Society” and what the Scottish Government call Community Empowerment.

The Community Empowerment Act, on the face of it, acknowledged great campaigns such as Govanhill Baths, the land buy-outs in Islands and other examples of the community taking control of unused space or taking over what had been privately owned land, turning it to community use. It purported to be a charter for increasing localised democracy. But what it started was a deliberate strategy to do this, not as a model for situations that arise where community ownership is desired and appropriate, but as the norm. The emergence of the “People Make Glasgow Communities” strategy, as a potential way of outsourcing services to the third sector, is the direct outcome of the Community Empowerment Act 2015 .

Backroom deals negotiated over a hot property portfolio are the exact opposite of Community Empowerment. In fact, the creation of these ‘arms-length’ companies, the transfer of the housing stock and other such moves dramatically disempower the population, taking away one of the few tools of power that they have, their vote. Previously the council and its councillors could be held to account every 4 years at the ballot box. Now, if the housing stock is shit, your councillor isn’t held responsible, they are ‘on your side’ and will write a letter to the Housing Association but, ultimately, they will tell you it is “out of their hands”.  A main selling point of the Community Empowerment Act was the proposed “participatory budgeting” yet here we are, locked outside, our “participation” limited to placards, petitions and social media.

There are times when Community ownership is the right model for a specific project and times when a partnership between the council and a local third sector group works. But imagining that this model will work automatically, when it didn’t evolve from the local circumstances, is not backed by evidence. Places like The Hidden Gardens in Pollokshields or Malls Mire woodland in Toryglen are good examples of the latter, Govanhill Baths being the perfect reminder of the former. Their community-owned and run Wellbeing Centre comes after 20 years of fighting and was the last resort for the campaign. The first 5 years was campaigning to stop the pool closing or pushing for the Council to re-open the place, only forming a Trust to bid for the building when GCC put the land and building up for sale to potential developers.

But trying to artificially create a demand for community control where none exists, to shoehorn a disparate group into a company to run these services and assets is a recipe for disaster. It is, in effect, creating dozens of little unaccountable Glasgow Life’s, all costing more than it costs for the council to run them. The deficit in costs is ultimately met by reducing services, cutting opening hours and replacing paid workers with volunteers. Instead of 30 libraries HR, payroll and admin done in one place there are 30 little offices all tied up with the day to day paperwork and the constant, intense, fund-raising, always one year from potential closure. Thirty little Glasgow Life’s all negotiating against the threat of closure year-on-year. The responsibility placed on individuals to maintain such a project where there was no visible community support to start with can be crippling.

The safest, most secure and most democratically accountable model for ownership and management of these facilities is for it to be done in-house by the GCC.

The excuse for “a review” is often that these facilities are under-used, that they don’t have the numbers to make it viable. The facilities with less demand, less usage, need MORE help and need to be overseen and underwritten by the Council. They don’t take this attitude with minority languages, they don’t do it to Opera. In those cases they would agree with me, that the lack of use is evidence that it needs more subsidy in order that the minority get a full service.

Of course, there is an election on, which is why it is likely that a solution will be found in the short-term. But that election also means that false opposition and partisan positions of support will pollute the debate. We should not let that distract us. Doing this during an election period IS a great example of community empowerment, the vocal outcry will stop any closures – because they don’t want to lose votes. But make no mistake, it doesn’t end here, we need to be wary of losing assets over the coming years. GL have 14 facilities where they want to transfer ownership to a community organisation that doesn’t currently exist, where no local groups have expressed a desire to do this. And, as we saw last year in Pollokshields or 2 years ago in Dennistoun, that list will always be there, our vital resources, at the heart of our communities, being used as a bargaining chip.  Let’s do as the people in Kinning Park did 25 years ago, Govanhill did 20 years ago, as Dennistoun did 2 years ago, as Pollokshields, Whiteinch and Maryhill are doing right now. Say no. Tell them we will not accept this.

What can we do? Visit the Facebook and other online pages of groups who are fighting the closures. Glasgow Against Closures has information on all of the facilities that could be under threat now or in the future. They have an online petition  online petition against all closures in the city. Search for and join the local group in your area. If there isn’t a local group, start one. Contact organisations like Living Rent Glasgow Trades Unions such as GMB, UNITE or UNISON. They will have activists in your area who will be organising or who will put you in touch with those who are. We will likely win this round.  But what we do now prepares us for this in the future, strengthens our hand, and making our voices heard, forcing the councils to listen and respond, is far more empowering to communities than forming yet another community trust. As we say in Govanhill, united we will swim!

Author: SMSA

Two Scottish Men’s Sheds have been announced as winners of this year’s Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service (QAVS) – the highest award given to local volunteer groups across the UK in recognition of their outstanding and diverse work to benefit their communities.

Today’s announcement, which coincides with Volunteers’ Week (1-7 June), celebrates Aberchirder and District Men’s Shed and Westhill and District Men’s Shed receiving this prestigious award.

The number of nominations remains high year on year – evidencing that the voluntary sector is thriving and full of innovative ideas to make life better for those around them – and the Sheds were two out of 241 UK charities, social enterprises and voluntary groups to receive this accolade in 2021.

Representatives from the two Sheds will receive the award crystal and certificate in addition to attending a garden party at Holyroodhouse Palace in July 2022 (depending on restrictions at the time) along with other award recipients.

Aberchirder and District Men’s Shed (ADMS), ‘Scottish Men’s Shed of the Year’ 2019, began in 2016 when its Shedders took over an area of derelict land from Aberdeenshire Council. The early months of their existence focused on clearing the ground and creating a Shed from portable cabins.

Subsequently, they have grown significantly over the years and provide an opportunity for men to meet socially, make connections, utilise existing skills, learn new skills, mentor others and serve the community. ADMS provides a facility for wood and metal working; computing classes; volunteers for local events (e.g. stewarding at the Ride of the North cycle event); greenhouse and gardening; repairs to community assets; community projects for the local school (e.g. making a chicken coop and mud kitchen for the pupils); support for other community groups (e.g. construction of a memorial bench for the Beavers and teaching the Scouts skills to build a Kart); and supports its Community Association whenever needed (e.g. providing power for the Christmas tree lights).

ADMS Chairman, Mike O’Brien, said: “It is a great honour to be awarded the prestigious QAVS. Our members are immensely proud and delighted that our villagers recognise the efforts we have made to create a safe and friendly environment where men can meet to make (and mend), talk, put the world to rights, drink coffee and help to foster a community spirit. Nominating our Shed, particularly during lockdown, highlights the exceptional relationship the Shed has with the Aberchirder and District community.”

Andrew Simpson, Lord-Lieutenant of Banffshire, said: “I am delighted that Aberchirder & District Men’s Shed has been recognised in this way. The Shed has made a significant difference to the lives of people in their community – not least during the period of the pandemic. During our assessment visits we were impressed by their commitment to serving the people in their area.”

Westhill and District Men’s Shed (WDMS), the first-ever Men’s Shed in Scotland, is a place where men can meet to socialise and work together on a wide variety of projects and hobbies.

Using their well-equipped workshop, men of all ages, backgrounds and interests share their skills working on personal and community projects. It is a unique place where men can socialise and satisfy their wish to be productive and, in turn, improve their health and wellbeing.

Shedders work together on a variety of projects. The members created the Archie bench at the Royal Aberdeen Children’s Hospital and its modelling group is currently working on a model of the Peterhead Prison Railway which will be on display in the Peterhead Prison Museum. WDMS repairs, re-furbishes and recycles garden equipment (from spades to mowers) giving them a new lease of life. The Shed  also carries out various community projects including making benches, raised beds etc. for local charities, schools and groups.

WDMS received the QAVS with ‘special recognition’ for its production of vital personal protective equipment (face visors) for keyworkers in the early days of the pandemic when there was a global shortage.

WDMS Chairman, David Thomson, said: “It is a great honour to receive this prestigious award. Our Shed is an ideal place where men can go and get the benefit of socialising, sharing interests, exchanging experiences, learning new skills and working side by side with other men. This award recognises the commitment of our members, who are all volunteers, for the work they do on a variety of projects for the local community”

Jason Schroeder, Executive Officer of the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association, said: “Today’s announcement recognises the outstanding contributions these Sheds have made in their local communities. This is a wonderful tribute to these men – as volunteers – for all of their hard work, commitment and dedication to support each other whilst also making a real difference in today’s society.”

The QAVS was created in 2002 to celebrate The Queen’s Golden Jubilee and recipients are announced each year on the 2nd June – the anniversary of The Queen’s Coronation. They include volunteer groups from across the UK, including an inclusive tennis club in Lincolnshire; a children’s bereavement charity in London; a support group for those living with dementia and their carers in North Yorkshire; a volunteer minibus service in Cumbria; a group supporting young people in Belfast; a community radio station in Inverness and a mountain rescue team in Powys.