Author: Ashifa Kassam The Guardian

Incensed after finding out his rental home of 10 years was about to become a tourist apartment, Dani Romero took to social media. What followed swiftly snowballed into a movement, as residents in Málaga began plastering stickers – reading “A family used to live here” or “Go home” – outside tourist lets across the southern Spanish city.

“I didn’t mean to arm a revolution,” said Romero. “I’m just looking for a house to live in.”

At the core of what one Spanish broadcaster called “the sticker rebellion” is not a rejection of tourism, said Romero. Instead, as city residents grapple with a record number of tourists, it’s a cri de coeur for a more balanced approach that could allow for a better coexistence between residents and tourists.

View image in fullscreen

It’s a debate playing out across Europe, as cities from Athens to Amsterdam wrestle with how best to tackle overtourism.

In Málaga, Romero did all he could to negotiate with his landlord, offering to pony up more rent for the three-bedroom flat he lived in on the outskirts of the city centre. His landlord’s refusal, however, cast Romero into a desperate search amid the slim pickings of a real estate market where tourist lets have for years outstripped the number of residents in the city centre.

“I’ve looked at houses that don’t have windows, another that wanted a €40,000 (£34,192) deposit,” he said. “On Friday, one asked me for a €200 deposit just to visit the apartment.”

Fuelled by frustration, he took to the social media page of the bar he owns, posting his own take on the blue AT – Apartamento Turístico or Tourist Apartment – signs that advertise tourist lets in the city. “ATtack against the citizens of the city,” he said, as he invited others to come up with their own rebrand of these short-term rentals.

Answers soon rolled in, all of them cleverly playing off the AT sign. “This used to be my home,” reads the translation of one response. Others were more blunt: “Go to your fucking home.”

The campaign soon took on a life of its own, as residents began printing out the responses and sticking them on to the AT signs across the city.

“To me it seems a very peaceful way of protesting,” said Romero. “There’s no organisation or political party behind this. It’s neighbours who are fed up because this is an issue that affects absolutely all of us.”

A recent survey of residents in Málaga found that access to housing ranked as their principal concern, with 60% of those polled describing rental prices as “very expensive”.

While about 80% of those surveyed described the impact of tourism as “very positive” or “positive,” the most recent data available showed that in 2021, the number of foreign nationals moving to the city rose by 2,600 while the population of Spanish nationals dropped by nearly 1,000.

As the number of tourist apartments swelled, the supply of rentals for locals shrank, pricing out groups such as retirees, some who had been forced to move into shared accommodation, and young people, said Romero. “I’m 48 years old, have a high income, money saved up and I can’t find a house. What’s the situation like for people who are 25 years old?”

Those lucky enough to own their home were not immune either, he said, as the influx of tourists had steadily replaced fruit shops and fishmongers with souvenir stands and luggage storage. “I don’t have anything against tourism. Tourists visit my bar and I’ve been a tourist,” said Romero. “But we have to regulate tourism – me and half the city can’t live like this.”

The city of Málaga, which recently rejected legislation that would have seen the municipal rental market classified as “under pressure” allowing officials to put in place rent caps in certain cases, did not reply to a request for comment.

Graffiti in Seville, Spain, in defence of housing for citizens. Photograph: Ken Welsh/Alamy

As news spreads of Málaga’s sticker rebellion, messages poured in for Romero from across the country. From San Sebastián to Valencia and Madrid and Barcelona, residents got in touch to express interest in printing out their own stickers.

Others had weighed in with opinions. “Some people have been really supportive. Others think this is all silly,” he said. “But at the end of the day, all I’m doing – I repeat – is protesting because I don’t have a home.”

Author: Thea Snow

Twenty years ago, it might have been novel to begin an article by arguing that traditional bureaucratic structures are not well-designed to solve complex social challenges.

The suggestion that wicked problems would be better tackled if government departments joined-up to bring cross-departmental expertise to the table may have felt innovative. And the idea that governments might benefit from working with partners beyond the public sector to solve social challenges may have stopped readers in their tracks.

But we’ve all read this now. Many times. That’s not the interesting part of this story anymore.

What is interesting is that while the case for joined-up-government and cross-sectoral partnerships appears to have been convincingly made, the question of how to make this happen effectively still looms large.

Many articles and studies focus on the institutional barriers which make it hard for governments to work collaboratively. However, while this is certainly important, this article focuses on a piece of the puzzle that is often neglected; that is, the role of individuals in supporting collaboration to succeed.

As Paul Williams, professor at the National Centre for Public Policy in Wales, who has written extensively on this topic, writes “[the] fixation at the organizational and inter-organizational domain levels understates and neglects the pivotal contribution of individual actors in the collaborative process.”

Boundary Spanners

The individuals who play a pivotal role in supporting effective collaborations are known in the academic literature as “boundary spanners”. They are described as individuals who “seek to facilitate communication across organizational and sectoral boundaries and build trust, empathy and mutual understanding among actors with different backgrounds, vocabularies and interests.”

There are two types of boundary spanner:

• Dedicated boundary spanners: those whose core function involves the coordination and facilitation of collaboration between a diverse set of parties, for example, community safety officers.
• Incidental boundary spanners: those working in standard public sector jobs who, because of the complexity of social challenges, are involved in cross-boundary working as an incidental, but integral, part of their job.

What does it take to be a boundary spanner?

While the distinction between dedicated and incidental boundary spanners may seem neat, the key skills needed to support effective collaboration are the same, regardless of which category you sit in.

Based on a review of the literature on this topic, there are seven key skills needed to be an effective boundary spanner. These are:

1. Relationship building

Effective boundary spanners need to be able to build authentic and sustainable relationships with a diverse range of actors.

These relationships need to be based on trust and mutual respect and they need to feel more personal than business-like. As Paul Williams explains, “there is a general view that the ‘real’ business of partnership work is effected within the framework of… personal exchanges. It is where difficulties are shared, aims agreed, problems sorted out, deals struck and promises made — all out of the public gaze.”

This ability to build and nurture relationships is a difficult thing to learn. People who are good at building relationships tend to possess certain personal attributes such as being extroverted, honest, open and sociable. This highlights that while there are elements to being a good boundary spanner which be learned, there are other aspects which appear to be more innate.

2. Communication skills

Good boundary spanners are good communicators.

Boundary spanners need to be able to listen, filter, and translate information across parties who are not used to working together.

Collaboration often fails because organisations often have different priorities and values; sometimes it even feels that they speak different languages! These differences can lead to misunderstandings and conflict.

A key feature of boundary spanning is the ability to understand these differences, and support parties to navigate their way through using shared language and by communicating openly, clearly and constructively about points of tension or difference.

3. Chutzpah

Effective boundary spanners need chutzpah. They need to be willing to challenge the rules and navigate red tape, which so often holds people back from successful collaborations.

Bureaucracies have not been designed to support collaborative processes; they tend to inhibit, rather than encourage, cross-government and cross-sectoral collaboration.  Boundary spanners need to treat the formal structures which inhibit collaboration as obstacles to work through or around, rather than as hard and rigid barriers.

To do this, boundary spanners need to challenge the status quo and even bend the rules where it’s required — boundary spanners need to live by the adage “proceed until apprehended.”

4. Empathy

Boundary spanners need to be empathetic. They need to be able to stand in the shoes of others, understand different viewpoints, and then help others involved in the partnership to do the same.

Empathy goes beyond listening and extends to an imagining of what it feels like to be someone else. Boundary spanners who are able to encourage those involved in collaborative partnerships to empathise with partners are far more likely to succeed in navigating points of difference or disagreement.

5. Creativity

Boundary spanners need to think creatively. Building on the element of “chutzpah” mentioned above, boundary spanners need to embrace new ideas and lateral thinking. As Williams explains, successful boundary spanning requires “unlearning of professional and organisational conventions and norms.”

Boundary spanners are often working to bring unlikely partners together to find new solutions to old problems. This requires open-mindedness, creativity, opportunism and innovation.

6. Diplomacy

Boundary spanners need to be diplomats; a significant part of their role is mediating between parties. Boundary spanners need to be comfortable managing negotiations, brokering bargains, and managing and harnessing the “constructive friction” that emerges when actors from different sectors work together.

To do this, boundary spanners need to be seen to be neutral and objective; they cannot be seen to be pushing a particular agenda.

7. Ability to manage complexity

Boundary spanners need to be comfortable navigating complexity. This is because collaborative projects are, by their very nature, complex. A study by Williams identifies that the skills necessary to manage these kinds of complex projects are: analytical skills, critical thinking and whole-systems thinking.

Barriers to boundary spanning

While the elements above focus on what makes effective boundary spanning possible, there are also some key barriers which are important to acknowledge.

Firstly, and as touched upon above, there appear to be some boundary-spanning skills which are more innate than learned. Williams suggests that these are: being extroverted, honest, respectful, trusting, open, sociable and persistent, having an inviting personality and being sensitive. For some lucky people, this all comes very naturally; for many others, not so much.

Happily, there are many boundary-spanning skills can be developed through training. For example, there are courses available on negotiation and mediation, as well as courses designed to teach people the skills of joined-up working.

Beyond training, people who have worked across a variety of sectors and roles tend to find boundary spanning more natural. Having a breadth of experience makes it easier to connect with different kinds of stakeholders and understand their motivations and mindsets.

In addition, while I’ve chosen not to focus on institutional barriers to collaboration in this article, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the significant organisational challenges that boundary spanners must contend with. As professor Janine O’Flynn explains, “asking people to work across boundaries while hardwiring vertical reporting lines makes the practice of boundary spanning extremely challenging”.

Finally, culture also matters. Cultures characterised by turf-protection and hierarchy tend to inhibit collaborative work. For boundary spanners to succeed, leadership at all levels need to work at creating a culture which supports, rather than hinders, their efforts.

We can all be boundary spanners

A closing message to those who are passionate about using collaboration to address complex challenges is that the role that individuals (you!) play in supporting collaboration to succeed is critical. While institutional architecture and culture certainly play a role in supporting cross-government and cross-sectoral collaboration, it simply could not happen without passionate and creative boundary spanners driving the work forward.

In a world where problems are only getting more complex, boundary spanners will become more sought after. Hopefully this article has helped to identify the boundary-spanner in you. — Thea Snow

Author: SCA

Scottish Community Alliance – Full Briefing on the Land Reform Bill

Summary

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday 13 March 2024, following an extensive consultation in 2022. The introduction had been delayed from last year, amid murmurs that “expectations would need to be managed”. Even so, the Bill as introduced is embarrassingly thin with respect to land ownership, with the bulk of the provisions focussing on agricultural and other tenancies, while many proposals covered in the consultation are conspicuous in their absence.

The definition of “large-scale landholdings” is partially reduced from the 3,000ha proposed in the consultation, with a threshold of 1,000ha now applying to some measures, and a new Land Commissioner will be established (although it is difficult to see how they will keep themselves occupied). Otherwise there are just three substantive measures, all heavily caveated.

1) The Bill gives Ministers the power to require that a publicly accessible land management plan be produced and regularly reviewed for all large-scale (>3,000ha) landholdings. Development of the plan must include community consultation and there are some indications of the required content, but the details will be in secondary legislation, with no timescale for when or even if these must be implemented. However, as there is no obligation on landowners to take any notice of consultation responses, the penalties for proven breaches are slap-on-the-wrist fines, and the only organisations that can report breaches are local LRA-compliant community bodies, the relevant local authority and three quangos, in practice most landowners can probably safely ignore this measure.

2) The Bill requires that owners intending to transfer all or part of a large (>1000ha) landholding, must notify the Scottish Government and certain other parties in advance, to give community bodies an opportunity to try and buy the land. This is welcome, however the threshold is too high and the timescale for any community response is very short, especially where there is no pre-existing LRA- compliant body.

3) The Bill introduces a prohibition on the transfer of large (>1,000ha) landholdings without an application to Ministers for a decision on whether to sub-divide the land into “lots”, to be sold to different purchasers. Whilst this is welcome in principle, the proposed “transfer test” is a pale shadow of the broad range of measures considered in the 2022 consultation under the banner of a public interest test and there is little to ensure that lotting will actually make communities more sustainable. Critically, by focussing on the seller and omitting any scrutiny of buyers, this proposal does little to encourage diversity or inhibit the consolidation and expansion of ownership by existing large landowners.

Given the broad range of potential provisions consulted on in 2022, and the widespread 

Support from respondents towards stronger measures, the three substantive proposals noted above are very weak, and appear to have been designed to do the minimum possible to meet the commitments made in successive Programmes for Government and the Bute House Agreement.

Various other measures, many of which were included in the 2022 consultation, have not found their way into the Bill, including:

Review and reform of the asset transfer provisions and the various community rights to buy introduced by previous legislation;

Modernisation of the compulsory purchase powers available to local authorities, and/or the introduction of compulsory sales orders;

Review and reform of existing taxes, such as non-domestic rates, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, and/or the introduction of land value tax or carbon emissions tax;

Strengthening the Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement;

Conditions on those in receipt of public funding for land-based activity;

Measures to regulate who can own, control and benefit from Scotland’s land;

Measures to secure affordable rural housing for the sustainability of local communities.

Most strikingly, any consideration of the urban domain is completely excluded, with the measures in the Bill effectively only relevant to rural Scotland.

Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee is expected to be designated as lead committee for scrutiny of the Bill; they will issue a call for evidence, consult with stakeholders and prepare a report. Amendments to the Bill can be proposed and voted on in the subsequent stages 2 and 3.

The Scottish Community Alliance (SCA) should seek to work with member networks and other interested parties to strengthen the Bill for the benefit of communities, both through the parliamentary process and through wider campaigning.

READ FULL BRIEFING HERE

Author: Helena Horton, The Guardian

The “15-minute city” has become a toxic phrase in the UK, so controversial that the city of Oxford has stopped using it and the transport minister has spread discredited conspiracy theories about the urban planning scheme.

But while fake news spreads about officials enacting “climate lockdowns” to “imprison” people in their neighbourhoods, across the Channel, Parisians are enjoying their new 15-minute neighbourhoods. The French are stereotyped for their love of protest, so the lack of uproar around the redesign of their capital is in stark contrast to the frenzied response in Oxford.

Carlos Moreno, a jovial and owlish professor at the Sorbonne University, came up with the phrase “15-minute cities” and has been quietly getting on setting them up in Paris. He has a bemused air when asked about how his modest proposal for a more enjoyable urban life has caused such vile conspiracy theories, and takes it all in good humour despite the death threats and other abuse he has received.

Moreno says: “We don’t have the conspiracy mongers, because it is impossible to say in Paris that Moreno wants to create a new Paris lockdown. This is impossible to say that I am Pol Pot or that I am Stalin – because we live in Paris, I can invite guests to visit me and they see this is impossible.

“We have created a lot of new districts and they have been popular. The opposition in Paris is not the same that you have in the UK, because nobody can say in Paris we want to create an open jail – this is evident that it is not the case. We have beautiful new green spaces and areas to live.”

Moreno has been working with the Paris mayor, Anne Hidalgo, to make its arrondissements more prosperous and pleasurable to live in. He says there are 50 15-minute cities up and running, with more to come.

“We have an outstanding mayor, who is committed to tackling climate change. She said the 15-minute city will be the backbone for creating a new urban plan. The last time Paris had a new urban plan was in 2000, so this road map will be relevant for the next 10 or 15 years at least,” he explains.

“I said to Hidalgo, the 15-minute city is not an urban traffic plan. The 15-minute city is a radical change of our life.”

Moreno has written a new book, The 15-Minute City, about his theory, which is being implemented in cities from Milan to Buenos Aires. In it, he explains his theory, which is quite simple. When many modern cities were designed, they were for men to work in. Their wives and family stayed in the suburbs, while the workers drove in. So they have been designed around the car, and segmented into different districts: the financial district (think Canary Wharf), the cultural area (for example, the West End) and then the suburbs. They have also often been segmented into wealthier and poorer areas; in the less prosperous area to the north-east of Paris, Moreno says up to 40% of homes are social housing. In the wealthier west of Paris, this drops below 5%.

“My idea is to break this triple segregation,” he says.

Moreno thinks this segregation leads to a poorer quality of life, one designed around outdated “masculine desires”, so his proposal is to mix this up, creating housing developments with a mixture of social, affordable and more expensive housing so different social strata can intermingle. He also wants to bring schools and children’s areas closer to work and home, so caregivers can more easily travel around and participate in society. He also thinks office should generally be closer to homes, as well as cultural venues, doctors, shops and other amenities. Shared spaces such as parks help the people living in the areas to form communities.

An example of this is the new Îlot Saint-Germain development in one of Paris’s most chic neighbourhoods. It is situated in the old defence ministry, and flats with sweeping views of the Eiffel Tower go for a social rent of €600 (£515) a month.

The right bank of the Seine, before and after pedestrianisation. Composite: Getty, Alamy

Moreno says there was some “aggressive” opposition to this, not from conspiracy theorists but from wealthy Parisians who did not want lower-income people living in their district.

“It was a scandal for the richest to have the working class living here in the 7th arrondissement. They said we will have a reduction in the price of our real estate, there will be more crime. The local mayor of the arrondissement opposed it. But now, it is so, so beautiful with increased quality of life, the development has won awards, it is a desirable place to live.”

The city has also been regenerating the Clichy-Batignolles district in the less prosperous north-west of Paris to have a green, village-like feel. About a quarter of it is taken up by green space and a new park.

“As a 15-minute district, it is incredible,” says Moreno. “It is beautiful, it has proximity, social mixing, 50% of the inhabitants live in social housing, 25% in middle class and 25% own their homes.”

Many of his proposals are dear to the culture of the French. In a large, wealthy metropolis such as Paris, it is easy for small shops to be choked out by large chains. The city of Paris, in its new plan, has put measures in to stop this.

“We have a commercial subsidiary of the city of Paris which has put €200m into managing retail areas in the city with rates below the speculative real estate market. This is specifically to rent to small shops, artisans, bakeries, bookstores. This is not only a good investment because it creates a good economic model, but it keeps the culture of the city of Paris,” says Moreno. This is in keeping with the 15-minute city plan as it keeps local shops close to housing, so people can stroll down from their apartment to pick up a fresh baguette from an independent baker. “It creates a more vibrant neighbourhood,” he adds.

Hidalgo inevitably faced a large backlash from the motorist lobby. Stroll down the banks of the Seine today in the new protected parks and outdoor bars, and it is hard to imagine that it was recently a traffic-choked highway. But with the guidance of Moreno, this became a reality.

In London, there has been a furore around the expansion of the ultra-low emissions zone in London, and attempts to pedestrianise Oxford Street, the city’s busiest shopping district, have failed. So how did Hidalgo do it?

“The drivers were radically very noisy, saying that we wanted to attack their individual rights, their freedom. The motorist lobby said she cannot be elected without our support, that they are very powerful in France,” Moreno says. But Hidalgo called their bluff: “She often says ‘I was elected two times, with the opposition of the automotive lobby’. In 2024, nobody requests to open again the highway on the Seine, no one wants the Seine urban park to be open for cars.”

In his book, Moreno talks about the concept of a “giant metronome of the city” which causes people to rush around. He wants to slow this down, to allow people to reclaim their “useful time” back from commuting and travelling to shops and cultural areas.

Moreno says this is happening with or without him; after the Covid crisis many offices are selling up their large spaces in the financial district and moving closer to residential areas. People are choosing jobs they can work remotely from or that are situated closer to their homes.

“I bet for the next year, for the next decade, we will have this new transformation of corporation real estate,” he says. “Businesses are choosing multi-use areas with housing, schools, shops for their office space now. The time of the skyscrapers in the masculine design is finished.”

Author: Beth Landon

Full summary of dissertation

Abstract

This research explores the experiences of community bodies at the forefront of

developing Local Place Plans (LPPs), to gain insights into the potential for this process

to build capacity for community ownership of land and assets. The Planning (Scotland)

Act 2019, through which LPPs were introduced, is intended to complement Land

Reform and Community Empowerment legislation to achieve this aim. However, there

is uncertainty over whether this will be the case in practice, due to the increased

burden which development of LPPs places on volunteers, low trust in the planning

system and the potential for state co-option of the community sector.

Focusing on a case study in Berwickshire, Scottish Borders, semi-structured

interviews were undertaken with seven representatives of community bodies involved

in LPPs, or considering involvement. The interviews give deep insights into the barriers

and obstacles faced by groups, the most appropriate support and resources they

require and the extent to which involvement is building capacity and aspiration for

community ownership.

The research reveals considerable preexisting involvement in community-led planning

and aspiration for or involvement in community ownership. It also finds potential for

development of LPPs to lead to further community ownership through increased social

capital due to greater connectedness; through a stronger mechanism for the

designation of land and assets of community value; and through enabling a more

robust funding case. 

However, the findings reveal the existence of substantial barriers

of pressure on volunteers and the groups’ experiences of the Local Authority as

culturally bureaucratic and centralised, which could negatively impact on social capital

by stifling the self-organisation of communities.

The findings give key insights into the form a co-produced supportive framework might

take, to facilitate a genuinely community-led approach to the development of LPPs.

Such a framework could enable barriers to be overcome and has the potential to

rebuild the trust that will be essential for a working relationship between the community

sector and the local state if LPPs are to lead to increased community ownership of

land and assets.

Author: David Bookbinder, GWSF

Dear Ariane Burgess – Convenor of Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, The Scottish Parliament

Wider implications of takeover of Reidvale Housing Association by large English-based landlord 

Recognising that the Committee already has a full work programme, the Forum is nonetheless very keen to engage with the Parliament over the likely takeover of one of Scotland’s oldest community based housing associations by a 230,000 unit UK-based association, and the wider implications this has for smaller, local associations here.

 Takeovers by larger housing associations have happened in the past and may well happen again, and sometimes the particular circumstances have made this unavoidable. Equally, though, there have been many cases where troubled associations – through hard work and commitment – have been able to overcome their difficulties and go on to thrive as an independent organisation in their community. 

We would readily acknowledge that Reidvale Housing Association, based in Dennistoun and with 897 homes, has some issues to deal with. Historically, its rents have been well below the Scottish average and levels of investment in the stock may have been below what might have been regarded as the norm. But there is no debt on the stock, and therefore no obvious reason why increased investment should not be possible.

We believe there are unique aspects to what is happening at Reidvale which give particular cause for concern, and which lead us to raise the issue with the Parliament, Ministers and the Scottish Housing Regulator, with a view to exploring how such a scenario can be avoided in the future. 

Our reference to ‘unique aspects’ relates primarily to what appears to GWSF to be a particular combination of external influences working in tandem to steer the Association’s Management Committee in the direction of a takeover when, in our view, this could easily have been avoided. Those external influences can be summarised as follows:

• The strong steer from the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR) for an interim chief officer to be appointed, rather than a permanent one, on the retirement of the last chief officer in 2021: such an interim appointment can, in itself, be a destabilising step 
• SHR’s ‘recommendation’ to the Association of a specific individual to join the Committee as a co-optee: unfortunately this co-optee was not known for her supportive view of community based housing associations
• Within an Options Appraisal process, the breaching of a key regulatory requirement to consult tenants ahead of any decision on the future of the Association, and SHR’s acquiescence in this breach 
• An arrangement made by the interim director, ahead of the takeover decision, to provide the Committee with a ‘fully independent view of its options’ – with the consultant appointed to do being not only a ‘transfer specialist’ but also someone who had previously worked with both the interim director and the aforementioned co-optee.

 Obviously GWSF is not in a position to comment in any detail on Reidvale’s financial position, but we know from the published engagement plans that SHR had no specific concerns about this. 

But we do have a concern that the financial challenges Reidvale faces may have been overstated, when in reality they may not be significantly different to what is faced by many other associations – especially those with a predominance of similar pre-1919 sandstone tenements. In particular, we believe that an alleged lack of preparation for the zero carbon retrofit agenda – as referred to in the Transfer Newsletters, has been used to worry tenants, when it is clear that few, if any, associations in Scotland can demonstrate they have made suitable provision at this very early stage and with a lack of clarity around what subsidy will be available. 

As can be seen from Reidvale’s April 2023 Transfer Newsletter, the English-based, UK-wide Place for People Group, through its Scottish arm, has been selected as the preferred bidder, and one of its promises to existing tenants is a five-year rent freeze – something that has never been seen in previous takeover commitments and, realistically, highly likely to be supported by a majority of tenants. 

The Places for People Group is a huge and complex UK-wide structure, with 230,000 homes and, amongst other things, over 100 leisure centres in ownership.

 Takeovers – or more genuine mergers – sometimes happen between two neighbouring associations. This means the assets remain within the community (consistent with the Scottish Government’s community wealth building approach), and also that the community continues to benefit from the intimate understanding their association has of the area’s wider needs. We are unclear as to whether this option was ever seriously explored by Reidvale and the consultants driving the transfer process. 

From the Transfer Newsletters, it is clear that Reidvale has been keen to point out that more recently, tenant satisfaction has been reducing. This is frustrating to read, firstly because the vast majority of associations have seen satisfaction levels fall in the wake of reduced investment and repairs activity during the pandemic, and secondly because much of any reduced satisfaction relates to the period when interim staff took over, appearing to us to have a primary focus on driving the transfer rather than on maintaining service standards. It is almost as if the Association has wanted to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of deteriorating performance in order to justify the need for takeover. 

The role of regulation 

GWSF accepts that SHR has no ‘transfer agenda’, because their corporate plans have never made reference to anything like this. For many years, though, we have had no doubt that there is an unwritten ‘transfer culture’ there. We have countless pieces of evidence from our member associations of SHR – subtly or not-so-subtly – seeking to influence processes towards a transfer outcome, including cases where SHR has expressed disappointment where an association has decided to remain independent after assessing its options. 

SHR does not recognise any such culture, and we do not see any prospect of things changing in the short or medium term, as cultural factors tend, by nature, to be well embedded and challenging to address even where they are recognised. 

We do, however, seek to continue a constructive relationship with SHR and, as recently as 21 June, have explored with them the scope for them to indicate to any of our member associations facing difficulties that GWSF has a support service enabling us to suggest potential co-optees (and also, in relevant cases, potential interim chief officers). Whilst we already do this on a very informal basis when approached by a member organisation, SHR’s willingness to refer a troubled association to us would be based on us formalising the process within a specific support service. We will now progress this in the coming weeks and months, and believe it will be a valuable support in relevant cases.

As a longer term step, we would be keen to explore the scope for using legislation to amend SHR’s remit to give greater recognition to the value of community based organisations. We are not talking about any kind of guarantee that an association in difficulties could always be supported to deal with its problems and continue to retain its independence, but there would be a greater expectation that community interests would be considered by SHR in its regulation of associations facing difficulties. 

This would reflect an existing but little known requirement in the Code of Practice for Scottish Regulators that ‘regulatory staff, in pursuing their core regulatory remit, should take an enabling approach, be alive to other interests, including e.g. relevant community interests’. 

Explicitly embedding such a requirement in SHR’s remit would not mean there were no transfers in future – indeed some are entirely mutual and take place with relatively little involvement from SHR. Nor would it restrict SHR’s existing powers to direct transfers in certain circumstances. Rather the change would be aimed at placing a greater emphasis on the regulatory process being seen to expect and encourage consideration of options which were more likely to retain a local presence, local service provision and retention of assets in the local community. 

As an example, had such a change in their remit already been in place, we do not think SHR could or would have acquiesced in Reidvale’s blatant breach of the regulatory standard requiring tenant consultation ahead of any transfer decision. 

On the wider policy and political front, we would like Ministers to do more to generate an environment in which the wellbeing of community anchor organisations is encouraged and facilitated, consistent with its objectives on community empowerment and community wealth building. Were it ever to be proposed that the community trusts in places like Eigg or Gigha should be subsumed into huge, English-based organisations, the political reaction would be likely to be one of dismay, and yet it seems to be quite acceptable for this to happen in urban situations. We want to see this change. We would welcome any opportunity to further discuss our concerns with the Committee at some point after the summer recess. 

With thanks and best wishes, 

David Bookbinder Director, GWSF

Author: Ben Martynoga, The Guardian

Established 24 years ago, the Carrifran Wildwood has been credited with inspiring the current surge of rewilding projects across the UK and beyond

About 6,000 years ago, most of southern Scotland was covered by broadleaf woodland, interspersed with patches of rich scrub, heath and bog. In stark contrast, the landscape today is dominated by close-cropped, severely nature-depleted hills, punctuated by sharp-edged blocks of non-native spruce plantation.

Now, thanks to the Carrifran Wildwood, one of the UK’s first community-led rewilding projects, patches of habitat resembling Scotland’s primeval forest are staging a comeback.

Carrifran, now nearly a quarter of a century old, gives us a glimpse of a world that once was. But it also shows what large parts of this land could be: a sink for climate-heating carbon, a flood-mitigating sponge for freshwater; a generator of biodiversity, and a source of wonder, identity and hope for people, locally and globally.

Carrifran’s revival began on 1 January 2000, when the project’s founders and their friends – including me, then a local biology student – broke the thin soil and planted the first 100 saplings.

Nearly a quarter of a century and 750,000 planted trees later, the project is achieving ecological lift-off. The valley is now shaggy with diverse native trees. Freed of grazing pressure, wildflowers are flourishing: even on a cold early March day, the first primroses, wood anemones, coltsfoot, and emerald green honeysuckle leaves offer bursts of colour. On the high ground, peatbogs are healing and rare arctic-montane scrub and heath are thriving. The whole place now echoes with birdsong, and golden eagles can often be seen wheeling above the crags.

Philip Ashmole, a zoologist, was one of the visionaries who launched the project in the mid-1990s. “We wanted to make a small repayment of our debt to nature,” says Ashmole, 90. “We just felt there should be somewhere people could go to see an undisturbed woodland ecosystem, looking and functioning as it did over much of Scotland before humans made a significant impact.”

Ashmole, his wife, Myrtle, and a group of local friends – environmentalists, artists and ecologists among them – set about turning that vision into reality. This grassroots, volunteer-led initiative can lay fair claim to several innovative “firsts”.

Almost all the funds needed to buy the 660-hectare (1,600 acre) Carrifran valley were crowdfunded, nearly a decade before that term was coined. A largely pre-internet fundraising campaign inspired about 600 people to donate a few hundred pounds each to become founders of Carrifran Wildwood.

With less reliance on institutional funders from the start, the group, supported by the Borders Forest Trust (BFT) – a charity established, in part, to own and manage the project – have been able to operate with an unusual degree of independence ever since.

And though the group tend to avoid the sometimes inflammatory word rewilding, that is essentially what they set out to do, 13 years before George Monbiot’s book Feral popularised the term.

The group’s decisions have been guided by a rigorous, science-first approach. Ashmole says habitat restoration plans were informed by soil and vegetation surveys and the results of meticulous analysis of peat cores, in which preserved pollen grains reveal the shifting plant and forest cover at Carrifran over the past 10,000 years.

Long centuries of livestock grazing had erased almost all trees, except a lone rowan, the “survivor tree”, so waiting for natural regeneration was not an option. Over the years, scores of volunteers have stepped up to plant and nurture the trees that now breathe fresh life into the valley. “There’s just been so much love for the site and it has really paid off,” says Andy Wilson, the BFT’s project officer, responsible for daily management of this site. “It wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for all of us,” concurs Ashmole, with characteristic understatement.

Since establishing Carrifran, the BFT has acquired two further significant landholdings in the vicinity, key steps toward the charity’s mission to “revive the wild heart of southern Scotland”.

A catalyst for community-led rewilding

Kevin Cumming, the rewilding director of Rewilding Britain, cites Carrifran as one of the triggers for the recent increase in community-led rewilding efforts across the UK. “A group of people driven by a common interest to make a difference – how could that not be inspiring?” he says. “It certainly inspired me.”

Cumming previously led the Langholm Initiative, which in 2022 completed the south of Scotland’s biggest community buyout to establish the 4,100-hectare Tarras valley nature reserve.

Cumming is hopeful that rewilding will drive what he calls “a just transition for rural economies, [that creates] the sort of green jobs that can come from restoring nature and natural processes”.

Peter Cairns, the executive director of Scotland: The Big Picture, agrees. “Pioneering rewilding initiatives such as Carrifran demonstrate that rewilding is for everyone and delivers benefits to people as well as nature and climate,” he says.

His organisation runs the Northwoods network, which ensures rewilding is done by local communities rather than wealthy landlords.

Last week the Scottish Rewilding Alliance launched a campaign to make Scotland the world’s first “rewilding nation”. Its charter urges the Scottish government to commit to nature recovery across 30% of its land and seas “for the benefit of nature, climate and people”.

Carrifran is one of the seeds that this movement has grown from. It is a reminder of how meaningful change usually unfolds in practice: pioneers must first challenge the status quo, then, gradually, momentum can build.

For Ashmole and Wilson, one urgent priority is the establishment of more wildlife corridors that could weave Scotland’s growing patchwork of rewilding sites and nature-friendly farms into a continuous, ever-shifting wild tapestry. Like them, I look forward to the day when many more landscape-changing mammals – including beavers, wild boar and, eventually, lynxes – can move freely across the country.

Carrifran has become a mecca for would-be rewilders from the UK and beyond. They come here for practical knowhow and an injection of hope. “I just love seeing the excitement on people’s faces,” says Wilson. “They look at the valley and just go, ‘Wow!’”

Ashmole says: “That word ‘inspiration’ comes up, again and again. It’s what we always hoped this valley would offer.”

Author: Calum MacLeod, West Highland Free Press

The Scottish Government finally published its long-awaited Land Reform Bill last week, following a three-month delay to enable Ministers to give the legislation “further consideration and ensure we get the proposals right for introduction”.   If ‘getting the proposals right’ was about doing the minimum to give the impression of radical action while barely shifting the legislative dial on land reform in practice, then it’s mission accomplished.  If, on the other hand, the Bill is intended to provide the ‘turbo-charge’ for land reform that the incoming Chair of the Scottish Land Commission, Michael Russell, publicly called for prior to his appointment to that role, then he and others looking for substantive and progressive policy change are likely to be disappointed by its contents. 

The most attention-grabbing elements of the Bill, heavily trailed in ‘Land Reform in a Net Zero Nation’, the Government’s July 2022 consultation paper on potential provisions for inclusion in the legislation, relate to the management and transfer of ownership of large land holdings.  The consultation paper proposed a notification requirement about possible transfers of such land to eliminate off-market sales and enhance transfer transparency, as well as a built-in presumption in favour of a community right to buy the land in question. Crucially, it also proposed introducing a Public Interest Test on such holdings at the point of transfer.    Other proposals for consultation included making Land Management Plans compulsory for large land holdings to increase transparency and community engagement regarding land use, and measures to strengthen the currently voluntary Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement, introduced in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.  

A major bone of contention regarding all of the above measures has been the Scottish Government’s proposed 3000 hectares threshold as a criterion for triggering any of them in practice, with most respondents to the 2022 consultation arguing that the figure was set too high to effect meaningful change.  

The Government has shown willingness to move on aspects of the land holding threshold, which has been reduced to 1000 hectares for the Public Interest Test, transfer notification requirement, and presumptive community right to buy.  That’s a step in the right direction but the threshold needs to be halved to 500 hectares to have a hope of even denting Scotland’s unusually concentrated pattern of predominantly private rural land ownership.  There’s also no obvious reason why the proposed 3000 hectares threshold for Land Management Plans, to which the Government remains wedded, should not be reduced to at least the 1000 hectares recommended by the Scottish Land Commission in its March 2019 ‘Review of Scale and Concentration of Land Ownership’ report to Scottish Ministers.  

Beyond issues of threshold metrics, there are more fundamental questions about what the Land Reform Bill’s flagship large rural land holdings provisions are likely to achieve in practice if left unamended.  The Public Interest Test, now rebranded as the more benign sounding ‘Transfer Test’ in the legislation, will prohibit the transfer of all or part of land holdings of more that 1000 hectares taking place without a Ministerial decision on whether the land to be transferred should be sub-divided into ‘lots’ to be sold to different purchasers.  

The Transfer Test could potentially lead to more diverse land ownership, as a consequence of the ‘lotting’ provisions.  However, left unamended it could paradoxically also lead to more concentrated rural land ownership, the exact opposite of what is supposed to be one of land reform’s core policy objectives.  

‘Land Reform in a Net Zero Nation’ alluded to a 2019 report on behalf of the Scottish Land Commission highlighting that Scotland “is […] unusual in having no constraints on who can own land, or how much they can own”.  The proposed Transfer Test will do nothing to change that because it is silent on the issue of potential purchasers of the land in question, assuming no presumptive community right to buy is exercised.  That’s a gaping hole in the Test in terms of ensuring that the Public Interest is comprehensively served.  It’s also a green light for relatively recent entrants to the rural land market to continue accumulating holdings at the turbo-charged rate of, for example, Gresham House, a London-based asset management company, calculated by land reform campaigner, Andy Wightman, to be the fifth largest private landowner in Scotland, with aggregate holdings of 53,783 hectares spread over 161 separate landholdings.    

The Bill will also establish a Land and Communities Commissioner within the Scottish Land Commission, with responsibilities for overseeing the new obligations on landowners in relation to Land Management Plans and the Transfer Test.  That is a sensible idea, but the new Commissioner’s enforcement powers will be limited, to put it mildly.  Breaches of the community engagement obligations contained in the Bill may result in fines of up to £5000, presumably based on how egregious such breaches are in practice.   There are also excessively tight constraints on who will be eligible to report alleged breaches in the first place. 

In its 2021 discussion paper on legislative proposals to address the impact of Scotland’s concentration of land ownership, the Scottish Land Commission recommended that sanctions for breaches of what it termed Land Rights and Responsibilities Reviews should, in addition to the imposition of fines, also include scope to dispose of assets (either voluntarily or by a compulsory mechanism), and cross-compliance penalties such as withholding public funding.  The Bill contains nothing on either of these measures, although its Policy Memorandum states that measures being brought forward in the Agriculture and Rural Communities Bill will enable Scottish Ministers to attach certain conditions when providing financial assistance.  Whether such conditions bear any resemblance to the Land Commission’s proposal remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the crucial issue of land taxation has been shunted into the long grass of a Scottish Government tax strategy to be produced at some indeterminate future point.

The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs and Islands Committee is the obvious choice to lead scrutiny of the Bill as it progresses though the Parliament’s second of three legislative stages.  All the more so, given what land reform campaigners will see as the glaring omission of any urban dimensions in the Bill’s provisions.   Once the Bill has been formally introduced to Parliament the inescapable politics of land reform will snap into sharp focus.  If the SNP-Green Government refuses to countenance a radical overhaul of the legislation when amendments are inevitably tabled during its committee stage, that will be a powerful signal that Scotland’s much vaunted land reform journey is losing direction as well as momentum under its watch.     

Dr Calum MacLeod is a freelance sustainable development consultant and writer.

Website: calummacleod.info

Author: SCCS

Last Wednesday, a new report by the Scottish Government’s official advisors on climate change delivered a damning verdict about Scotland’s climate targets, saying they are “no longer credible”, due to insufficient actions or policies.

Responding to the Committee on Climate Change’s report, Mike Robinson, Chair of the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland (SCCS) coalition, which represents 70 civil society organisations in Scotland, said:

“After scant progress to reduce emissions in recent years, this damning report comes as no surprise, but nevertheless is deeply frustrating. Just five years ago every party in the Scottish Parliament supported the rightly ambitious legal target to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030, but since then we’ve seen a damaging mix of party politics, policy delay, and lack of investment.  

“Put simply, after declaring a climate emergency, the Scottish Government has failed to deliver anything close to an emergency response, and must now redouble efforts.

“Scotland’s climate targets are based on what the science told us was our fair contribution to maintain a liveable planet. By failing to do what’s needed to meet them, politicians are failing the people of Scotland and the communities around the world who have done least to cause the climate crisis but are experiencing the worst impacts.

“No more time can be wasted or excuses given – we urgently need to see where and how Scottish Ministers will ramp up action to cut emissions – particularly in how we heat our homes, in agriculture and transport. Action needs to be much better coordinated with the UK Government, and we need investment funded through making polluters pay for the damage they cause.”

Mike Robinson added:

“It speaks to the lack of determined action by Government that only five years since setting the targets, they are already seen as not being credible. While every party in the Scottish Parliament carries some blame, the Scottish Government has lost its position as a climate leader and we would like to see the First Minister make an emergency statement to Parliament to set out his response.”

Author: Deloitte. and Reform

Full report

Executive summary

The State of the State provides a view of the public sector from the people who use it and the people who run it. The report blends two forms of research by bringing together a survey of the UK public alongside interviews with government leaders. 

Our survey, conducted by Ipsos UK, polled 5,815 UK adults about their attitudes to government and public services. We also interviewed more than 100 public sector leaders including permanent secretaries and other senior civil servants, police chief constables, council chief executives, university vice chancellors and NHS leaders, in all nations of the UK. 

Key finding from our survey and interviews:

The public expects big government to continue – but could be in for a shock. 

Our survey found 59 per cent of the public think government spending will stay at current levels or go up in the years ahead. However, our interviews found many public sector leaders anticipate spending restraint or cuts in the next Parliament due to the state of the public finances. 

Immigration, infrastructure and NHS waiting lists have grown as public concerns.

Our poll of public priorities has seen NHS waiting lists and the state of the country’s infrastructure rise by seven percentage points each over the last year. Concerns about immigration have gone up six percentage points, putting it level with climate change as a public priority. 

Government needs to prioritise so its aspirations match its resources. 

Officials across the public sector told us that government needs to prioritise in line with the resources it has available. After years of tactical responses to external events such as the COVID pandemic and cost of living crisis, many public sector leaders hope to see a sector-wide, long-term strategy that is grounded in the reality of the public finances. 

People want public services they can access and complain to when things go wrong – they are less interested in how services are organised. 

Our poll explored peoples’ experiences of public services and found their top priorities for improvement were speed of access and accountability. They are far less interested in how services are organised and do not appear to be demanding more choice. 

Digital maturity comes with mature digital problems. 

As the public sector continues its digital transformation, leaders told us that improving data architecture will be critical for future progress. Several argued that more directive leadership from the centre may also be needed to accelerate change in public services. 

A ’decluttering’ for business and continued investment in skills could support economic growth. 

Leaders across the sector told us that the interface between business and government needs simplifying so businesses can better understand the support available to them. Many added that recent investment in further education has been welcome – but it needs to grow as part of a wider package including a joinedup education and skills strategy with lifelong learning and employability at its core. 

The power of procurement is coming of age. 

Leaders see the new Procurement Act in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as a huge opportunity for the public sector to drive up value for taxpayers’ money and become more entrepreneurial in its work with suppliers. There is also significant enthusiasm for the sector to generate greater social value from its spending power. 

Conclusions: lessons for the state from within 

Our interviews with 100 public sector leaders surfaced their own lessons for the state, from within. Collectively, the interviews point to these five recommendations: 

Eliminate institutional drags on productivity. 

Boosting productivity within the public sector should start with addressing ways of working inherent in the sector that drag it down. That means greater prioritisation, longer-term funding arrangements and spending plans that focus on outcomes. Leaders can also influence productivity gains by the tone and expectations they set. 

Reset the system to end crisis mode.

Much of the public sector has spent years delivering tactical responses to successive disruptions from external forces. As such, the public sector needs to reset for greater resilience, longer-term thinking and a joinedup, sector-wide plan for the future. 

Make delivery the north star for reform. 

Officials believe the sector’s accountability, scrutiny and risk environment make getting things done – whether major projects or business-as-usual – harder than it should be. Future government reforms should therefore emphasise delivery as central to government’s purpose. 

Don’t let up on digital transformation. 

Public sector leaders told us they need to resolve the new issues in digital transformation that come with the UK public sector’s increasing digital maturity. They include bringing the quality of data and its architecture in line with the quality of user experience and continuing to resolve legacy issues. 

Seize the potential of procurement. Many public sector leaders told us that the Procurement Act 2023 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has opened up new potential for procurement to boost value for taxpayer’s money and improve partnership working with suppliers large and small. They told us they want to continue the drive towards generating social value through contracts. Seizing that potential will require bold new ways of working, a mature approach to risk and real ambition in the sector’s procurement and commercial functions – plus the leadership to make it happen.