Consultation On The Proposed Community Empowerment - Scottish ...

Consultation on the proposed 

Community Empowerment 

and Renewal Bill 

An analysis of responses

Consultation on the proposed 

Community Empowerment 

and Renewal Bill 

An analysis of responses 

The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2012

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 

2. OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES ..........................................................................................3 

3. PART ONE: STRENGTHENING PARTICIPATION ...........................................................7 

4. PART TWO: UNLOCKING ENTERPRISING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ...................54 

5. PART THREE: RENEWING OUR COMMUNITIES ...........................................................80 

APPENDIX ONE 

APPENDIX TWO 

CONSULTATION RESPONDENTS 

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

This report provides an analysis to the Scottish Government’s ‘Consultation on the 

proposed Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill’. The consultation sets out 

potential opportunities for communities to take independent action to achieve their 

own goals, and ensure that communities are able to have a greater role in 

determining how their local public services are delivered. 

The consultation was structured around three areas: 

Strengthening Participation - sought views on potential measures to ensure 

a greater emphasis is placed on improving community participation and 

promoting best practice in the design and delivery of services that meet the 

needs and aspirations of local communities. 

Unlocking Enterprising Community Development – sought views on 

potential new powers that could be introduced to enable communities to have 

access to assets which could be a catalyst for unlocking community 

empowerment, enterprise, and increasing social capital. 

Renewing our Communities – sought views on legislation that could be 

introduced to bring vacant or underused property back into use. 

The consultation was launched on 6 June and closed on 26 September 2012. It 

contained 49 questions. Many included ‘closed’ and ‘open’ sub questions. 

Overview of the response 

The Scottish Government received a total of 447 responses to the consultation from 

organisations and individuals. Of these, 137 respondents used the easy read 

consultation questionnaire. Responses came from a wide range of organisations 

and individuals, of which the highest proportion were individuals, and community 

councils and their local networks. 

Summary of responses 

Strengthening Participation 

Community Planning and Community Engagement 

The responses highlighted that communities and their representative bodies often 

feel isolated from the Community Planning process and do not feel that they have 

much influence in decision making processes. For many, Community Planning is a 

mechanistic process for public sector bodies to integrate their operational plans and 

service delivery and has little to do with genuine community engagement. 

i

While many public bodies engaged in Community Planning felt that community 

engagement should be embedded into their planning processes, they highlighted the 

challenges of engaging on high level strategic issues affecting large geographical 

areas. An added complication highlighted by some respondents related to the need 

to involve ‘communities of interest’ as well as geographical areas. 

Many respondents from across stakeholder groups felt that there was a need to 

rationalise or streamline the existing duties, as there were too many and this was a 

source of confusion. While a majority were in favour of the existing duties being 

replaced by an overarching duty to engage, some (including many community 

planning partnerships and local authorities) felt that this would not be necessary if 

the existing duties were strengthened and appropriately resourced. They feared that 

it might make things more complicated by introducing another layer of bureaucracy 

and become overly prescriptive and mechanistic. 

Community Councils 

Many respondents recognised the important role that community councils currently 

play in acting as an interface between communities and local authorities and other 

public bodies. Some respondents, however, questioned the capacity of some 

community councils to fulfil this role adequately, and felt that they were not always 

representative. Others commented that community councils did not exist in all areas 

of Scotland and, in some areas, community council boundaries did not always 

correspond to identifiable communities. 

A number of community councils felt that they should be the first port of call for all 

public bodies on any engagement issues. Others felt the current role of community 

councils was too constrained and were of the view that they should have greater 

powers and be able to influence decisions in relation to the design and delivery of 

public services. 

Some respondents felt that existing structures for community councils might no 

longer be fit for purpose and suggested that there was a need to revisit the existing 

legislation with a view to modernising these structures. 

There was support from many respondents for developing the role of ‘community 

anchors’. Many commented that often community organisations other than 

community councils played a more active role in communities. 

Most respondents generally did not favour community councils in their current form 

delivering services. They felt that the primary role of community councils should be 

to influence the design and delivery of services and also ensure that these services 

are accountable to local communities. Some respondents also suggested that 

community councils should be given control over local budgets to allow them to 

directly commission services. 

ii

The Third Sector 

There was fairly widespread agreement that the third sector could play, and in many 

areas, was already playing an important role acting as an interface between the 

community and community planning partners. 

A number of respondents highlighted that Scottish Government had already invested 

in the establishment of Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs) across Scotland with a specific 

remit to engage with each community planning partnership. 

In contrast, other respondents were more sceptical about the role of the third sector 

in supporting community participation in the Community Planning process, and felt 

that the third sector was too diverse and disparate to represent the ‘voice’ of the 

community. 

National Standards 

A clear majority of respondents supported the proposal that there should be a duty 

placed on the public sector to follow the National Standards for Community 

Engagement (the Standards). Some suggested that the Standards should be 

reviewed and brought up to date. 

Those that did not support the proposal were concerned that it would add an extra 

layer of bureaucracy, would be difficult to monitor and enforce, and might restrict 

more flexible and creative approaches being developed to community engagement. 

Community Engagement Plans 

A significant majority of respondents supported the proposal that there should be a 

duty placed on the public sector to publish and communicate community 

engagement plans. They felt that this would result in greater transparency and 

accountability. It was also suggested that communities would be more aware of 

what the engagement opportunities were, and as a consequence they might be more 

likely to get involved. 

Local authorities and community planning partnerships were more ambivalent in their 

views on this particular proposal. They felt it to be overly bureaucratic, likely to be 

resource intensive to implement and would not necessarily lead to improved 

engagement. 

Auditing 

Views on whether community participation be made a more significant part of the 

audit of best value and Community Planning were fairly polarised. Community and 

third sector organisations generally supported the idea; community planning 

partnerships and local authorities were least supportive on the basis that it is already 

covered as part of the current audit of best value arrangements and would lead to 

increased bureaucracy. 

iii

Audit Scotland indicated that community participation and engagement were 

important strands of the audit framework but, with a move towards a more risk based 

and proportionate approach to audit, it would be difficult to justify making community 

participation a more significant part of their audit work. 

Named Officer 

Community councils, and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and their 

representative bodies, were generally in favour of public sector authorities having a 

named officer responsible for community participation to act as the principal point of 

contact for communities. Many felt that this would simplify and improve 

communications and, if at a senior level, help to promote positive cultural change 

within public authorities. 

However, local authorities and others broadly disagreed. Many felt that a lot of 

strands of their activities involve community participation and that this should not be 

the responsibility of one individual. 

Tenants’ Right to Manage 

Although numbers responding were relatively low, a small majority favoured the 

Scottish Government doing more to promote the use of the existing tenant 

management rights as contained within the Housing (Scotland) 2001 Act, or 

amending the existing legislation to make it easier for tenants groups to manage 

housing services in their areas. These respondents felt that this would give tenants 

a greater sense of ownership and control and more influence in decision making. 

However, many respondents did not favour these proposals and felt that there was 

no evidence of demand from tenants. A number of respondents drew attention to 

the new Scottish Social Housing Charter which they felt offered an additional 

opportunity to enhance tenant participation, and ensure that tenants are involved in 

decisions that affect their housing services. 

Community Service Delivery 

Respondents were asked whether current processes could be improved to give 

community groups better access to public service delivery contracts. There was 

significant support for this proposal among respondents who expressed a view. 

The most common theme to be raised was in relation to procurement. Many felt that 

current procurement procedures often acted as a barrier. Some felt that the matter 

should be dealt with as part of the Scottish Government’s planned Procurement 

Reform Bill. Other respondents (particularly community and third sector 

organisations) felt that the scale of public sector contracts could also act as a barrier. 

There was a degree of support among some respondents for community groups 

having a greater say in the design and management of local services rather than 

delivering them directly. There was also support for communities having the right to 

challenge service provision if they were not satisfied as a way of making service 

providers more accountable. 

iv

Community Directed Spending 

A majority of respondents expressed their support for the principle that communities 

should have a greater role in budget decisions, as a way of ensuring resources were 

targeted to local priorities and giving communities a greater sense of control. 

Local authorities, while generally supportive of the proposal, highlighted a number of 

challenges. Some respondents were concerned that minority needs may be 

overlooked. 

Most of those responding felt that community councils should take the lead, although 

a number of other suggestions were made. 

Unlocking Enterprising Community Development 

Community Right to Buy 

The vast majority of respondents supported the proposal to introduce a community 

right to buy in urban areas, and felt that it should operate in the same way as rural 

areas. Many saw the existing distinction between urban and rural areas as illogical. 

Some private sector respondents argued that the existence as well as the exercise 

of such a right would make already complex development riskier, and therefore less 

likely to happen. The question of the rights of an existing owner (or lender) was also 

raised. From the local authority perspective, it was suggested that a very local 

community interest might conflict with a more strategic objective designed to benefit 

the wider community. 

Community Asset Transfer 

There was fairly widespread support for the principle of transferring assets from 

public sector authorities to the community where a community organisation could 

demonstrate that it could bring about improved community or public benefit as a 

result. It was suggested that in any disposal of public sector assets, first refusal 

should be offered to the community. 

There was some confusion among respondents as to how a proposal to give a right 

to request transfer, where the community can show it could use the asset to greater 

benefit, would work. Many respondents felt that the real issue was how a public 

sector body would deal with such requests. 

Most respondents felt that communities should have a right to buy an asset if they 

had managed or leased it for a certain period of time. However, a number of 

practical challenges and issues were raised. 

Common Good 

Most respondents felt that the current rules surrounding common good assets act as 

a barrier to their effective use by either local authorities or communities. Concerns 

raised included the inadequacy of current common good registers, complex rules on 

how common good assets can be used, and a view (among some) that local 

authorities exert too much control over common good assets. 

v

However, a majority felt that common good assets should continue to be looked after 

by local authorities. Many of these saw scope for greater community consultation 

and involvement in the management of common good assets. 

The broad consensus was that common good assets should continue to be 

accounted for separately from the local authority’s estate. 

Asset Management 

There was overwhelming support for requiring public sector authorities to make their 

asset registers and asset management plans available to the public. 

Allotments 

The vast majority of respondents supported the idea that communities should have 

more land for allotments. Reasons given focused on the social and environmental 

benefits of gardening and grow-your-own projects, with respondents placing strong 

emphasis both on community engagement and sustainability. 

Renewing our Communities 

Leases and Temporary Leases 

Most respondents agreed that communities should have a right to use unused or 

underused public sector assets. However, some of those both supporting and 

opposing the proposal felt that this should be enabling rather than a right. 

Encouraging Temporary Use Agreements 

A majority of respondents agreed with temporary community use of land being made 

a class of permitted development. However, some respondents raised concerns in 

terms of definitions and protecting adverse impacts on neighbours. Others raised 

concerns over the potential impact of short-term use on long-term development 

opportunities. 

Respondents made a number of suggestions for making it easier for landlords and 

community groups to enter into temporary agreements. 

Dangerous and Defective Buildings 

While some felt that existing powers were sufficient to enable local authorities to 

recover costs for work they have carried out in relation to dangerous and defective 

buildings, a majority of respondents felt that extended powers were required. The 

most common suggestion, highlighted by a very significant number of those who 

responded, was the reintroduction of charging orders. Others made more general 

comments calling for stricter laws to act as a deterrent. 

A few respondents were more reticent in focusing on the powers available to local 

authorities, highlighting the possibility that an owner may not be able to afford 

repairs. 

vi

Some felt that a process should be put in place to allow communities to request local 

authorities to exercise their existing powers in relation to dangerous and defective 

buildings. However, local authorities generally disagreed, with the majority stating 

that communities are already able to request that powers be exercised. 

Compulsory Purchase 

Overall respondents were in favour of communities having the right to request a local 

authority to use compulsory purchase powers on their behalf. 

While some respondents queried why a ‘right to request’ is necessary at all, many 

community groups and third sector representatives saw this as a significant ‘shifting 

of the balance’ towards community empowerment, with the presumption that the 

local authority would then be obliged to consider such requests seriously. 

There were more mixed views about the merits of giving communities a right to 

request that they take over property that has been compulsorily purchased by the 

local authority. A number of respondents referred to the rule requiring a property to 

be offered back to its original owner if the purpose for which it had been acquired did 

not proceed. 

Power to Enforce Sale or Lease of Empty Property 

Most respondents agreed that local authorities should be given more power to sell or 

lease long-term empty properties where it is in the public interest to do so, subject to 

conditions. However, a number of respondents referred to issues of definition. 

Others highlighted human rights issues in relation to domestic properties 

Some respondents suggested that parallel powers in England relating to domestic 

properties should be examined. 

Definitions 

A very small proportion of respondents gave their views on the definitions of terms 

used. These tended to highlight the complexity of the issues. 

Assessing Impact 

Potential impacts of the proposals outlined in the consultation paper identified by 

respondents included: 

the potential for the proposals to improve transparency, social cohesion and 

local involvement with service provision and decision making; 

concern that communities may be forced to take on work that they do not 

have the capacity to complete; 

the risk that vulnerable groups are excluded, and do not benefit from the 

consultation’s proposals; 

competition between communities for assets, resulting in disharmony rather 

than cohesion; 

the potentially adverse impact of compulsory purchase on property owners 

who may be unable to sell or utilise unused assets; 

the environmental benefits of increasing the availability of allotments; and 

the potential economic benefits to be gained from community participation and 

engagement, and encouraging social enterprise. 

vii

1. INTRODUCTION 

About this report 

1.1 This report provides an analysis to the Scottish Government’s “Consultation 

on the proposed Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill”. The report 

provides a detailed analysis of each element of the consultation. It looks in 

detail at the responses to the consultation and provides an analysis of the 

views of particular groups, highlighting trends and issues where appropriate. 

Background to the consultation 

1.2 As part of its vision for strengthening Scotland’s communities, the Scottish 

Government is proposing to bring forward a Community Empowerment and 

Renewal Bill. The intention of the Bill is to strengthen opportunities for 

communities to take independent action to achieve their own goals and 

aspirations, and ensure communities are able to have a greater role in 

determining how their local public services are delivered. 

1.3 Options for legislative changes to be included in the Bill are set in the context 

of the Scottish Government’s economic strategy and plans for public service 

reform, both of which set out the need to ensure the delivery of high quality, 

sustainable public services that are capable of delivering the best outcomes 

for communities. 

1.4 The recent review of Community Planning undertaken by the Scottish 

Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities identified that 

effective Community Planning arrangements should be at the core of public 

service reform to achieve better outcomes for communities. Realising this will 

require community planning partners and communities to work together to 

understand local needs and aspirations, and to design and deliver services 

that meet these needs and aspirations. 

1.5 The consultation document recognises that the current climate is a 

challenging one, in which there is a need to “do things smarter and better”. 

Working with communities and empowering them to play a more active role 

can potentially lead to effective delivery of improved outcomes, reduced 

inequalities and contribute to sustainable economic growth. 

1.6 This consultation builds on extensive stakeholder engagement undertaken by 

the Scottish Government with the public, private, third and community sectors 

in Scotland which shaped the consultation document. 

1.7 In setting out options for the Bill, the Scottish Government is seeking to build 

on “inspiring and innovative examples of work already being undertaken to 

support community empowerment”, and address some of the legislative and 

regulatory barriers that prevent communities from reaching their potential. 

8

About the consultation 

1.8 The consultation was structured around three sections. Each set out a range 

of ideas that the Scottish Government believes could act as a catalyst for 

community enterprise, community development and public service 

improvement: 

Strengthening Participation – sought views on potential measures to 

improve community participation and promote best practice in involving 

communities in designing and delivering services that meet their needs 

and aspirations. 

Unlocking Enterprising Community Development – sought views on 

potential new powers to enable communities to have access to assets 

which could be a catalyst for unlocking community empowerment, 

enterprise and increasing social capital. 

Renewing our Communities – sought views on legislation that could 

be introduced to bring vacant or underused property back into use. 

1.9 The consultation was launched on 6 June and closed on 26 September 2012. 

It included 49 questions. Many include ‘closed’ an ‘open’ sub questions. Four 

of the questions related to equality, business and regulatory and 

environmental impacts. 

1.10 Respondents were able to provide either an open response, complete the 

consultation questionnaire offering systematic responses to each of the 

consultation questions, or use an easy read version of the consultation 

questionnaire. 

9

2. OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES 

Introduction 

2.1 This section provides an overview of the responses received to the 

consultation. It considers who the responses came from, who was not 

represented in the response, and provides general comments on the 

responses. 

Who replied to the consultation? 

2.2 The Scottish Government received a total of 447 responses to the 

consultation from organisations and individuals. Of these, 137 respondents 

used the easy read consultation questionnaire. Three respondents partially 

completed both the main consultation and the easy read questionnaire. A full 

list of respondents is attached as Appendix 1. 

Table 2.1: Distribution of Respondents by Category 

Respondent Category 

Main % Easy % Total % 

Consultation 

Read 

Individuals 45 15 66 48 111 25 

Community councils and their 

local networks 

59 19 28 20 87 19 

Other community organisations 

and their representative bodies 

40 13 22 16 62 14 

Third sector/equality 

organisations and their 

50 16 11 8 61 14 

representative bodies 

Other 24 8 9 7 33 7 

Local authorities and their 


26 8 0 - 26 6 

Representative bodies for 

professionals 

20 6 1 1 21 5 

Executive agencies, NDPBs, 

other statutory organisations & 

20 6 0 - 20 4 

NHS 

Community planning partnerships 10 3 0 - 10 2 

Private sector organisations and 

their representative bodies 

9 3 0 - 9 2 

RSLs and their representative 

bodies 

7 2 0 - 7 1 

Total 310 137 447 100 

2.3 As Table 2.1 shows the largest group of responses (25%) came from 

individuals. The next most significant respondent group was from community 

councils and their local networks (19%). Other significant respondent 

groupings were other community organisations and their representative 

bodies (14%) and third sector/ equality organisations and their representative 

bodies (14%). Responses were received from 26 local authorities and their 

representative bodies, and 10 community planning partnerships. 

10

2.4 Respondents were asked to give their views on those areas of the 

consultation that were of particular interest or relevance to them. Therefore, 

not all respondents chose to answer all the questions posed in the 

consultation 

Our approach to analysing the responses 

2.5 The analysis was undertaken using response matrices for full and easy read 

responses. Respondents were categorised into stakeholder groups and 

responses were fed into the appropriate matrix, in accordance with the answer 

to the consultation question. 

2.6 Where a respondent chose not to answer the consultation questionnaire, the 

response was read thoroughly and where the respondent directly answered 

any of the questions, the comments were fed into the relevant part of the 

appropriate matrix. 

2.7 A qualitative approach has been the main focus of the analysis. Given the 

nature of the consultation and the fact that respondents had the option of 

using either the full or easy read respondent questionnaires (which did not 

always absolutely correspond), we grouped the questions into 26 themes. 

Table 2.2 identifies these themes and the consultation questions to which they 

relate. 

11

Table 2.2: Consultation Analysis Themes 

Theme 

Full 

consultation 

questions 

Easy Read 

questions 

1. Community Planning 1 - 3 2 

2. Overarching Duty to Engage 4 - 5 

3. Community Councils 6 - 8 3 

4. Third Sector 9 

5. National Standards 10 

6. Community Engagement Plans 11 

7. Auditing 12 

8. Named Officer 13 

9. Tenants’ right to manage 14 - 15 

10. Community Service Delivery 16 – 17 4 -5 

11. Community Directed Spending – 

18 - 19 6 

participatory budgeting 

12. Definitions for Part 1 20 1 

13. Community Right to Buy 21 7 - 8 

14. Community Asset Transfer 22 - 24 7 and 9 

15. Common Good 25 - 26 

16. Asset management 27 - 30 

17. Allotments 31 - 32 10 

18. Definitions for part 2 33 

19. Leases and Temporary Uses 34 11 

20. Encouraging temporary use 

35 - 37 12 - 13 

agreements 

21. Dangerous and Defective Buildings 38 - 39 

22. Compulsory Purchase 40 - 41 12 and 14 

23. Power to enforce sale or lease of empty 

property 

24. Definitions for part 3 45 

25. Assessing Impact 46 - 49 

42 - 44 12 and 14 

2.8 In order to inform the qualitative analysis and identify key themes and trends 

within and between respondent groupings, we have undertaken a quantitative 

analysis of the responses to the full and easy read consultation questionnaire 

on a question by question basis. The results of this analysis are presented in 

tabular form in Appendix 2. 

2.9 While we have drawn heavily on this data to inform our qualitative analysis, 

we have not included detailed statistical data within the narrative, given the 

scope of the consultation and our objective to provide a clear and concise 

analysis. 

12

3. PART ONE: STRENGTHENING PARTICIPATION 

Theme 1: Community Planning 

This theme covers questions 1, 2 and 3 in the main consultation questionnaire and 

question 2 in the easy read version: 

What would you consider to be effective community engagement in the 

Community Planning process? What would provide evidence of effective 

community engagement? 

How effective and influential is the community engagement currently taking 

place within Community Planning? 

Are there any changes that could be made to the current Community Planning 

process to help make community engagement easier and more effective? 

Can you tell us something about your community? 

3.1 Respondents from across all stakeholder groups provided views on what they 

considered to be effective community engagement. There was fairly 

widespread agreement across stakeholders that, although the National 

Standards for Community Engagement was an important starting point, it was 

vital that public sector agencies and community planning partners adhered to 

these standards. 

“A change in attitude to one that values a ‘bottom-up’ 

approach and ensures that all aspects of government, both 

local and national, support and protect outcomes based on 

community expectations of the engagement process.” 

(Greengairs Community Council) 

“Effective engagement is much more than a one off exercise 

to determine community views; it requires communities to be 

able to identify and articulate their needs and influence public 

and other services to improve how these needs are met. 

Where appropriate, communities should also be supported to 

take direct roles in delivering projects and services.” 

(Education Scotland) 

3.2 There was a shared view among some respondents (particularly community 

councils and their local networks, individuals and third sector/ equality 

organisations and their representative bodies) that many community groups felt 

isolated from the Community Planning process and that, if community 

engagement is to be effective, the Community Planning process needs to be 

clearly defined and effectively communicated to communities. 

13

“The first step is communication; people need to know what 

the structures are and how they can influence decision 

making. Accountability for delivering community engagement 

is necessary at the community planning partnership level and 

can potentially be achieved through an agreed community 

engagement plan.” 

(Clackmannanshire Council Partnership) 

3.3 There was widespread agreement across many community councils and their 

local networks, individuals and third sector/ equality organisations and their 

representative bodies that real and effective community engagement was about 

giving communities actual decision making powers. Communities needed to 

know that their views had been listened to, acted upon and had influenced 

priorities and decision making. 

“Effective community engagement of any sort means more 

than just having the opportunity to express one’s opinion in 

the hope that someone with power acts on it. Real community 

engagement means giving communities actual decision 

making power to change things for themselves, including 

important aspects of policy-making like Community Planning.” 

(Pitlochry and Moulin Community Council) 

“The core challenge facing the proposed Bill lies not primarily 

with the quantity of community engagement or empowerment 

(and the associated current structures and arrangements) but 

rather with the quality. The challenge is to achieve a 

fundamental deepening of democracy across Scotland and 

within Scottish Communities.” 

(Glasgow Centre for Population Health) 

3.4 Some respondents expressed concern that the Community Planning process 

had evolved into a mechanism for public sector bodies to integrate their 

operational plans and service delivery and had little to do with genuine 

community engagement. 

“It is appreciated that although there is a legislative 

requirement for community planning partnerships to engage 

with communities, it has not generally proved to be 

successful. The focus of community planning has tended to 

be on aligning public sector programmes, resources and 

decision making.” 

(Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland) 

14

“Planning Aid for Scotland considers that the Community 

Planning process thus far has focused to a greater degree on 

the delivery of essential services to communities than on how 

members of these communities might be more effectively 

involved in the decision making processes that will impact on 

them as communities.” 

(Planning Aid Scotland) 

3.5 Others suggested that there was an inherent problem of using community 

planning partnerships as a starting point for a discussion on community 

engagement, when the geography of these partnerships was not on a 

community scale. 

“Community Planning is about strategic planning and the 

delivery of public services, usually at a city or regional level. 

Communities on the other hand, are much more likely to relate 

to activity at neighbourhood level. Successful community 

engagement therefore occurs at the interface where strategic 

planning meets neighbourhood planning.” 

(Development Trusts Association Scotland) 

3.6 Some community planning partnerships and local authorities commented on the 

need for appropriate structures to enable effective representation from the local 

to the strategic level. Some respondents recommended the establishment of 

local community planning partnerships to underpin the strategic community 

planning partnerships. 

“To ensure strategic community planning partnerships do not 

exist in a vacuum and are informed by community needs, it is 

essential to build adequate pathways and mechanisms to 

deliver Community Planning at the local level.” 

(Community Planning Aberdeen) 

“Effective community engagement within the Community 

Planning process should involve using a variety of approaches 

to gather the views of a wide range of community members. 

There should be a structured approach to ensure that this 

information is communicated to community planning 

partnerships to provide an understanding of the needs and 

strengths of its communities.” 

(Perth and Kinross Council) 

3.7 The Edinburgh Partnership highlighted that it is currently running two pilot 

projects based on the principles contained within the Christie Commission 

report – Total Craigroyston and Total Neighbourhood. 

15

3.8 Respondents made a number of suggestions on what would provide evidence 

of effective community engagement, including: 

increased community participation in community planning partnership 

structures, consultations, decision making; 

projects and budgets delivered with full public support; 

closer working relations between local communities and public agencies; 

increased satisfaction that community engagement is working; 

increased level of satisfaction with quality of public services; and 

compliance with the National Standard for Community Engagement. 

3.9 Respondents were also asked to express views on how effective and influential 

they thought that the community engagement currently taking place within 

Community Planning was. With the exception of community planning 

partnerships and local authorities, there was widespread agreement across 

respondents that experience across Scotland was ‘mixed’ and ‘patchy’. 

“Our experience through audits indicates that the 

effectiveness of community engagement by public bodies is 

variable. A common weakness being that many councils/ 

community planning partnerships find it difficult to 

demonstrate that their consultation and engagement activity is 

clearly making a difference in influencing decision making and 

leading to service change and improvement.” 

(Audit Scotland) 

“It is our view that current CP arrangements are not delivering 

effective community engagement. Although widely variable 

across the 32 local authorities, CPPs are generally not 

involving communities in community planning processes as 

well as they might be. The focus of CPPs on public sector 

partners working on shared service delivery leaves little space 

for community views to be accounted for.” 

(Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations) 

3.10 A number of community councils and their local networks, individuals and third 

sector/ equality organisations and their representative bodies felt that current 

community engagement was not effective and had limited influence within 

Community Planning. Many felt that they lacked awareness of what was 

happening at community planning partnership level. Other respondents felt that 

public bodies who do engage with communities tended to see it as a box ticking 

exercise rather than as a means of shaping public service delivery. 

“Current community engagement appears to have very limited 

influence within the strategic Community Planning process.” 

(Bridge of Allan Community Council) 

16

“There is still often a disconnection between community 

organisations on the ground and formal community planning 

process. This suggests that community planning partners – in 

both the statutory and voluntary sectors - still have work to do 

to effectively embed community engagement within their own 

activities and programmes.” 

(Scottish Community Foundation) 

3.11 Community planning partnerships and local authority respondents offered a 

different perspective. Many agreed that community engagement should be 

embedded within the Community Planning process but felt that engaging 

communities on high level strategic policy was challenging. Some suggested 

that communities might be better working with individual partner organisations 

rather than with the community planning partnership. 

“Community engagement within Community Planning has 

been developing and is improving but there is still a 

considerable distance to travel to achieve effective, informed 

and accountable community involvement across all 

community planning outcomes.” 

(East Lothian Council) 

3.12 Others highlighted examples of good practice. For example: 

“In Aberdeen there are various levels of community 

engagement with opportunities for local geographic 

participation and avenues for single issue groups and 

communities of interest groups to influence decision making. 

In addition the Civic Forum operates as an umbrella 

organisation that brings community representative 

organisations together and is represented on the Community 

Planning Aberdeen Board.” 


3.13 A number of respondents, particularly third sector/ equality organisations and 

their representative bodies expressed concern that Community Planning often 

focused on ‘area based’ or ‘geographic’ community engagement, leaving 

communities of ‘interest’ at a disadvantage. They suggested that, to be 

effective, community engagement and Community Planning needed to be 

underpinned by a full recognition and understanding of how a community 

identifies itself both in terms of ‘place and ‘interest’. 

“Our view is that the picture is varied. There is a tendency for 

universal community engagement to only involve the ‘usual 

suspects’, as community forums and community councils tend 

to encourage a particular type of participant. Arguably, these 

bodies are not truly representative of their communities.” 

(YouthLink Scotland) 

17

“In our experience, community engagement often does not 

reach the easy to ignore groups whose voices really need to 

be heard because it is designed and carried out in a way that 

tends to only reach a limited pool of respondents.” 

(Barnardo’s Scotland) 

3.14 There was a common view expressed by some stakeholders that effective 

community engagement was difficult to measure without clear and agreed 

measures of effectiveness. Some respondents referred to the National 

Standards for Community Engagement and tools such as Visioning Outcomes 

in Community Engagement (VoiCE) to record the effectiveness of community 

engagement. 

“We are unaware of any regular national audit or picture of 

progress against which to benchmark current effectiveness 

and influence (and which includes specific information on 

protected characteristic groups). We therefore believe this 

should be a starting point and given priority.” 

(Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations) 

3.15 Some respondents expressed concern that pressure on public sector budgets 

was likely to have an impact on the support that can be provided for community 

engagement. This raised questions about the ability of communities to take on 

a greater role as envisaged in the consultation paper. 

“With decreasing budgets and staff reductions it is 

increasingly challenging to provide resources required to 

support those from disadvantaged areas and groups to 

participate in decision making.” 

(Fife Community Planning Partnership) 

3.16 In particular, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations expressed 

disappointment that there was no explicit reference within the consultation 

paper to ‘community capacity building’ and the role of ‘community anchors’, and 

that this should be addressed within the Bill. 

18

3.17 Respondents were also asked whether there were any changes that could be 

made to the current Community Planning process to help make community 

engagement easier and more effective. The most common suggestions 

included: 

providing more support for community capacity building; 

giving greater community representation on Community Planning forums; 

developing more co-ordinated approaches to community engagement; 

making more use of local community plans and community engagement 

plans; 

bringing more transparent and consistent communication with 

communities; 

introducing new and innovative communication methods using social 

media; 

refreshing the National Standards for Community Engagement to make 

them more practical and relevant to communities and public agencies; 

introducing clear and consistent reporting methods to measure the 

effectiveness of community engagement; and 

introducing more rigorous monitoring of diversity and increased 

engagement with equalities groups. 

19

Theme 2: Overarching Duty to Engage 

This theme covers questions 4, 5, 5a and 5b in the main consultation questionnaire: 

Do you feel the existing duties on the public sector to engage with communities 

are appropriate? 

Should the various existing duties on the public sector to engage communities 

be replaced with an overarching duty? 

What factors should be considered when designing an overarching duty? 

How would such a duty work with existing structures for engagement? 

3.18 Respondents were fairly mixed in terms of their views on the appropriateness of 

the existing duties on the public sector to engage with communities. A 

significant number of respondents (particularly community councils and their 

local networks, individuals and other community organisations and their 

representative bodies) did not feel that they were appropriate, commenting that 

the duties were “vague”, “confusing”, “not effective” or “inconsistent”. 

“The existing duties are not clear and as a result the public 

does not know what to expect, and hence it is not possible to 

comment on their appropriateness.” 

(Killearn Community Council) 

3.19 Other respondents highlighted that due to the lack of minimum standards, they 

felt that the duties were seen as discretionary and encouraged a ‘tick box’ 

approach by many public sector bodies. Many suggested that to be effective 

the duties needed to be enforceable. 

“Existing duties ‘to engage with communities’ seem to be 

regarded by council officials as optional advice, which they 

can and frequently ignore.” 

(Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council) 

3.20 Many respondents from across stakeholder groups commented that there was a 

need to rationalise or streamline the existing duties, as there were too many and 

this was a source of confusion. Falkirk Council commented that they had tried 

to create a more coherent system for co-ordinating engagement activities 

across the Council, but it was difficult as different services were bound by 

different legislative requirements. 

3.21 The Scottish Community Development Centre and a number of other 

respondents proposed that all duties concerned with community engagement 

and service user involvement should be coherent, clear and consistent. 

Greenspace Scotland suggested reviewing all of the existing duties and 

bringing them together into one consolidated instrument. 

20

“There is a raft of guidance, standards and requirements for 

different public sector organisations both individually (e.g. 

NHS specific), generically (all public sector, e.g. planning 

guidance) or for partnerships (e.g. community planning). 

This includes requirements for engagement on specific 

issues, service change and service delivery. Greater clarity 

of the duties and balance between recommendations, 

guidance, standards and specific legislative duties would be 

helpful.” 

(NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde) 

3.22 A small number of respondents (largely from community councils, individuals 

and some other community organisations) said that they were not aware of what 

all the duties were and therefore did not feel able to comment on the question. 

“Firstly, we recognised that most of our Commissioners do not 

know what these ‘existing duties’ are – and that in itself is 

problematic. It means that public sector partners can often hide 

behind such duties.” 

(Poverty Truth Commission) 

3.23 Community planning partnerships and local authorities tended to be more 

positive about the appropriateness of the existing duties, however many 

recognised that they could and should be strengthened in light of the findings of 

the Christie Commission and also the recent review of Community Planning by 

Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. 

3.24 Education Scotland commented that the current duties to engage with 

communities were useful and important, however there was significant scope for 

making them more effective by being more specific about the expected 

outcomes of engagement. 

3.25 Some local authorities highlighted that the current legislation covering 

Community Planning (Local Government Scotland Act 2003) places the duty to 

engage on local authorities but not their partners, which made it easier for 

partners to opt out of engagement. West Lothian Council suggested that there 

should be a strengthened duty for all partners to work together to achieve local 

outcomes. 

“.... the existing duties do not extend to Community Planning 

partners and this may be an appropriate next step. The 

extension of the duties would enable partnerships to move 

towards the model of public sector provision (greater 

partnership working informed by community participation) 

that has been defined within the Christie Commission report.” 

(East Renfrewshire Council) 

21

3.26 Others reflected that although the duties may be appropriate, practice across 

Scotland varied from sector to sector. A number of respondents suggested that 

there should be greater collaboration across public sector bodies and that 

community engagement plans should assist in this regard. 

“Use of annual community engagement plans to promote 

joined up working would maximise input and impact.” 

(Society of Local Authority Chief Executives) 

3.27 An alternative view was expressed by a number of respondents (including 

Glasgow West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations and the 

Development Trust Association Scotland) who suggested that imposing duties 

on public bodies was not an effective way to achieve improved engagement. 

These respondents suggested that the focus should be on the ‘rights’ of 

communities to be engaged, rather than on ‘duties’ of public bodies to engage. 

Such an approach however, would require strong leadership and a significant 

culture change within public sector bodies. 

“The extent to which the public sector fulfils its exiting duties 

to engage is largely dependent on institutional mindsets and 

attitudes. Therefore there is little point in imposing further 

duties. However, if better engagement is the desired 

outcome, in our view it would make more sense to invest 

communities with new, legally enforceable rights.” 

(Scottish Community Alliance) 

3.28 A number of respondents from across stakeholder groups expressed concern 

that the future resourcing and funding of engagement was more important than 

the duty itself. Many respondents reflected that this would be a challenge in the 

current economic climate, especially when public sector budgets were under 

pressure. 

“The most critical issue affecting the future of community 

engagement is the extent to which it will be adequately 

funded and supported given the public sector cuts across 

Scotland.” 

(Tenants Information Service) 

“While the Local Government Scotland Act 2003 ensures a 

duty on the public sector to engage with communities, it does 

not ensure that these duties are appropriately resourced. 

The National Standards of Community Engagement are 

accepted by Aberdeenshire Council and its community 

planning partners but are not necessarily understood and 

applied.” 

(Mintlaw and District Community Council) 

22

3.29 Respondents were also asked whether the various duties should be replaced 

with an overarching duty. Just over half of those respondents who answered 

this question said that they were in favour of the existing duties being replaced 

by an overarching duty to engage. 

3.30 Respondents provided a number of reasons as to why they supported the 

proposal. Many (particularly community councils, third sector/ equality 

organisations and some private individuals) believed that this would help to 

simplify approaches to community engagement and make it clearer to all parties 

what was expected of them. 

“This should make it easier to understand and to convey to 

all parts of the workforce in Community Planning 

organisations and to all sections of the community.” 

(Individual) 

3.31 Others suggested that it would result in more coherent and consistent 

approaches to community engagement. In particular, some local authorities felt 

that it might help to reduce the current ‘silo effect’ to engagement and enable 

Community planning partnerships to take a more holistic view of communities 

and their needs. 

“The Council believes that an overarching duty would ensure 

that communities have greater influence in decision making. 

If an overarching duty was established it would make it 

easier to engage with communities in a co-ordinated way 

rather than sectors engaging to fulfil individual requirements.” 

(South Lanarkshire Council) 

3.32 East Dunbartonshire Council also proposed that the duty should support the 

implementation of the principles recommended by the Christie Commission with 

particular emphasis on local services being designed around individuals and the 

community. 

3.33 A number of respondents stated that if an overarching duty were to be 

introduced, it should be backed by clear guidance and a common set of support 

tools to ensure consistency in its implementation. The Shetland Partnership 

Board made the point that support for capacity building in both communities and 

service providers would be essential if it were to work well. 

“If it is decided to introduce such a new overarching duty, the 

opportunity should be taken to simplify the current system 

and seek to support existing good practice and embed 

current voluntary agreements, such as the National 

Standards for Community Engagement and ensure that the 

duty applies to all community partners.” 

(Glasgow City Council) 

23

3.34 The number of respondents who said that they opposed the proposal was much 

lower. Some of these respondents felt that such an overarching duty would not 

be necessary, if the existing duties were strengthened and appropriately 

resourced. Others feared that it might make things more complicated by 

introducing another layer of bureaucracy and could lead to a reduction in focus 

on key priority areas that are currently covered under the existing duties. 

“The danger of an overarching duty which replaced existing 

duties is that it may to be at such a high level of generality 

that specific requirements designed to meet specific 

objectives may be diminished, and the benefits of such 

arrangements lost or weakened.” 

(Community Land Scotland) 

3.35 A number of community planning partnerships and local authorities expressed 

concern that introducing an overarching duty might be overly prescriptive and 

mechanistic and could hamper the development of tailored solutions at the local 

level. Some suggested that rather than replacing the existing duties, the 

overarching duty should complement these duties. 

“Community engagement like communities is complex and 

often requires a tailored or focused approach. An 

‘overarching duty’ might remove this fine-tuning and risk the 

detailed engagement process.” 

(Aberdeen City Council) 

3.36 A small number of those responding to this question expressed no clear 

preference for or against the proposal. Additional comments made by these 


their uncertainty as to how it would really change things given that the 

changes that are needed are cultural; and 

a concern that it would be too challenging to ‘unpick’ all of the existing 

duties and agree on an overarching duty covering the duties of the various 

public sector bodies. 

“Whilst a common framework for community engagement, 

supported by statutory guidance, could promote better 

integrated and more consistent approaches to community 

engagement across sectors, there is a danger that any such 

overarching duty would have to be so broadly drafted as to 

dilute its effectiveness.” 

(Audit Scotland) 

3.37 Respondents were also asked about the factors that should be considered 

when designing an overarching duty. They offered a diverse range of 

suggestions. Many respondents pointed to the National Standards for 

Community Engagement, suggesting that this should be the starting point for 

setting out the main values and principles. 

24

3.38 There was fairly widespread agreement among community councils and other 

community organisations that the duty should be ‘clear’, ‘simple’ and ‘easily 

accessible’ and not overly reliant on web-based communication. 

3.39 The Scottish Community Development Centre suggested that the overarching 

duty should contain a general duty for all public service providers to involve 

communities and service users in decisions on how public services are planned, 

implemented and evaluated. 

3.40 The Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland proposed that it should be based 

around a set of key principles including, for example: 

creating a dialogue between public sector organisations and communities 

that recognises that engagement must occur at different stages; 

ensuring transparency in the implementation of the duty; 

recognising the different needs of communities in developing approaches 

to engagement; and 

joining up approaches to engagement by various public sector 

organisations. 

3.41 A number of respondents made the point that the duty needed to reflect the 

strategic direction of public service delivery reform on the back of the Christie 

Commission. Audit Scotland suggested that in the context of the ongoing 

review of community planning, consideration should be given to introducing a 

duty to co-operate in community engagement across the public sector, as an 

alternative to introducing an overarching duty to engage. 

3.42 The consultation also asked how such an overarching duty would work with 

existing structures for engagement. Some respondents seemed confused by 

the question as Question 5 suggested that the overarching duty would replace 

existing duties and by implication existing structures. Others (mainly individuals 

and some other community organisations) did not feel knowledgeable enough 

to comment. 

3.43 A significant number of respondents were of the view that the overarching duty 

should build on existing structures rather than replace them. Some community 

planning partnerships and local authorities highlighted that community planning 

partnerships would be ideally placed to develop community engagement 

strategies, integrated into the Single Outcome Agreement. 

“While the duty, if developed properly, should support the 

development of community engagement structures, it must 

not be overly prescriptive in the processes to be used, but 

rather be enabling in nature to allow the CPP to develop 

processes which best reflect their own local circumstances.” 

(North Lanarkshire Council) 

25

3.44 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde also commented that currently they have 

multiple formal engagement structures and that although a shared duty may 

lead to a change in some of these structures, it should not dictate what the 

structures should be. They also highlighted that it would be important for the 

Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill to address the need to build 

comprehensive and inclusive community capacity, as without this communities 

may be unable to participate in the design and delivery of services. 

3.45 Other respondents (including a number of community councils and their local 

networks, and other community organisations and their representative bodies) 

were fairly sceptical about how the overarching duty would fit with existing 

structures. 

“The existing structures are likely to require a major rethink 

and possibly wholesale replacement.” 

(Transition Edinburgh South) 

“Existing structures for community engagement are not, in 

many cases, fit for purpose. If a general, overarching duty is 

in place, guidance should accompany the duty that sets out 

the requirements and principles required to translate 

legislation into effective practice – this may mean that some 

structures need to be revised.” 

(Scottish Community Development Centre) 

26

Theme 3: Community Councils 

This theme covers questions 6, 7 and 8 in the main consultation questionnaire and 


What role, if any, can community councils play in helping to ensure 

communities are involved in the design and delivery of public services? 

What role, if any, can community councils play in delivering public services? 

What changes, if any, to existing community council legislation can be made to 

help enable community councils maximise their positive role in communities? 

How can community councils do more to help local people have their say about 

how local services are run a managed? 

3.46 A significant number of respondents provided views on the role that community 

councils could play in the design and delivery of services. The majority of these 

responses came from community councils, private individuals, third sector/ 

equalities organisations and other community organisations. 

3.47 Views expressed by respondents were mixed in terms of the role that 

community councils could play in this respect. Whilst many respondents 

(including community councils, some local authorities and community planning 

partnerships) recognised the important role that community councils currently 

play in acting as an interface between communities and local authorities and 

other public bodies. Some respondents however questioned the capacity of 

some community councils to fulfil this role adequately. Others commented that 

community councils did not exist in all areas of Scotland and in some areas the 

community council boundaries did not always correspond to identifiable 

communities. 

“Our experience is that these small bodies (community 

councils) are often overstretched by the myriad of demands 

being placed upon them. Without existing resource and 

administration arrangements being improved, it is hard to see 

how currently community councils would be able to ensure a 

meaningful involvement in the design and delivery of public 

services.” 


“Community councils can provide a vital link between 

communities and local authorities, but in many areas there is 

no active council or elections are uncontested. With greater 

powers and an enhanced role community councils would 

increase in relevance which could encourage greater 

participation.” 

(Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations) 

27

3.48 A number of community councils asserted that since they were the only 

community bodies to have a statutory role to represent the views of their 

communities, they should be the first port of call for all public bodies on any 

engagement issues. However, some felt that they were not taken seriously by 

many public bodies and were seen as “talking shops”. 

“Community councils currently exist somewhere between 

representative and participatory democracy. Members are 

not formally part of our representative democracy yet 

structures seem to reinforce that they are a lower tier of 

elected representatives. On the other hand, at a time when 

their role as facilitators of participatory democracy should be 

developing, they appear to be struggling to understand this 

role and lack the skills and resources to deliver it.” 

(Carnegie UK Trust) 

3.49 Others felt their current role was too constrained and were of the view that they 

should have greater powers and be able to influence decisions in relation to the 

design and delivery of public services. However, it was acknowledged that to 

take on a greater role significant resources would be required to build capacity 

and expertise. 

“Generally the role of community councils is too constrained 

by lack of resources and powers to be a real force in these 

matters.” 

(Luing Community Council) 

3.50 A common theme that emerged from responses across most stakeholder 

groups (with the exception of community councils themselves) was the 

unrepresentative nature of community councils. Many respondents (particularly 

executive agencies/ NDPBs, individuals and third sector organisations) felt that 

community councils were not representative of their wider communities, as they 

were not democratically elected. Others referred to them as ‘self selecting’ and 

‘closed shops’. 

“Many equality groups and individuals however feel 

disassociated and disenfranchised from community councils. 

They have expressed that they are often cliques who do not 

represent nor discuss anything of relevance to them, and 

only those with the loudest voices are acted upon.” 

(NHS Lothian) 

3.51 Glasgow City Council felt that if community councils were to play a greater role, 

then development would be required to enable community councils to be more 

inclusive and representative, to ensure the active engagement and involvement 

of communities of interest not normally organised along community boundaries. 

This view was share by a number of third sector/ equality organisations. 

28

3.52 In contrast to this, there was strong support from across respondents 

(particularly among local authorities, third sector/ equality organisations, and 

other community organisations and their representative organisations) for 

developing the role of ‘community anchors’. Many respondents commented that 

often other community organisations, for example, community based housing 

associations or local development trusts, played a more active role in 

communities than community councils. Some respondents suggested that this 

should be given recognition within the Community Empowerment and Renewal 

Bill. 

“Community councils (at least in the areas that our members 

operate) have generally found it very difficult to attract 

membership. They have not been well resourced. We 

believe that community anchors should be the main focus to 

ensure that communities are involved in the design and 

delivery of public services.” 

(Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations) 

3.53 Some respondents suggested that existing structures for community councils 

might no longer be fit for purpose and suggested that there was a need to revisit 

the existing legislation with a view to modernising these structures. A number of 

respondents referred to the Scottish Government’s Short Life Working Group, 

suggesting that the conclusions and recommendations from this review would 

be helpful in this regard. 

“Until Scottish Government takes a view as to the future of 

community councils (the status quo is no longer an option) it 

is impossible to answer this question.” 

(Scottish Community Alliance) 

3.54 In addition, many respondents and those who replied to the easy read version 

of this question (largely community councils and their representative bodies, 

and individuals) made a number of suggestions about how the role of 

community councils could be enhanced, including: 

through improved communication methods; 

being more visible within communities; 

wider and more effective representation of all interest groups; 

adopting a more inclusive approach to engagement; and 

receiving improved funding and support. 

3.55 The consultation paper also asked respondents about the role that community 

councils could play in service delivery. There was fairly widespread agreement 

across most stakeholders that community councils in their current form were not 

the most appropriate bodies to deliver services. 

29

“Their constitution makes it difficult for community councils to 

run public services, but many have been involved in 

establishing community development trusts which would 

have the potential to run certain services.” 

(The West Harris Trust) 

3.56 Many respondents (including community councils, local authorities, other 

community organisations and third sector/ equality organisations) felt that they 

did not have the capability or expertise to deliver services; others suggested 

that this might compromise their role as a representative voice of the 

community. 

“The strength of the community council, if it is in any way 

effective lies in knowing its area and its people and being 

able to represent and convey the needs and priorities of 

these people.” 

(Glenfarg Community Council) 

“Changing the role of community councils would have a 

significant impact on the way that they are run and managed, 

raising justifiable concerns about their ability to take on the 

responsibility for holding budgets, managing and monitoring 

services, without significant capacity building mechanisms 

being put in place.” 

(Society of Local Authority Chief Executives Scotland) 

3.57 A number of respondents questioned whether there was even an appetite 

among community councils to take on such a role. 

3.58 A small number of community councils did however say that they would 

welcome the opportunity to play a greater role in delivering public services, but 

acknowledged that this would require considerable training and support, funding 

and a greater degree of accountability, which may not be welcomed by those 

who volunteer to be community councillors. 

“Scotland’s communities need greater powers of self 

governance. To that end we propose that communities 

should have freedom to take on a range of powers and 

responsibilities.” 

(Pitlochry and Moulin Community Council) 

“The principle of co-production with community councils in 

Midlothian has been taken forward through joint community 

resilience planning, following successful work on the winter 

weather emergency two years ago. This provides a basis for 

potentially wider involvement in various aspects of service 

delivery.” 

(Midlothian Council) 

30

3.59 In addition, some respondents suggested that there was probably more 

potential for community councils to deliver services in rural and remote rural 

areas. The Outer Hebrides Planning Partnership and Orkney Islands Council 

both said that community councils were already involved in delivering public 

services in their areas. 

3.60 However, many respondents felt that the primary role of community councils 

should be to influence the design and delivery of services and also ensure that 

these services are accountable to local communities. Some respondents also 

suggested that community councils should be given control over local budgets 

to allow them to directly commission services. 

“Community councils could potentially be the budget holders 

and managers of local services. Some may be ready for this 

many are not. It would require a change to the roles and 

expectations of community councils and a significant 

investment by the public sector to put the structures in place 

and to up-skill the individuals concerned.” 

(Dumfries and Galloway Strategic Partnership) 

3.61 There was a common view expressed by some respondents that development 

trusts, community based housing associations and other social enterprises were 

probably better placed than community councils to deliver local public services. 

It was considered that these organisations were more likely to have the 

entrepreneurial skills and expertise in asset development and management. 

Respondents were clear that the potential role of these types of organisations in 

service delivery should be given equal prominence within the Community 

Empowerment and Renewal Bill. 

“Community councils are volunteers and many already raise 

concerns about the workload they have. There are also risks 

in terms of the lack of unincorporated status, which at 

present would prevent many from taking on such roles. To 

work around this issue, a number of Trusts have been set up 

locally to take forward these roles and many with great 

success.” 

(The Highland Council) 

3.62 Respondents were also asked what changes could be made to existing 

community council legislation to help enable community councils to maximise 

their positive role in communities. 

3.63 Again respondents referred to the Scottish Government’s Short Life Working 

Group that had been set up to look at the role of community councils in building 

the resilience and capacity of communities. Many respondents stated that they 

had already provided detailed comments through this forum and were waiting 

for the group to report its findings. 

31

3.64 Views from respondents on the need for legislative change were fairly varied; on 

the one hand respondents felt that there was a need for a comprehensive 

review of the legislation governing community councils as it was no longer fit for 

purpose, on the other hand some respondents stated that there was no need for 

legislative change as the issue was more about the need for cultural and 

attitudinal change within community planning structures. 

“The existing model for community councils is now 40 years 

old. It is therefore the right time to undertake a full review of 

the role and remit of community councils to meet the needs 

of modern communities e.g. communities may not all have 

an active community council but there may be other active 

community organisations that fulfil a similar role. Future 

legislation should therefore take account of the changing and 

fluid nature of modern communities.” 


3.65 Respondents offered a number of suggested changes for the existing legislation 

including: 

making community councils statutory consultees for a wider range of local 

authority and other public service functions; 

giving community councils more power with regard to planning 

applications; 

giving community councils’ decisions or recommendations more weight; 

amending the boundaries and structures of community councils to align 

them with more identifiable communities; 

giving community councils a defined role in Community Planning 

structures; 

giving community councils the power to manage public funds; 

enhancing community councils’ duty to engage with their communities; 

making the ‘schemes of establishment’ more flexible to enable other 

‘community anchors’ to fulfil the roles of existing community councils; and 

strengthening governance structures around representative accountability 

and regulation. 

32

Theme 4: Third Sector 

This theme covers question 9 in the main consultation questionnaire: 

How can the third sector work with community planning partners and 

communities to ensure the participation of communities in the Community 

Planning process? 

3.66 Respondents made a number of general comments about this particular 

question in terms of the responsibility of the third sector for ‘ensuring 

participation’. Other respondents suggested that to avoid confusion there 

should be a clearer definition of what was understood by the term ‘third sector’. 

“The third sector is by no mean homogeneous. There are 

ongoing debates about how it should be defined: is there a 

separate social enterprise sector for example? It should be 

recognised as extremely broad and involving sometimes 

conflicting roles and interests – it does not speak with one 

voice.” 

(Volunteer Development Scotland) 

3.67 The Glasgow Centre for Population Health expressed particular concern about 

the lack of weight that had been given to role of the third sector within the 

consultation paper, particularly given that the third sector had been given a high 

degree of prominence in other Scottish Government policy areas, for example, 

the Christie Commission, Equally Well and Achieving a Sustainable Future. 

3.68 There was fairly widespread agreement across many stakeholder groups 

(particularly community planning partnerships, local authorities and executive 

agencies and NDPBs) that the third sector could play, and in many areas, was 

already playing an important role acting as an interface between the community 

and Community Planning partners. 

“Third sector organisations provide expertise and knowledge 

about the communities they work with and they can be a 

useful conduit for information between public sector bodies 

and the community.” 

(Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership) 

“Voluntary Action Orkney representing the third sector, was a 

founder member of Orkney Community Planning Partnership 

and has had a seat on the Orkney CPP Steering Group since 

2000. The third sector in Orkney is fully integrated into 

community planning thematic groups and processes.” 

(Orkney Islands Council) 

33

3.69 The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) Scotland 

commented that the third sector is a key partner in community planning 

structures and that their expertise and community knowledge provide an 

essential link to communities, although it was recognised that the type and level 

of third sector engagement varied across partnerships. 

3.70 Many of these respondents felt that third sector organisations were well placed 

to undertake this role due to their direct links with volunteers and local 

community organisations. Others felt that they had a level of credibility within 

communities, as they were already involved in direct service provision in their 

areas. Others suggested that they could play a key role building the capacity of, 

and engaging with, communities of ‘interest’ as well as communities of ‘place’. 

“Third sector have a key role to play as part of the 

‘participatory democracy’ family, often with more credibility 

with communities. We must encourage collaboration 

between third sector infrastructure and community groups.” 

(Community Justice Authorities) 

“Harnessing the talent, ability and energy of the third sector 

would be a key asset in ensuring that communities 

participate effectively in the Community Planning process 

and have a full range of opportunities to do so.” 

(Renfrewshire Council) 

3.71 A number of respondents highlighted that Scottish Government had already 

invested in the establishment of Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs) across Scotland 

with a specific remit to engage with each community planning partnership. A 

number of community planning partnerships and local authorities commented 

positively on the role that TSIs had had in their areas, with some suggesting that 

this role could be developed further. 

“The recent development of the third sector interface in 

Angus has created an aspiration for a new way of working 

that is both democratic and locally based as well as being 

responsive to people.” 

(Angus Community Planning Partnership) 

3.72 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar commented that the TSIs had been critical in 

improving communication between the community planning partnership and 

third sector organisations and would be key to improving the community 

planning partnerships understanding of local communities. 

34

3.73 Scottish Borders Council highlighted that its TSI - Borders Third Sector 

Partnership – played a key role in organising representation of the interests of 

the third sector in the community planning process. Through this and other 

community capacity building support for individual third sector organisations, it 

is well placed to further develop the participation of communities in the 

Community Planning process. Local authorities provided other examples of 

good practice in relation to TSIs. 

3.74 Glasgow Housing Association commented that although the TSI is relatively 

new in Glasgow it appeared to be working well. As a third sector organisation, it 

believed that third sector organisations did have a key role to play in engaging 

communities of ‘interest’ and ‘geography’ in the Community Planning process. 

3.75 The Scottish Community Development Centre provided an alternative view 

stating that although the recently established TSIs provided a clear platform for 

third sector representation, their effectiveness would be conditioned by the 

relationships the representatives had with their local constituencies and their 

level of capacity to represent a range of views and priorities. 

3.76 In contrast, a number of respondents (particularly community councils, 

individuals and other community organisations) were more sceptical about the 

role of the third sector in supporting the participation of communities in the 

community planning process. It was clear from these responses that 

respondents had quite different views on what they understood the third sector 

to be. 

3.77 A number of respondents (particularly among other community organisations) 

felt that the third sector was too ‘diverse’ and ‘disparate’ and could not be 

expected to represent the ‘voice’ of the community. In this respect, some 

respondents underlined the importance of ensuring accountability to the wider 

community (geographical or interest) is evidenced. 

“The ‘third sector’ is multi-faceted in character and third sector 

organisations range from small community groups to large, 

national charities. As such the idea of having a ‘third sector’ 

representative within Community Planning structures is unlikely to 

deliver an expanded role for third sector and community 

organisations in the future delivery of public services.” 


35

3.78 Others felt that there might even be a conflict of interest, as some of these 

organisations were already involved in the direct delivery of services. 

“There is a great deal of difference between a group of 

activists in a community and the many large third sector 

organisations who currently deliver outsourced services. 

Third sector organisations can also find themselves in the 

conflicted position of providing advocacy for disadvantaged 

groups while delivering services directly to these groups.” 

(UNISON Scotland) 

3.79 Some respondents made more general comments about the need 

for a change of attitude by community planning partners towards 

third sector organisations if they were to be able to fulfil this role. 

“It is also important to ensure that using the third sector to 

facilitate broader participation is not used as an excuse for 

CPPs to abdicate their own responsibility in engaging with 

communities.” 

(Individual) 

3.80 The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations made the point that although 

third sector organisations could play an important role in the Community 

Planning process, they needed to be treated as equal partners. They also 

highlighted that many third sector organisations were already stretched and that 

unless Community Planning was reformed to ensure that the view of these 

organisations were valued, many might be deterred from getting involved. 

3.81 In addition, a few respondents offered a number of additional suggestions 

relating to this question including: 

the extent of community engagement activity should be considered as part 

of the tendering or commissioning process for third sector organisations 

involved in service delivery; 

Community Planning should be built up from a neighbourhood (or 

community of interest) level; and 

the Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill should be promoting new 

and more innovative approaches to engaging communities, rather than 

reinforcing existing structures in community engagement. 

36

Theme 5: National Standards 


Should there be a duty on the public sector to follow the National Standards for 

Community Engagement? 

3.82 A clear majority of respondents supported the proposal that there should be a 

duty placed on the public sector to follow the National Standards for Community 

Engagement, with smaller numbers expressing more neutral views or stating 

that they were against the proposal. Support was greatest among community 

councils, individuals, third sector/ equality organisations and other community 

organisations. The majority of local authorities and community planning 

partnerships were in favour of the proposal. Support was lowest among private 

sector organisations, RSLs and representative bodies for professionals. 

3.83 The most commonly expressed reason for supporting the proposal was 

consistency. Many respondents felt that by placing a duty on the public sector 

bodies to follow the National Standards would ensure a more uniform approach 

to community engagement across Scotland. 

“The Council believes that placing such a duty would ensure 

all public sector bodies use the standards and VoiCE when 

planning, delivering and reviewing the effectiveness of their 

engagement activity. This would promote more consistent 

approaches, improve practice and make outcomes easier to 

measure.” 


3.84 Although supporting the proposal, a number of respondents said there needed 

to be some flexibility in how the National Standards were implemented locally 

and cautioned against an overly mechanistic approach. 

“Flexibility is needed to allow front line staff and community 

development workers to work with communities without 

formalising every encounter. We would not be supportive of 

such a duty leading to increased bureaucracy, which we 

believe would be significantly counterproductive.” 


3.85 Some respondents made the point that the National Standards should be 

reviewed and brought up to date, particularly to reflect the recommendations 

from the Christie Commission. The Carnegie UK Trust felt that placing a duty 

on the public sector to follow National Standards was not very empowering. As 

an alternative, they proposed that the National Standards be re-drafted as 

‘rights’ for communities. 

3.86 Others suggested that consideration should also be given to the true cost of 

implementing such a duty. 

37

3.87 The numbers expressing opposition to the proposal were much lower. The 

most predominant arguments used to support these views were that it would 

add an extra layer of bureaucracy, and that such a duty would be difficult to 

monitor and enforce. 

“Monitoring community engagement would, we fear, become 

an expensive and bureaucratic exercise. We would caution 

about how a process of community engagement is measured 

other than through a quantitative approach which may only 

reveal some aspects of an overall strategy.” 


3.88 Others suggested that imposing a duty to follow the National Standards might 

restrict more flexible and creative approaches being developed to community 

engagement. 

3.89 A common view expressed by a few local authorities and some other 

respondents was that the Standards should be seen as a guide or good 

practice, with the scrutiny of their use covered through regular inspections and 

audits. 

“The Standards should be promoted as good practice and 

partners reminded of the systems that are in place to assist 

them in the engagement process e.g. VOiCE.” 


3.90 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde expressed concern about the generic ‘public 

sector’ requirements which would probably require further specific translation to 

individual public sector organisations to ensure fit with their overall 

accountability requirements. 

3.91 The Development Trusts Association Scotland commented that compelling the 

public sector to follow the National Standards would not necessarily bring about 

the desired outcomes in relation to community engagement. They proposed 

that in order to realise the vision set out by the Christie Commission, the focus 

should be on broadening the dialogue between public bodies and community 

anchor organisations in a way, which enables new partnerships to be 

developed. 

3.92 Some other respondents made the point that imposing a duty to follow the 

National Standards would not necessarily bring about the culture change that 

was required. 

38


preference for or against the proposal. Additional points made by these 


the problem is not an issue of National Standards, but one of attitudes, 

cultural values and resources; 

amending the current standards to make them more operationally 

focused would be more beneficial; 

community plans should be audited to check compliance with the 

National Standards; 

it would be better to promote a general duty to engage, backed by a 

renewed emphasis on the National Standards as best practice; 

revised guidance should be published to underpin the National 

Standards – this should involve equality strands more fully; 

there should be a similar duty for the third sector to follow the National 

Standards; and 

there is need for a more radical look at the shape of local government 

below the level of the local authority. 

39

Theme 6: Community Engagement Plans 

This theme covers questions 11 and 11a in the main consultation questionnaire: 

Should there be a duty on the public sector to publish and communicate a 

community engagement plan? 

What information would be included in a community engagement plan? 

3.94 A significant majority of respondents supported the proposal that there should 

be a duty placed on the public sector to publish and communicate community 

engagement plans, with smaller numbers stating that they were against the 

proposal or expressing more neutral views. Support was greatest among 

community councils, third sector/ equality organisations, other community 

organisations and individuals. Local authorities and community planning 

partnerships were more ambivalent in their views on this particular proposal. 

Support was lowest among private sector organisations and RSLs. 

3.95 The most common reasons cited by respondents for supporting the proposal 

were around transparency and accountability. Many respondents (particularly 

community councils, individuals and other community organisations) noted that 

current arrangements for engagement were ‘varied’ and ‘confusing’. It was felt 

by some that by publishing community engagement plans, communities would 

be more aware of what the engagement opportunities were, and as a 

consequence they might be more likely to get involved. 

“Publishing and communicating community engagement activity 

and how people can get involved to influence decisions is 

absolutely necessary to ensure that people know how to get 

involved and the potential scope for their influence.” 

(NHS Lothian) 

3.96 In addition, some respondents felt that publishing community engagement plans 

would lead to increased accountability, as the performance of public sector 

bodies could be measured against the published plans. 

“Publishing and communicating a community engagement plan will 

provide a means to improve transparency, accountability and 

quality control around engagement practice and tackle piecemeal 

and disjointed exercises within and across public sector 

organisations.” 


3.97 Although supporting the proposal, a number of respondents said that the 

community engagement plan must be a dynamic document and should seek 

regular feedback and be continually updated based on this feedback. 

“Any plans should be open and flexible enough to allow people to 

respond to matters emerging from the community after the plan 

has been written.” 

(Scottish Community Development Network) 

40

3.98 Others cautioned that producing a single community engagement plan to 

encapsulate the needs of diverse communities would need careful 

consideration. 

3.99 A number of third sector/ equalities organisations stated that it would be 

important to ensure that community engagement plans were ‘equalities proofed’ 

to ensure that steps had been taken to include those who are hardest to reach. 

3.100 The numbers expressing opposition to the proposal were much lower. The 

most predominant arguments presented by respondents were that this 

approach seemed overly bureaucratic and was likely to be resource intensive to 

implement. Many felt that introducing a duty to publish a community 

engagement plan would not necessarily result in improved engagement. 

“Whilst this Council recognises the importance of reflecting its 

engagement methods and improving upon these on an ongoing 

basis, it is not clear why this proposal would be beneficial. For 

local authorities this would be an unwieldy document which would 

have limited currency and require considerable officer time to 

prepare without obvious benefits.” 

(Highland Council) 

3.101 Transition Edinburgh South commented that community engagement should be 

inherent in everything a public body does rather than being a discrete activity. 

This view was shared by a number of respondents (including local authorities 

and some other community organisations) who felt that a commitment to 

community engagement should be an integral part of the wider Community 

Planning process rather than comprising a separate plan. Some respondents 

underlined that this should be featured within Single Outcome Agreements. 

“Community engagement should be treated as a core, ongoing 

component of CPP planning and review cycles and should be built 

into planning frameworks within a clear framework for 

engagement.” 

(East Renfrewshire Council) 

3.102 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde sought clarity on what was meant by ‘public 

sector’ in the context of producing community engagement plans, and whether 

this function would be discharged by community planning partnerships, or 

whether individual public sector bodies would be required to publish separate 

plans. 

41

3.103 Respondents were also asked about the type of information that should be 

included in a community engagement plan. Respondents from across the 

stakeholder groups provided a diverse range of suggestions, which included: 

a statement of the principles underpinning the plan; 

reference to the National Standards for Community Engagement; 

reference to existing community profiles and the need for engagement 

identified within these profiles; 

a description of the representative and participatory roles that are carried 

out in the area; 

a baseline statement of current participation levels and initiatives; 

a statement of what the plan seeks to achieve, the support that will be 

provided, and how progress will be evaluated; 

clear links to the Single Outcome Agreement’s outcomes and milestones, 

recognising the active roles of community organisations; 

a description of proposed structures and methods for engagement and 

participation (it should encourage creative methods of engagement); 

a clear statement of methods for engaging with equalities groups and 

other communities of interest; 

examples of best practice in community engagement; 

how the plan will be resourced, including funding support for community 

capacity building/ community development support; 

a formal agreement by partners and agencies to deliver their contributions 

to the plan; 

a performance monitoring framework, including reporting against agreed 

service targets; 

arrangements for evaluation, feedback and reporting impact; and 

a list of key contacts. 

42

Theme 7: Auditing 


Should community participation be made a more significant part of the audit of 

best value and Community Planning? 

3.104 Respondents from across all stakeholder groups provided views on this 

particular question. The majority of these responses came from community 

councils, third sector/ equalities organisations, other community organisations 

and individuals. Views presented by respondents were fairly polarised. 

3.105 There was considerable support among community councils, individuals, third 

sector/ equalities organisations and some other community organisations that 

community participation should be made a more significant part of the audit of 

best value and Community Planning. Although in some cases this support was 

qualified, as some respondents feared that this might create additional 

bureaucracy, others were unclear how this could be measured effectively. 

“The audit of best value and Community Planning could be a 

key element in ensuring a robust mechanism to challenge 

and scrutinise implementation of the legislation.” 

(Community Development Alliance Scotland) 

3.106 A number of these respondents referred to the ‘best value community 

engagement toolkit’, which already provided a framework for community 

engagement audit. Some respondents suggested that specific indicators for 

empowerment and its effectiveness could be added to this toolkit and linked to 

the wider equalities outcome indicators. 

3.107 The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations was keen to see community 

participation play a greater role in Audit Scotland’s best value review of 

Community Planning. They were of the view that more intensive auditing of the 

process could encourage public sector officials to place greater value on 

participation. However, they suggested that the focus of the audit should be on 

the quality rather than the quantity of participation, and also on how effective 

community participation had been on influencing decision making. 

3.108 Glasgow Housing Association made the point that access to information to 

enable community engagement should be a critical part of the audit process and 

suggested that Scottish Government needed to consider how the audit of best 

value and Community Planning could cover the breadth of the Community 

Empowerment and Renewal Bill proposals. 

3.109 Community planning partnerships and local authorities were least supportive of 

the proposal, as many felt that this was already covered as part of the current 

audit of best value arrangements and it would just lead to increased 

bureaucracy. Others suggested that this was already being looked at as part of 

the wider review of Community Planning. 

43

“Whilst participation is covered well in the audit of best value 

and Community Planning and in other audit areas; the review 

of Community Planning is considering how this duty is 

audited across all CPP partners and not solely on local 

authorities.” 


3.110 Audit Scotland commented that community participation and engagement were 

important strands of the audit framework. However, it highlighted that with a 

move towards a more risk based and proportionate approach to audit, it would 

be difficult to justify making community participation a more significant part of 

their audit work. 

“Audits of best value and Community Planning are moving 

towards concentrating on auditing the outcomes of the 

processes rather than the inputs. Focusing on trying to audit 

‘community participation’ would be a move back to auditing 

inputs and processes.” 


3.111 Other respondents questioned whether the proposal would in fact result in any 

substantive difference in practice on the ground. 

3.112 A few respondents commented more generally that the use of the term 

‘community participation’ rather than ‘community engagement’ in this question 

highlighted the difficulty in ensuring consistency of terminology and meaning in 

this issue. 

“It is unclear what is meant by community participation here 

in comparison with community engagement.” 

(Inverclyde Council) 

44

Theme 8: Named Officer 


Should public sector authorities have a named accountable officer, responsible 

for community participation and acting as a primary point of contact for 

communities? 

3.113 The vast majority of respondents answered this question, and of those that did 

just over half expressed agreement. Support was most prevalent among 

community councils and their local networks, and RSLs and their representative 

bodies. Support was lowest among private sector organisations and their 

representative bodies, of whom only one agreed with the proposal. Local 

authorities and their representative bodies also broadly disagreed, with over 

three-fifths of respondents rejecting the proposal. 

3.114 The most commonly expressed reason for supporting the proposal was that a 

primary point of contact would simplify and improve communication with public 

sector authorities. 

“A named accountable officer will give prominence to 

community participation and make it easier for individuals or 

community organisations to contact the public body on issues 

relating to community participation.” 

(Link Group) 

3.115 A number of respondents believed that the proposal would enhance 

accountability by clearly fixing it to one officer, with some asserting that at 

present, it can be difficult to identify who is responsible for community 

participation. In general, they felt that the appointed officer should sit at the 

level of director or chief executive. They argued that this level of seniority was 

required in order for the post to effectively promote positive cultural change 

within public authorities. 

3.116 The most common criticism of the proposal was that by appointing a single 

officer, others would neglect their community participation duties. A significant 

number of respondents highlighted this potential problem, including some of 

those who had expressed agreement with the proposal. 

“All officials, not simply the named officer, must see it as a 

core part of their remit to interact, engage and support the 

local community. Existence of a named accountable official 

must not become an excuse for other officials to shut out the 

local community.” 

(Oxfam Scotland) 

3.117 Some of those who disagreed felt that rather than establishing a new post, the 

chief executives of public authorities should instead take on this responsibility. 

45

3.118 One respondent questioned whether the proposal was an adequate response to 

the problem of community engagement, calling instead for common guidelines 

and requirements to publish engagement plans. This was echoed by others 

who called for ongoing service reviews and audits to monitor the extent to which 

participation is achieved. More generally, a number of respondents felt that 

engagement with specific departments within public authorities was preferable 

to a single officer focused solely on community participation. This view was 

prevalent among local authorities and their representative bodies. 

“Community participation should be a responsibility for every 

officer involved in service design or service change and within 

their professional expertise. For example, development 

planners, tenant participation officers, head teachers all have 

responsibilities to ensure participation in their area of 

business.” 


3.119 Other respondents expressed concern regarding the financial implications of the 

proposal, feeling that the appointment of an officer may be too great a burden in 

the current economic climate. Some also noted that practical difficulties may 

arise, particularly for those public authorities with a national remit. 

3.120 Another common concern was that the workload would simply be too large, 

although respondents appeared to have differing views on what form the 

officer’s role would take. Some discussed one named officer for the entire 

public sector, while others referred to individual local authorities or departments 

within local authorities. Some respondents felt that greater clarity was needed 

on the issue. 

3.121 Two respondents were concerned with the use of the term “accountable officer” 

and referred to the Scottish Public Finance Manual. This defines the role as “a 

personal responsibility for the propriety and regularity of the finances under their 

stewardship and for the economic, efficient and effective use of all related 

resources”. 

3.122 Both respondents felt that this concept should not be introduced to local 

authorities as it threatens to undermine the collective responsibility of Councils 

for their actions, and conflicts with the duties of the Section 95 Officer and 

Monitoring Officer. 

3.123 Some cited examples of similar existing practices, for instance NHS Scotland’s 

Designated Directors, who take responsibility for community engagement and 

some local authorities having named officers responsible for Community 

Planning in place. 

46

Theme 9: Tenants’ Right to Manage 

This theme covers questions 14 and 15 in the main consultation questionnaire: 

Can the Scottish Government do more to promote the use of the existing tenant 

management rights in sections 55 and 56 of the Housing (Scotland) 2001 Act? 

Should the current legislation be amended to make it easier for tenants groups 

to manage housing services in their areas? 

3.124 The response rate to this question was fairly low, with about a third of 

respondents expressing an opinion. Of this, just over half of respondents said 

that they were in agreement that the Scottish Government could do more to 

promote the use of the existing tenant management rights as contained within 

the Housing (Scotland) 2001 Act. Support was greatest among third sector/ 

equalities organisations, local authorities, community councils and other 

community organisations. Respondents provided limited comments in relation 

to the views they expressed. 

3.125 The most common reason cited by respondents for supporting the proposal was 

that this would help to raise awareness of tenant management rights among 

tenants. Although some respondents questioned who would be responsible for 

raising awareness among communities and tenants. 

“If the existing tenants management rights are not having the 

desired effect in encouraging tenants to take on more 

responsibility for the management of properties then the 

answer to this must be yes.” 

(The Community Learning and Development Standards Council for 

Scotland) 

3.126 Although supporting the proposal in principle, the City of Edinburgh Council 

made the point that Scottish Government and local authorities had already 

invested in a range of tenants’ organisations at a national and local level to 

promote the use of existing tenant management rights. Any further promotion 

would need to be seen in the context of these existing structures. 

3.127 A number of respondents highlighted that there were already many examples of 

good practice where registered social landlords have been providing 

opportunities to participate in decisions making and suggested that more should 

be done to promote this. 

“There are a many examples of full and part transfers of 

social housing into community ownership or management in 

Scotland and the successes speak for themselves.” 

(Cooperation and Mutuality Scotland) 

47

3.128 The numbers expressing opposition to the proposal were much lower. Many 

respondents felt that the existing provisions were adequate and it was not clear 

why Scottish Government would want to expend scarce resources promoting 

tenant management rights, particularly given the lack of evidence that there was 

a clear demand for this from tenants. 

3.129 Some respondents suggested that the lack of take up might be because tenants 

are not interested in taking on the management of their properties, suggesting 

that they were happy with their current service. In this context, the Link Group 

made the point that currently; the tenant management co-operative option was 

not attractive, as it required tenants to take on considerable responsibility 

without any discernible benefit. 

3.130 Others suggested that if the Scottish Government was keen to boost the take up 

of tenants’ rights to manage their properties then consideration would need to 

be given to how this could be adequately supported and funded. 

“We are not convinced that promotion would necessarily 

drive greater uptake as there are wider factors, including 

motivation and capability, at play. Increased open dialogue 

and upskilling with local tenant participation structures is 

required.” 


“If there were to be a policy shift towards proactively 

promoting tenant management co-operatives the resource 

implications for local communities and for councils would 

need to be acknowledged and addressed.” 



preference for or against the proposal. 

3.132 The Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland and a number of other respondents 

commented that the new Scottish Social Housing Charter offered an additional 

opportunity to enhance tenant participation and ensure that tenants are involved 

in decisions that affect their housing services. 

3.133 The comment made by Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeenshire Community 

Planning Partnership summed up the views of many respondents who were 

unclear about the motivation behind the question: 

“While the Scottish Government can do more, there is little 

evidence to suggest that there is a desire from tenants to 

take on the responsibility of managing housing stock. 

Commitment and investment from tenants required in 

establishing and running tenant management groups is 

considerable. In addition, these types of initiatives are very 

staff and resource intensive.” 

(Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeenshire Community 

Planning Partnership) 

48

3.134 Respondents were also asked about whether the current legislation should be 

amended to make it easier for tenants groups to manage housing services in 

their areas. Again the response rate to this particular question was quite low, 

with just over a third of respondents expressing an opinion. Of these, about half 

of respondents said that they were in favour of legislative change. Support was 

strongest among community councils, individuals, other community groups and 

third sector/ equalities organisations. Local authorities and community planning 

partnerships were less supportive of the need for legislative change. 

3.135 Some respondents provided more detailed comments in relation to the views 

they expressed, however not all of these were relevant to the question and had 

already been covered in the first part of this theme. 

3.136 The main reasons given by those who supported legislative change were that it 

would give communities a greater sense of ownership and control and more 

influence in decision making. However it was recognised by many that this 

would need to be backed by considerable funding and support. 

3.137 The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations stated that it would support 

amendments to the current provisions to make it easier for tenants to manage 

housing services, if this is what they wanted. However, they suggested that the 

Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill should explore ways of increasing 

those powers by using a collective ownership model. 

3.138 The Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations highlighted 

that the issue of asset ownership should also be considered and suggested that 

transferring the ownership of the houses might be a more preferable option than 

just transferring the management function. 

3.139 The Tenants Information Service and a small number of respondents (mainly 

local authorities and community planning partnerships) were opposed to 

changing the legislation. The primary reason given by these respondents was 

that they felt that the existing provisions were adequate. 

“The existing provisions already allow for full and active 

participation and leadership of housing services by tenants 

and local communities in various forms and at various levels. 

We can see no compelling reason for further amendments in 

this particular instance.” 

(Argyll and Bute Council) 

3.140 Shelter Scotland and a number of local authorities also made the point that the 

new Scottish Social Housing Charter should be the key driver for securing 

improvements in tenant participation and engagement across all social 

landlords. 

49

Theme 10: Community Service Delivery 

This theme covers questions 16 and 17 in the main consultation questionnaire and 

questions 5 and 6 in the easy read version: 

Can current processes be improved to give community groups better access to 

public service delivery contracts? 

Should communities have the right to challenge service provision where they 

feel the service is not being run efficiently and that it does not meet their 

needs? 

Do you have any ideas about how to make it easier for community 

organisations to help run or manage local services? 

Do you think communities in Scotland should be able to challenge a local 

service if they feel the service is not run well or does not meet their needs? 

3.141 Respondents were asked whether current processes could be improved to give 

community groups better access to public service delivery contracts. There was 

significant support for this proposal among respondents who expressed a view. 

Support was strongest among community councils, third sector/ equalities 

groups, other community organisations, individuals and local authorities. Some 

respondents questioned what was understood by the term ’community group’ as 

potentially this could cover a diverse range of organisations. 

3.142 The most common theme to be raised by respondents who supported the 

proposal was in relation to procurement. There was widespread agreement that 

current procurement procedures often acted as a barrier, preventing community 

groups from getting involved in the delivery of public service delivery contracts. 

“Current arrangements with regard to tendering for the 

supply of services or goods to, or on behalf of, public 

authorities are too complex and bureaucratic, excluding not 

only community groups but talented individuals and small 

businesses.” 

(Individual) 

3.143 Although a few local authorities noted that there was in fact scope to make 

improvements under the current system. 

“We believe that current processes can be improved and 

we are working locally to optimise delivery contracts 

through improved procurement processes within the 

confines of existing EU and UK legislation.” 


3.144 The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) Scotland provided 

an alternative perspective on this stating that in view of the fact that community 

groups were not governed by current procurement rules, they would be free to 

use local tradesman, whereas the public sector would have difficulty 

implementing a ‘buy local’ policy. 

50

3.145 A number of respondents pointed to the need to review existing public sector 

procurement procedures and to give greater recognition to the role of 

community groups in delivering contracts, for example, through greater use of 

‘social benefit clauses’ and community benefit clauses’. A few respondents 

made reference to work already being undertaken by Scottish Government in 

relation to third sector tendering and contracting, and suggested that this might 

be relevant. Others, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, stated that this 

matter should be addressed as part of the Scottish Government’s planned 

Procurement Reform Bill. 

3.146 Many respondents (particularly community groups, other community 

organisations and third sector/ equalities organisations) made the point that 

information about public service delivery contract opportunities needed to be 

more accessible. Some respondents highlighted that the Scottish 

Government’s Public Contracts Scotland website would be helpful in this regard, 

but community groups would need to be made more aware of its existence. 

3.147 Others (particularly community groups and third sector/ equalities organisations) 

felt that the scale of public sector contracts could also act as a barrier, 

suggesting that contracts needed to be broken down into more ‘manageable 

chunks’. 

“Public service delivery contracts have not often considered 

the scale required for contracts to be deliverable by 

community organisations. This applies particularly to 

framework agreements, which are becoming increasingly 

common.” 


3.148 There was a degree of support among some respondents that rather than 

getting involved in the direct delivery of public services, there might be more 

scope for community groups to have a greater say in the design and 

management of local services. 

“In some cases communities could be more involved in the 

design and specification of service contracts, what outcomes 

are to be achieved, how performance would be measured, 

and assessing contracts. For many communities this 

involvement would be welcomed and preferable to delivering 

services.” 

(Fife Community Planning Partnership) 

“If ‘access’ (access to public service delivery contracts) 

presumes that community groups might themselves seek to 

tender for local services contracts, this is a different and 

much more complex question. Most community groups are 

not formed primarily to operate as commercial businesses.” 

(Nairn West Community Council) 

51

3.149 Some respondents suggested that an approach where community groups were 

part of the design of services might make it easier for community groups to get 

involved in service delivery. A number of respondents referred to the use of coproduction 

models or the establishment of public-social partnerships. 

“Elements of the ‘Public Social Partnership’ approach to 

commissioning could be used more widely to support 

community involvement in service commissioning. Such an 

approach can also help to build the capacity of community 

groups to deliver services, through partnership working with 

larger voluntary sector organisations.” 

(Falkirk Council) 

3.150 Glasgow Housing Association highlighted that many public sector organisations 

were already working with communities around the concept of co-production 

and that it would be important to capture and promote good practice in this area. 

3.151 A significant number of respondents, particularly those who responded to the 

easy read questionnaire, highlighted the importance of capacity building if 

community organisations were to be able take on a role in public service 

delivery. Many of these respondents said that it would be essential to have 

access to training and funding support to allow community groups to develop 

the skills and expertise that would be required. 

3.152 A few respondents referred to the need for a culture shift within the public sector 

that challenged existing attitudes and allowed community groups to deliver 

services. 

3.153 Respondents were also asked whether communities should have the right to 

challenge service provision if they were not satisfied. There was significant 

support for the proposal among respondents who expressed a view. Support 

was strongest among community councils, other community organisations, 

individuals and third sector/ equalities organisations. 

3.154 The most commonly expressed reason for supporting the proposal was that it 

would make service providers more accountable to local communities. 

“The ‘right to challenge’ would seem appropriate given that the 

spending of public money should be transparent and 

accountable, but legislation and guidance would need to be 

carefully considered to ensure that challenges are appropriate 

and within a considered set of criteria.” 

(Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership) 

“It is right and proper that taxpayers and council taxpayers 

should be able to hold government and councils accountable for 

poor service delivery.” 

(Auchinloch Community Council) 

52

3.155 Although supporting the ‘right to challenge’ some respondents commented that 

a robust definition of what was understood by ‘community’ would be required. 

Whilst the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations 

proposed that the ‘right to challenge’ should be exercised through recognised 

community organisations, such as community anchors. 

3.156 A number of local authorities highlighted that communities already have the 

ability to challenge service provision through the formal complaints procedures, 

appeals to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or through contact with 

elected members. East Renfrewshire Council suggested that effective 

engagement cultures which promote collaborative working and joint review 

between service providers and communities would negate the need for 

challenge. 

“Council services are already accountable to communities 

through the democratic process of Council/ local elected 

members. Councils also have a statutory duty to deliver best 

value and there is a robust audit system in place to ensure 

compliance with this.” 


3.157 A number of respondents did not express a view for or against the proposal but 

offered some additional comments. 

3.158 The Scottish Health Council made the point that the ‘right to challenge’ in the 

Localism Act 2012 in England and Wales only applied in the context of local 

authority services, and it was unlikely that this could be applied in the same way 

in the NHS context. They proposed that if a ‘right to challenge’ were to be 

introduced in Scotland, consideration would need to be given to whether 

additional rights might be given to communities in relation to the provision of 

NHS services. 

3.159 The Development Trusts Association Scotland gave the proposal a fairly 

cautious welcome, stating that there was a danger that any community right to 

challenge could potentially be used to open up new markets for non-community 


53

Theme 11: Community Directed Spending – Participatory Budgeting 

This theme covers questions 18, 19, 19a, 19b and 19c in the main consultation 

questionnaire and question 6 in the easy read version: 

Should communities have a greater role in deciding how budgets are spent in 

their areas? 

Should communities be able to request the right to manage certain areas of 

spending within their local area? 

What areas of spending should a community be responsible for? 

Who, or what body, within a community should be responsible for making 

decisions on how the budget is spent? 

How can we ensure that decisions on how the budget is spent are made in a 

fair way and consider the views of everyone within the community? 

What role, if any, can community councils play in helping to ensure 


3.160 A majority of respondents, from across the respondent groupings, expressed 

support for the principle that communities should have a greater role in budget 

decisions. The most common argument in favour was that communities are 

more likely to know where there is a need for spending. Emphasis was given to 

the point that each community has its own particular needs, so a centralised 

approach to budgeting is not appropriate. 

“Local communities are the best people to determine what 

services are required and what should be priorities in that 

community. What is a relevant priority for a Glasgow suburb 

will not be applicable for a rural village such as Auchinloch.” 

(Auchinloch Community Council) 

3.161 Some also argued that this proposal would encourage community engagement 

by giving communities the sense that they have control over their area, tackling 

feelings of disaffection. Others noted that communities would need training and 

support, but were enthusiastic about the proposal providing that support was in 

place. 

“With sufficient support and knowledge there is no reason why 

communities couldn’t take on the role of critical friend at least, 

possibly more as knowledge and experience is gained.” 

(The Community Regeneration Forum) 

3.162 Local authorities, while generally supportive of the proposal, highlighted a 

number of issues. Some claimed that the proposal was unnecessary because 

they already involved communities in budgeting, and provided examples of how 

they had done so. Others supported the proposal in principle, but had doubts 

about how it could work in practice. One practical difficulty was that budgets are 

not planned by area, but rather by priority across the entire local authority. 

Questions of democratic legitimacy were also raised. 

54

“In principle, communities should be as involved as practicable 

in deciding how budgets are spent in their area. However, this 

needs to be balanced against the democratic legitimacy of 

elected members to take decisions, particularly those that may 

not be popular... Community engagement should be part of 

strong public sector leadership and not a substitute for it.” 


3.163 A common concern was that minority needs, or the needs of those less likely to 

engage with vocal community groups, would be marginalised, while those with 

the ‘loudest voice’ would be able to prioritise their interests. At the heart of this 

concern was the worry that social inequalities could be deepened. This point 

was made by many of those who had expressed agreement with the proposal, 

with these respondents adding their concerns as a caveat. Again, some 

believed that these issues could be mitigated through capacity building and 

support for communities. 

“We welcome any proposal to transfer greater power for 

decision making and real positive change to communities if 

there is sufficient engagement and community capacity building 

investment that will support communities of interest to be in a 

stronger position to take these decisions. Such further 

decentralisation of funding may exacerbate inequalities, as it 

will favour the communities who already have the capacity to 

take action.” 

(Scottish Refugee Council) 

3.164 Similar issues were raised on the issue of whether communities should be able 

to request the right to manage certain areas of spending. Again, a majority of 

those who responded were in favour of the proposal, but significant issues 

arose. A large number of community councils stated that, while they would 

welcome the opportunity to have a say over spending, they would not wish to 

take over budget management. It was felt that management should be left to 

public bodies. 

“There is a fine line between influencing and managing 

spending. Accountable experts must be left to manage 

spending.” 

(Newtonhill Muchalls Cammachmore Community Council) 

3.165 This point was related to issues of democratic accountability and fairness in 

resource distribution. 

“Under no circumstance should any management of spending 

be transferred to local area groups. Control of spending at local 

council and national level is essential to ensure fair and 

equitable distribution of spending for the entire population of 

Scotland, rather than for the benefit of individual community 

groups.” 

(Arnprior Community Council) 

55

“There requires to be a balance between “community” 

involvement in managing budgets and accountability for how 

public funds are expended.” 


3.166 Of those that agreed with the proposals, many expressed a view on which 

particular areas of spending a community should take responsibility for. Most 

stated that this depended on the needs and views of individual communities. 

Some did, however, state that the right to request management should apply to 

all areas of spending. Common examples of specific suggestions included 

grounds maintenance, cleansing and road maintenance. 

3.167 When asked who or what body should take responsibility, the majority of those 

who responded suggested community councils. Other suggestions included 

community anchor organisations, local area committees or community planning 

partnerships. Overall, there was again strong emphasis on democratic 

legitimacy and accountability, and ensuring that groups have the ability to carry 

out their duties. 

3.168 When asked how the proposals might ensure that the views of all community 

members are taken into account, respondents made a number of suggestions. 

Transparency was a key theme here, with respondents calling for an open 

decision making process. The publication of Community Engagement Plans 

and Equality Impact Assessments was also suggested. Broad public 

consultation, including open community council meetings, was also encouraged. 

Some, however, felt that it was impossible to consider the views of “everyone”, 

but hoped that at least a majority could be reached. 

3.169 A number of definitional questions arose in this part of the consultation. Many 

respondents felt that a clearer definition of ‘community’ was required in order to 

envisage exactly which groups would be making decisions. In these 

discussions, there was an emphasis on ensuring that communities were 

representative, transparent and accountable. Others also felt that the terms 

‘manage’ and ‘certain areas of spending’ required further clarification, and this 

ambiguity prevented them from providing a view. 

56

Theme 12: Definitions for Part 1 

This theme covers question 20 in the main consultation questionnaire and question 1 

in the easy read version: 

Please use this space to give us your thoughts on any definitions that may be 

used for the ideas in Part 1. Please also give us examples of any definitions 

that you feel have worked well in practice 

What does the word 'community' mean to you? 

3.170 Only one third of respondents responded to the full consultation’s question on 

definitions. Responses focused mainly on what is meant by ‘community’, and a 

number of respondents directly addressed the difficulty of defining the concept. 

“Oxfam is pleased that the government recognises the 

complexity contained in the term ‘community’. 

Community is messy, conflicting, porous, and almost 

indefinable. They are also the location in which social 

change is best delivered.” 


3.171 Most agreed that a geographical definition is the most practical approach for the 

Scottish Government’s purposes, but communities of interest and of identity 

were also discussed. This point was also covered by the easy read version of 

the consultation, in which respondents were asked to define ‘community’ and 

discuss the characteristics of their own. Again, a shared geographical location 

was seen as crucial by the majority, but notions of social cohesion and shared 

goals and responsibilities were also very important. The majority defined their 

community as the area in which they live, but went on to discuss the interactions 

between people within that area. 

“Our overview is that it is the area we live in and work in, and 

which we identify with. Community also means “inclusion” 

with everyone working together, helping each other.” 

(Westhill and Elrick Community Council) 

3.172 Some suggested established academic definitions, such as Robert Putnam’s 

discussion of generalised reciprocity and John Hosier’s assertion that 

community is different to friendship. 

3.173 A number of respondents emphasised that any definition of community 

organisations should ensure that they are representative, accountable and 

transparent. 

3.174 The definition of “local” was also addressed by some respondents. 

“Local often used in a misleading way. E.g. ‘local 

government’, ‘local plan’ are not necessarily local. Local 

should apply to the smaller unit, as in community councils.” 

(Hillhead Community Council) 

57

3.175 Engagement’ was also discussed, with respondents insisting that the term 

should be taken to mean more than simply asking questions of consultees. 

Rather, it should imply autonomy and decision making power. 

3.176 The National Standards for Community Engagement were repeatedly referred 

to as an example of well used definitions. One respondent also referred to Fife 

Council and Community Learning Scotland’s three purposes for community 

engagement (informing; seeking views; participation and partnership), while 

another cited the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003’s definition of community. 

3.177 A number of respondents expressed confusion, stating that they were unsure of 

how to approach the definitions question. 

“Throughout our work on this consultation document we have 

on several occasions queried what is meant by certain words 

or phrases. Q20 exemplifies our confusion. The word 

‘definition’ is understood by us to mean ‘a statement of what 

a word or phrase means’ or ‘what a thing is.’ What do the 

compilers mean by ‘definitions’ in the context of the above 

question (and Q33 and Q45)?” 


58

4. PART TWO: UNLOCKING ENTERPRISING COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT 

Theme 13: Community Right to Buy 

This theme covers questions 21, 21a,21b and 21c in the main consultation 

questionnaire and questions 7 and 8 in the easy read version: 

Would you support a community right to buy for urban communities? 

Should this work in the same way as the existing (rural) community right to buy? 

How should “urban community” be defined? 

How would an urban and rural community right to buy work alongside each 

other? 

Would it help if your community owned land or buildings? 

Should communities in towns and cities have a right to buy land and buildings 

that are for sale in their area? 

4.1 The vast majority of respondents supported the proposal to introduce a 

community right to buy in urban areas, with much smaller numbers expressing 

more neutral views or against the proposal. Support was greatest among 

community councils and other community organisations, third sector 

organisations, RSLs, community planning partnerships and individuals. 

The lowest level of support came from the private sector (where even some of 

the “yes” responses were accepting of the concept rather than enthusiastic) – 

although this was based on a small number of responses. Most local 

authorities supported the proposal but a number were opposed or neutral. 

4.2 The most commonly expressed reason for supporting the proposal was simply 

to bring urban areas into line with rural areas. Many saw the existing 

distinction as illogical in this context. 

“All communities' right to buy should be equal across 

Scotland and relate to land and buildings.” 


4.3 Many of those responding in favour cited the purposes to which they would 

like any new right to be put. Tackling vacant or derelict land or buildings was 

a recurrent theme. Several respondents also mentioned the need to save an 

existing community facility (or provide a new facility) and the need to protect 

green space from development. A significant number of respondents made 

more general points that the proposal would strengthen community assets, 

build local capacity and engender greater well-being. 

59

“There are key buildings and pieces of land that lie unused in 

urban areas. These can create blight and prevent the 

opportunity of integrated regeneration of the area. The most 

obvious route to bring such land or buildings into productive 

use would be through compulsory purchase (undertaken by 

the local authority on the basis of a well argued case from a 

community organisation). But a well drafted community right 

to buy for urban communities could be a useful additional 

route.” 


4.4 A large number of those supporting the proposal did so with some 

reservations however. These reservations included the need for a robust 

business plan, capacity and skills to take on the responsibility of ownership 

long-term; and the need to ensure wider community support and benefit. 

“Community organisations might be drawn away from their 

core purpose work and become preoccupied with the burden 

of asset management. How can communities generate 

enough money (particularly within very disadvantaged areas) 

to purchase and maintain ownership of properties?” 


4.5 These same reservations also featured in comments made by those opposed 

to or expressing a more neutral view on the proposal. 

4.6 The point was made by one respondent that the current (rural) community 

right to buy is not really a right to buy but rather a right to register an interest. 

This may nevertheless be a useful provision. 

4.7 The numbers stating opposition to the proposal were much lower. A number 

of arguments were used to support these views. A few community 

organisations considered that ownership was best left to the local authority. 

Some private sector respondents argued that the existence as well as the 

exercise of such a right would make already complex development riskier and 

therefore less likely to happen. The question of the rights of an existing owner 

(or indeed lender) was also raised. From the local authority perspective it was 

suggested that a very local community interest might conflict with a more 

strategic objective designed to benefit the wider community. 

“Right to buy will make already complex situations even 

more difficult to assess and make progress on, especially in 

areas of substantial brownfield plots where the community 

may become tired of awaiting development activity and 

therefore decide to register a community interest. In 

extreme cases it may actually block investment and major 

development activity as major organisations will be loathed 

to commit substantial resources to revitalise or improve 

properties that they may ultimately forfeit through a 

community right to buy.” 

(Scottish Property Federation) 

60


preference for or against the proposal. Additional points made by these 


the need to manage any competing community interests; 

the risk of blight as development proposals are held up (or alternative 

community-led proposals cannot be made to work);and 

the case for improving and speeding up the existing process (operating 

in rural areas) before extending this to urban areas. 

“We ... recognise there is the potential for a community to 

use right to buy legislation solely to block an unwanted 

development e.g. social housing or a homeless unit. Checks 

and balances would have to be included in the legislation in 

order that the needs of the wider community are not 

adversely affected by the wishes of a more vocal minority.” 

(Midlothian Voluntary Sector Forum) 

“Under the existing community Right to Buy legislation in 

place, the MOD has sold various properties to local 

community groups for example at Cultybraggan Camp, 

Machrihanish and Benbecula. Having gone through the 

process several times as set by the Scottish Government, 

the MOD would welcome a proposal to review, speed up and 

simplify the existing process.” 

(Ministry of Defence) 

4.9 Respondents were asked if an urban community right to buy should work in 

the same way as the existing (rural) community right to buy? The majority of 

respondents said that urban community right to buy should operate in the 

same way but few gave reasons for this view. The point was made that the 

provisions should apply to buildings as well as to land. Some other 

respondents – particularly some executive agencies/NDPBs – made the case 

that flaws in the existing (rural) provisions should be addressed first through 

the work of the Land Reform Review Group before revised and improved 

legislation is applied to all areas. 

4.10 The Council for Mortgage Lenders (CML) suggested that since the extension 

of community right to buy to urban land and buildings might lead to a large 

increase in the volume of applications, there might be a greater role for local 

authorities rather than all registrations of interest going to Scottish Ministers. 

4.11 The question of how an “urban community” should be defined prompted a 

wide range of responses. Some respondents focused on how “urban” and 

“rural” are distinguished. In many cases they suggested population thresholds 

such as the Scottish Government’s current urban: rural classification. Some 

questioned whether a definition of urban is needed at all: the proposals could 

either apply to everywhere not covered by the existing (rural) legislation – or 

new legislation could simply apply across all areas. 

61

4.12 Other respondents concentrated more on how “community” is defined. 

Among community councils, other community organisations and individuals in 

particular, a number suggested existing community council boundaries could 

be used. The most prevalent view however was that urban communities have 

to define themselves – which would enable communities based on common 

interest as well as those defined geographically to participate. It was 

suggested that any self defining community should be properly constituted 

and able to fulfil equality and open access requirements. 

4.13 The consultation also asked how an urban and rural community right to buy 

would work alongside each other. The most commonly held view was that 

since urban and rural provisions should as far as possible be aligned with 

each other, there should be no particular issue or conflict in working alongside 

each other. While the possibility of competing interests was identified, most 

respondents felt that this was something to be managed both between and 

indeed within communities and areas. 

4.14 Finally, some respondents noted that a wealth of experience has been built up 

in operating community right to buy and other purchases in rural areas and 

that this can be drawn on in the urban context: 

“.... the outputs from communities who have acquired their 

land have been significant, including: wide-ranging 

community regeneration; job creation; facilities 

enhancement; increased community participation; greater 

community confidence, population growth and generally 

enhanced resilience. On the subject of whether or not urban 

communities should have a right to buy, HIE would be 

pleased to share our organisational learning....” 

(Highlands and Islands Enterprise) 

62

Theme 14: Community Asset Transfer 

This theme covers questions 22, 22a, 22b 22c, 23, 24 and 24a in the main 

consultation questionnaire and questions 7 and 9 in the easy read version: 

Under what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to transfer 

unused or underused public sector assets to individual communities? 

What information should a community body be required to provide during the 

asset transfer process? 

What information should a public sector authority be required to provide 

during the asset transfer process? 

What, if any, conditions should be placed on a public sector authority when an 

asset is transferred from the public sector to a community? 

What, if any, conditions should be placed on a community group when an 

asset is transferred from a public sector authority to a community? 

Should communities have a power to request the public sector transfer of 

certain unused or underused assets? 

Should communities have a right to buy an asset if they have managed or 

leased it for a certain period of time? 

Would it help your community if it owned land or buildings? Why do you think 

this? 

If the local council or other public authority own land or buildings they are not 

using, should the local community have a right to ask for the land and 

buildings? Why do you think this? 

4.15 A large number of respondents provided detailed views on the circumstances 

under which it would be appropriate for such transfers to take place. While 

most respondents interpreted assets as land or buildings, some assumed a 

broader definition (from community transport to works of art, for example). 

Several respondents also pointed to difficulties defining “underused”, which 

they felt to be a subjective term. 

4.16 There was fairly widespread support however for the principle of transferring 

assets from public sector authorities to the community where a community 

organisation could demonstrate that it could bring about improved community 

or public benefit as a result. It was suggested that in any disposal of public 

sector assets first refusal should be offered to the community (with 

appropriate arrangements for notification and management of any competing 

interests). Any community group expressing interest would need to show both 

a viable business plan and how they involve the wider community. 

4.17 Some respondents cautioned against the possible transfer of liabilities by 

public sector bodies; and several others suggested leasing as an alternative 

either for an initial period or long-term. Many respondents also drew attention 

to capacity issues for the community group concerned. They highlighted that 

even if the level of interest and skills exist at the time of transfer, interest can 

wane and key individuals leave – possibly risking the loss of the asset 

altogether. 

63

4.18 The Community Woodland Association suggested that that the Scottish 

Government should require all public bodies to develop and implement an 

asset transfer scheme along the lines of the National Forest Land Scheme 

(NFLS). The Scheme gives community bodies the opportunity to pro-actively 

make the case for community acquisition (by purchase or lease) of Forestry 

Commission Scotland assets. The NFLS has a number of key criteria, 

relating to the community body, its plans for the asset to be transferred, and 

the effect on the remainder of the National Forest Estate. 

4.19 A number of respondents mentioned positive examples of successful asset 

transfers. 

“Two ...community asset transfers have now been completed 

– Dailly Activity Centre and Wallacetoun Play Area. In both 

instances the Council assisted with fund raising and 

capacity building within the local organisations. 

Consultancy support and technical expertise was also 

brought in to complete the business planning and technical 

requirements such as building condition surveys etc. Asset 

transfer in ... these cases have been considered within a 

community development approach to the local communities.” 

(South Ayrshire Council) 

4.20 Respondents were asked what information a community body should be 

required to provide. There was a considerable level of agreement across all 

respondent groups, encapsulated as follows: 

“We basically consider applications against two main criteria: 

first, that the proposed project outcomes will meet an 

identified need and help to achieve the outcomes we set for 

our programmes; and second, that the applicant organisation 

will deliver the project well and achieve the intended project 

outcomes”. 

(Big Lottery Fund) 

4.21 There was some variation among responses however as to how a community 

group should demonstrate its capacity to deliver the desired outcomes 

(including longer-term). The most commonly suggested headings were: 

A sound business and funding plan (at least medium term although 

definitions of this varied). 

Demonstration of wider community support and engagement (including 

equality groups). 

Capacity to develop and manage the asset in terms of skills and ideally 

track record. 

Governance arrangements (in particular membership, accountability 

and where applicable how the group is regulated). 

Arrangements in the event of the project or the community group failing 

or winding up. 

64

4.22 A number of local authorities provided very comprehensive lists of information 

requirements, all slightly different from each other. Both the Development 

Trusts Association Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary 

Organisations made the point that the information requirements should be 

proportionate to the circumstances concerned – and this was acknowledged 

by at least one local authority: 

“This may in part be determined by the type of asset being 

transferred. Some assets (a small piece of land used as a 

communal drying green for instance) may have no 

‘operational’ requirements, whereas a premises that was to 

be used as a community facility may require evidence of 

operational funding; a business plan; governance structures; 

legal structures; extent of community involvement; existing 

accounts; future funding arrangements; normal operating 

procedure and emergency action plans; insurance; health & 

safety; proof of ownership, etc...” 


4.23 Development Trusts Association Scotland agreed that the amount of 

information to be provided should be proportionate to the scale and 

complexity of the proposal, and the value of the asset in question. They 

suggested that information should be sought in two stages. At the ‘outline 

business case/in principle agreement to transfer’ stage the community body 

should be asked for basic information on their organisation and their plans 

including their legal status, capacity and outline business case. At “detailed 

business case” stage more detailed information and evidence should be 

provided, along the lines suggested by many local authorities. 

4.24 There was a high level of agreement across most respondent groups on the 

kind of information that the public sector body should provide. Most 

responses related to transfer of buildings. The most frequently cited 

requirements were: 

evidence of title; 

a building survey; 

operating costs including energy use; 

any debts/burdens/restrictions on use; and 

an independent valuation. 

4.25 Other suggestions included user number data, any staffing arrangements 

(noting potential TUPE implications) and clarity on the public body’s asset 

transfer procedures and decision making processes. Several respondents 

also suggested that information should include why the public body “wanted 

rid of” a building. 

65

4.26 Some respondents suggested that the public body should go further and 

provide future maintenance and life cycle costings, consultancy support and 

financial advice and indeed funding. Many local authorities indicated that they 

would provide support to community organisations in drawing up their own 

proposals and business plans. 

“It is important that the proposed sale or lease of properties 

to community bodies is considered as part of a partnership 

between the public sector body and the community 

organisation. In these circumstance it is important that as 

much information as possible on the condition of the 

property is transferred to the community organisation as this 

will have a bearing on its business plan for the property.” 

(West Dunbartonshire Council) 

4.27 A significant number of local authorities (and executive agencies/NDPBs) 

proposed some limitations however on information to be provided – for 

example, restricting this to information already held on asset registers. 

“Any information requirements placed on the public sector 

authority during the transfer process should have a 

reasonableness test in order that excessive resource 

demands are not placed upon it at an initial expression of 

interest stage.” 

(Scottish Water) 

4.28 Respondents were asked what conditions should be placed on a public sector 

authority when an asset is transferred. While a few local authorities 

suggested that there should be no conditions other than those applying to any 

sale, there was broad support across many respondent groups for the public 

body: 

having a “right to recover” and being required to use this in the event of 

project failure; 

being required to exercise a monitoring role; and 

providing an explicit statement of ongoing support. 

“It could be suggested that the authority has a right to take 

the asset back if the community no longer are able to 

maintain the asset, although there is a question as to how 

this would work in the context of an outright transfer to the 

community. It might be helpful to have a diminishing right of 

‘clawback’ for the authority, so that if the community can 

demonstrate that it is able to manage and maintain the 

asset, there are eventually no claims on it from the public 

sector body which transferred it.” 


66

“It would be reasonable to expect a public body to establish 

whether or not the transfer of an asset actually achieves the 

community benefits anticipated, e.g. via a monitoring 

agreement with the community body. However such 

monitoring should not be onerous and should be 

proportionate to the scale of benefits anticipated.” 


“The evaluation of Growing Community Assets has 

highlighted how important it is for projects to receive support 

from their local authorities. We would therefore like to see a 

duty placed on public sector authorities to support 

community projects to which they transfer assets to be 

successful. After all, the projects will still benefit local 

communities ...and presumably, in most cases, the disposal 

of the asset will result in some degree of savings for the 

public authority.” 

(Big Lottery Fund) 

4.29 As regards conditions to be placed on the community group itself when an 

asset is transferred, respondents suggested there is a degree of mismatch 

between what many held to be desirable and what is actually achievable. 

Conditions considered desirable by a wide range of respondents (in particular 

community representatives) included: 

that the asset is and continues to be used as intended and for the benefit 

of the whole community; 

that the community group continues to be well governed; and 

that there should be no onward sale (for profit or otherwise) other than to 

an equivalent community organisation or back to the public sector body. 

4.30 A number of local authority representatives pointed to practical difficulties in 

enforcing conditions post-transfer: 

“It is acknowledged that inclusion of title deeds restrictions 

are difficult to enforce and could compromise access to 

some funding sources for the community organisation. 

Leasehold could offer a better solution to sale, this however 

provides funding difficulties for community groups e.g. lottery 

funding seeks ownership or long term leases.” 


4.31 An alternative perspective was provided by the West Harris Trust: 

“Putting onerous conditions will merely serve to disempower 

rather than empower communities in their joint efforts. The 

key conditions should lie in the governing documents of the 

organisation, namely that no profits are distributed to 

members and that if the organisation is wound up its assets 

will be transferred to one (or more) with similar aims.” 

(West Harris Trust) 

67

4.32 This approach was backed by Development Trusts Association Scotland, who 

did add the rider that “where an asset is being transferred at considerably less 

than market value, then some kind of monitoring of ongoing community/ public 

benefit being delivered would seem reasonable.” 

4.33 The question was asked whether communities should have the power to 

request public sector transfer of certain unused or underused assets. In the 

easy read version this was expressed as “the right to ask for the land and 

buildings”. The consultation document itself talked about giving a right to 

request transfer where the community can show it will use the asset to greater 

benefit. Respondents therefore approached the issue from slightly different 

angles. 

4.34 In terms of the question actually posed, the overwhelming view from all 

groups was that communities should or indeed do have the right to ask. 

“We are not clear what ‘a power to request’ would add to the 

current situation. Any community is at present able to make 

a suggestion to a public body that they transfer unused or 

underused assets.” 


4.35 Several local authorities simply answered “yes”. 

4.36 What was clear from the responses was that the real issue is how the public 

sector body then deals with such requests. 

“Right to ask, yes. Right to expect, no!” 

(Individual) 

“Communities should be able to request, but asset transfer 

should be a choice and not an imposition and there should 

also be the right on the part of the local authority to 

reasonably refuse the request where it is inappropriate.” 

(Scottish Land and Estates) 

4.37 One suggestion as to how to resolve any dispute over what is reasonable for 

a local authority came from Oxfam Scotland: 

“The Scottish Government (via a Poverty Commissioner) 

should be able to ‘call in’ the decisions of local authorities 

when they do not favour the community (the way they do in 

favour of business).” 


68

4.38 Respondents were asked if communities should have a right to buy an asset if 

they have managed or leased it for a certain period of time; and, if so, what 

conditions should be met first. Of those responding there were 

overwhelmingly more “for” than “against” among community councils and 

other community organisations, the third sector, individual RSLs and 

individuals. Views within the local authority sector, executive 

agencies/NDPBs, community planning partnerships and the private sector 

were more evenly split. 

4.39 Among those supporting the proposal, the general view was that the 

community organisation would have had to demonstrate a successful track 

record during the period of its lease or management agreement: 

“Owning an asset, as opposed to leasing it, can assist the 

financial stability and sustainability of the community 

organisation. It therefore seems appropriate that as 

community organisations develop, they should seek to 

acquire premises which they lease, and [Development 

Trusts Association Scotland] therefore supports the right of a 

community organisation to buy an asset which they lease.” 


4.40 Some of those who were against the proposal were concerned that, by giving 

one community group the right to buy, other community groups would be 

prevented from making an alternative proposal to buy and that a set length of 

tenancy (or management) was not a measure of most effective use. Local 

authorities in many cases were concerned that a right to buy could undermine 

future plans for the asset or for the area in which it is located. One local 

authority drew a distinction between leases and management agreements, 

suggesting that ability to maintain the conditions of a lease would be stronger 

evidence to support purchase. 

4.41 Several respondents also identified the risk of an unintended consequence: 

“[We are] concerned that introducing legislation to give an 

automatic right to buy the asset could be counter-productive. 

In [our] experience, landowners can be reluctant to let 

groups use their land as it may affect longer term plans, e.g. 

redevelopment.” 

(Community Land Advisory Service) 

4.42 In terms of any conditions that should be met, respondents generally 

reiterated their views of the information which a community body should 

provide during an asset transfer process. In other words, a sound business 

plan, wider community support, capacity and skills, good governance and 

provisions for wind-up. Several respondents made the point that if a group 

had been managing or leasing an asset for a period then it should be easier 

for it to provide robust evidence of its track record. Others also suggested 

that there may be a case for discounting the sale value to take account of 

rental income paid and/ or investment made in the building during the period 

of any lease. 

69

Theme 15: Common Good 

This theme covers questions 25, 26, 26a, 26b and 26c in the main consultation 

questionnaire: 

Do the current rules surrounding common good assets act as a barrier to their 

effective use by either local authorities or communities? 

Should common good assets continue to be looked after by local authorities? 

What should local authority’s duties towards common good assets be and 

should these assets continue to be accounted for separately from the rest of 

the local authority’s estate? 

Should communities have a right to decide, or be consulted upon, how 

common good assets are used or how the income from common good assets 

is spent? 

Who should be responsible for common good assets and how should they be 

managed? 

4.43 The majority of those responding in all groups agreed that current rules do act 

as a barrier. 

4.44 Disagreement came from a much smaller number of respondents, mostly 

representing community councils and their local networks, other community 

organisations and their representative bodies, local authorities and their 

representative bodies, and community planning partnerships. The reason 

provided in most cases was because these rules act as a safeguard: 

“It is considered that the current law is essential to safeguard 

common good assets. Section 75 of the Local Government 

(Scotland) Act 1973 requires a court order, in simple terms, 

in order for a local authority to dispose/alienate common 

good assets. 

This has to be advertised and objections can be lodged from 

members of the public. This is a prudent safeguard.” 


4.45 There were some commonly cited reasons among the responses of those 

who agreed that current rules act as a barrier including: 

lack of accessible information on what common good assets exist (or 

inadequacy of current common good registers); 

out-dated, complex and restrictive rules on how common good assets 

can be used; and 

a view, particularly among community organisations, that local 

authorities exercise too much control or even “plunder” common good 

assets. 

70

“We are aware of instances where communities have been 

interested in taking ownership over assets held under common 

good and local authorities have indicated that such a disposal 

would involve a very complicated and time consuming legal 

process. In such instances, therefore, we would definitely contend 

that the current rules surrounding common good assets act as a 

barrier to their effective use by communities.” 

(The Big Lottery) 

4.46 Some local authorities also mentioned the mismatch of geographic 

boundaries within different parts of the common good as an added complexity. 

4.47 A significant number of responses (from both individuals focusing on this 

issue and organisations with wider interests) drew attention to the recent 

debate over building a replacement for Portobello High School on common 

good land. Some felt that the case highlighted the need for the current rules to 

be reviewed, while others the protection they afforded. 

“I live in Portobello and Common Good has recently resulted 

in us being denied a new high school. This is despite there 

being any clear evidence the land in question is in fact 

Common Good. In the most recent council elections a clear 

mandate was delivered to build the school, the vast majority 

of the local community want a new school – yet a small 

group of residents driven by self interest have prevented it 

being built. This is not democratic, nor in the “common 

good”. We need a clear and uncomplicated process of 

allowing Common Good properties/ land to be used for the 

wishes of the communities they are held for.” 

(Individual) 

“...the Inner House decision in...Portobello Park Action Group 

Association v The City of Edinburgh Council [2012] CSIH 69 

P780/11 reveals further barriers in the effective use of assets 

by local authorities and communities. While the process of 

seeking authorisation of the court to transfer inalienable 

property is cumbersome, and perhaps worthy of debate in 

itself, the determination that there is currently no mechanism 

whatsoever for the appropriation by an authority of 

inalienable property for a necessary public purpose, is one 

which would certainly benefit from national debate.” 

(The Law Society) 

4.48 A clear majority of respondents, including community and third sector bodies, 

supported common good assets continuing to be looked after by local 

authorities. 

71

4.49 Reasons put forward by those in favour of responsibility remaining with local 

authorities included: 

the democratic accountability and longevity of local authorities 

(suggested by a wide cross section of respondents); 

consistency and efficiency of operation; and 

enabling local authorities to use common good assets strategically for 

the benefit of the local authority area as a whole (suggested primarily by 

local authorities). 

“Contrary to popular misconception, common good assets 

are owned by local authorities, not by the inhabitants of the 

relevant former burghs. As owners of these assets, it is right 

that local authorities should manage and look after them. As 

noted elsewhere in this response it would be helpful if 

common good assets – like all other council assets - could 

be managed by local authorities for the benefit of the 

inhabitants of the entire administrative area.” 


4.50 Several respondents simply felt that there was no logical alternative to local 

authorities retaining this role. 

4.51 Port of Leith Housing Association also noted that “if it is the intention of the 

government is to maintain its judicial supervision over local authorities in 

respect of common good land only, it is difficult to envisage how it would 

maintain that authority over a non local authority organisation under existing 

legislation”. 

4.52 Among those supporting common good assets being looked after by local 

authorities (or indeed more neutral on the question), many saw scope for 

greater community involvement in the management of common good assets. 

Some suggested that having full common good registers in place would be a 

useful starting point. There was more support for greater consultation or even 

a day to day management role than for full transfer. If any common good 

assets were transferred, it was suggested there would be a need for 

independent auditing of the new arrangements – but the risks of assets being 

lost was also noted. Among those supporting a greater role for local 

communities there was a clear sense that this should be “horses for courses” 

depending on the particular common good asset. 

“[We think] that LAs have a vital role to play in maintaining an 

overview and providing longevity. However there is no 

reason why day to day management cannot be delegated to 

community groups; however governance, representation and 

accountability remain important whoever is managing in the 

short-term.” 

(Grow Your Own Working Group) 

72

4.53 Those respondents that did not support local authorities retaining this role felt, 

in many cases, that decisions wherever possible should be taken at 

community level. Other respondents, however, pointed to shortcomings in 

local authority performance – whether through disinterest, remoteness or in a 

few cases perceived mismanagement 

“If the notion of public asset transfer to communities and 

community use and management of public assets is 

genuinely up for discussion so then should community 

control of common good assets.” 

(The Community Learning and Development Standards Council for 

Scotland) 

“The demise of the local Town Council has resulted in 

decision making being taken away from the local community 

to a more remote local authority.” 

(The Bridge – Scottish Borders Community Development Company) 

4.54 Suggestions for alternative organisations to manage common good assets 

included: 

community councils (some community councils representing former 

burghs felt that they are or should be the heirs to burgh common good 

assets; 

newly created partnerships of community council, local authority and 

third sector bodies; 

community trusts established for the purpose; and 

“community anchor” organisations, generally existing RSLs or 

development trusts (this suggestion again coming from a number of 

representative bodies including Development Trusts Association 

Scotland, Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations 

and Social Enterprise Scotland). 

4.55 Respondents were asked what the duties of local authorities should be if they 

continue to look after common good assets and, specifically, whether these 

assets should continue to be separately accounted for. 

4.56 Respondents suggested a range of duties should apply, but the most 

frequently mentioned were: 

to maintain an up-to-date and freely available register; and 

to maintain the assets themselves. 

4.57 Another suggestion (from a number of community organisations) was that 

information on income and expenditure on each asset be reported annually, 

enabling communities to challenge local authorities and indeed refer concerns 

to Scottish Ministers. However, one local authority pointed out that monies 

from the common good fund are often insufficient to maintain common good 

assets – which local authorities then cross-subsidise from general funds. 

73

4.58 Some respondents suggested that there should be a duty to apply the benefit 

of common good assets fairly across the whole local authority area while 

others thought it should be a duty to use common good assets for their 

original intended purpose (and area). Many also proposed a duty to consult 

prior to any transfer or disposal. 

“The local authority should have to keep an accurate asset 

register and account for all income derived from Common 

Good assets and expenditure on Common Good assets 

separately and publish an easy to understand annual report. 

Communities should be able to complain directly to the 

Scottish Government when their Common Good fund 

appears to be being mismanaged.” 

(Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council) 

4.59 In terms of accounting treatment, the broad consensus was that common 

good assets should continue to be accounted for separately from the local 

authority’s estate. A number of respondents made clear that they meant by 

this that common good assets should also be accounted for individually – and 

the responses generally suggested that this was assumed. Within the local 

authority sector, while most favoured continued separate accounting, views 

were more divided. 

“Sums involved in “common good” can be significant so 

separate accounting is more transparent. If separate 

accounts are not maintained this also raises questions about 

the local authority’s stewarding of the “common good”. 

Therefore we fully support the view that they should be 

separate.” 


“The majority of these assets were gifted with a significant 

purpose in mind. It is the duty of the Council in its role as 

steward or custodian of the public estate to retain this original 

purpose in mind. Separate accounting retains a degree of 

logic.” 

(Dundee City Council) 

4.60 However, several local authorities were keen to see common good assets 

integrated into overall estates – although some acknowledged that this was 

dependent on current rules being amended first. 

“The Council believes that there is merit in Common Good 

assets becoming part of the local authority estate. This would 

ensure that effective asset management and investment 

decisions are made for these properties as part of a 

comprehensive plan, rather than having different procedures 

and processes for those held under Common Good.” 


74

“Local authorities have an overarching statutory duty to 

achieve best value. This requires them to consider the 

interests of all their communities and the continued existence 

of common good distorts that. 

Common good is an outmoded concept that creates conflict 

for local members whose duties are to the wider community 

as well as to their former-burgh wards. It creates inequality, 

both among the former burghs, which have vastly differing 

common good resources and across the wider administrative 

area. 

Local authorities should consult with the inhabitants of the 

former burghs regarding “iconic” common good property like 

town halls and public parks but should otherwise be free to 

use common good assets across the administrative area in 

the same way as other council assets.” 


4.61 Respondents were asked if communities should have a right to decide, or be 

consulted on, the use of common good assets or income arising from these. 

As the two questions were asked together it was difficult in many cases to 

distinguish the responses: the most frequently provided answer was simply 

“yes”. Fortunately sufficient numbers responded in greater detail and it is 

therefore possible to draw some clear conclusions. 

4.62 Several local authorities but very few others suggested in their responses that 

neither the right to be consulted nor the right to decide should apply. Whether 

this meant no special rights specific to common good assets or no 

consultation at all was not always clear. 

4.63 Most local authorities and virtually all other respondents who distinguished 

between the two questions supported a right to consultation. Some explicitly 

rejected a right to deciding and others did not mention this. A number of 

respondents raised some practical points on how this would actually be 

defined, but overall support for the principle was clear. 

4.64 Only a very few respondents suggested that communities should have the 

right to decide. 

“Being consulted is different from having a right to decide. 

Local authorities need to consult much better on use of and 

plans for common good assets.” 

(The Strathbungo Society) 

75

“Our understanding is that common good assets have certain 

legal protections over their use or disposal. Hence the 

community is able to resort to court action if it believes that 

the stewardship of the asset is inappropriate. We would not 

support the removal of this protection in favour of a mere 

“right to be consulted on” – though we would strongly support 

that right.” 

(Morningside Community Council) 

“Any requirement which gave the community a right to decide 

or be consulted upon the use of common good assets or how 

income from such assets is spent could be the creation of a 

barrier to the effective use of the assets.” 


76

Theme 16: Asset Management 

This theme covers questions 27, 27a, 28, 28a, 29 and 30 in the main consultation 


Should all public sector authorities be required to make their asset registers 

available to the public? 

What information should the asset register contain? 

Should all public sector authorities be required to make their asset 

management plans available to the public? 

What information should the asset management plan contain? 

Should each public sector authority have an officer to coordinate engagement 

and strategy on community asset transfer and management? 

Would you recommend any other way of enabling a community to access 

information on public sector assets? 

4.65 There was overwhelming support from all respondent groups for requiring 

public sector authorities to make their asset registers available to the public. 

Respondents frequently referred to the “right to know” as a principle. Many 

also felt that this would help empower communities. It is worth noting the high 

level of support within the local authority sector for making this information 

public (and several indeed suggested that this was already the case). 

4.66 While the vast majority of respondents supported the principle, a number of 

practical issues were raised, including: 

What form the information would take in order to be genuinely accessible 

and useful. 

How any legitimate sensitivities should be addressed. 

How this would sit alongside other information systems. (In addition to 

the Land Register and published accounts, respondents referred to the 

proposed UK-wide “e-pims” (public information management system) as 

being under development. Some suggested that this is also the basis for 

the regional property databases being assembled in Scotland by the new 

hub companies (under the auspices of the Scottish Futures Trust)). 

The potential additional burden on local authorities. 

“Some of the projects we have funded have experienced 

problems due to uncertainties surrounding land ownership 

and proof of title... Hopefully, therefore, the maintenance and 

publication of asset registers would result in fewer of these 

kinds of problems being encountered by community groups.” 

(The Big Lottery) 

“The records of public sector assets are publicly available at 

the moment – through the Assessors records and Registers 

of Scotland. It may be beneficial for those to be more readily 

available from public sector authorities direct.” 

(West Lothian Council) 

77

4.67 Very few respondents argued against the proposal. Where they did the main 

reasons were: 

operational security (cited as before by the Ministry of Defence and 

Scottish Water); 

commercial sensitivity; and 

whether this justifies the cost and resources involved. 

4.68 Respondents were asked what information asset registers should contain. 

Most mentioned basic information on the description of the land or building, 

location and current use. 

4.69 Many also mentioned financial information but there was no obvious 

consensus on what this should include. Community organisations tended to 

cite running costs and transfer value. Some local authorities also included 

value for accounting purposes – but a number also cautioned against 

including valuations because depreciation conventions might be misleading. 

Other suggestions of information to be contained included property condition, 

any limitations on how it can be used and current user numbers. 

“...only the basic address and property type information 

should be made available. Asset Values held within Asset 

Registers can be misleading as they do not necessarily 

represent the value of an asset if it was held for sale on the 

open market.” 


4.70 Respondents also indicated their overwhelming support for making public 

sector authorities’ asset management plans (as well as registers) available to 

the public. 

4.71 Those who responded in favour of making asset management plans available 

commonly referred to: 

the need to see whether assets are underused and if so what plans exist 

for improvement (this coming particularly from community organisations); 

the principle that this would help strengthen community empowerment; 

or 

existing arrangements for making such information available (mentioned 

by a number of local authorities). 

“It would be hoped that as asset transfer activity develops 

and the benefits of community ownership are more widely 

understood, then communities should not only be able to 

access asset management plans, but hopefully contribute to 

the development of these plans. This general approach 

would seem consistent with the modernising local 

government agenda and would contribute to delivering best 

value.” 


78

4.72 Those opposed to making asset management plans public reiterated the 

reasons for their opposition for asset registers being in the public domain. 

In addition, some queried the relevance to some very small public sector 

bodies, for example, Joint Valuation Boards. 

4.73 Other points made by local authorities included: 

“..... it is not clear what advantage this would bring.....The 

objective should be to agree a future use for all surplus 

assets and this plan should be available to the public.” 


“These should take a long-term perspective and may contain 

property investment/rationalisation proposals at an early 

stage of development that could be commercially or 

politically sensitive.....Asset management plans should not 

be in the public domain.” 


4.74 Views on what asset management plans should contain varied widely. Audit 

Scotland’s response included a 15-point comprehensive list of 

recommendations including medium and longer term plans, performance 

measures and key risks. A number of local authorities also referred to CIPFA 

guidance. 

4.75 The range of comments made on financial and non-financial information 

required does rather suggest a mismatch between what would be regarded as 

useful to community organisations interested in particular buildings or pieces 

of land and what constitutes best practice in asset management plans for 

large public bodies. 

“..... it must be made clear how the public sector manages, or 

intends to manage, assets, and what their priorities are. It 

would, however seem to be unnecessary for every asset to 

have a formal long term plan, but if a community asks what 

the plans are for a particular asset that information should be 

forthcoming (is the hall going to be upgraded/have a new 

kitchen/whatever, and if so when?).” 

(Kemnay Community Council) 

4.76 Development Trusts Association Scotland suggested that asset management 

strategies should contain current use and future plans, valuations, key issues 

and challenges, and the strategic approach to management of assets. 

4.77 A majority of respondents were in favour of public sector authorities having a 

named officer to co-ordinate engagement and strategy on community asset 

transfer and management. Many of those against however suggested that 

there should be some flexibility in how good and effective contact is achieved. 

No-one in local authorities or public bodies of any significant size argued 

against having identified and accessible staff with these responsibilities. 

79

“A single point of contact would likely be beneficial for local 

communities, but would have to be supported by nominated 

contacts in all relevant services.” 


“We are not keen on proliferation of special officers and the 

consequent confusion over which to approach over which 

issue. This role should be part of the general duties of a 

community participation officer.” 


“It is for each public sector authority to determine its staffing 

structure and the roles of its officers. The role outlined in the 

question could fall on several officers depending on the 

structure of the authority. Stating that there should be a 

single officer to perform a certain role would be restrictive.” 


4.78 Finally, under this theme recommendations were sought on other ways of 

enabling community access to information on public sector assets. By far the 

most frequently made recommendation was that information is published 

online in a user-friendly way. 

“If ... a register could be made available online, this would 

clearly be more efficient in terms of resources and also more 

accessible to all communities or other interested parties.” 


“Clear, accessible information, on an easy to search/navigate 

website, with an informed point of contact for further queries.” 


4.79 Other suggestions put forward in each case by several respondents included: 

some form of outreach activities to complement online information (e.g. 

surgeries, open doors days); 

independent support to community organisations pursuing specific 

proposals; 

a consistent national information system (which would help for example 

third sector organisations operating across Scotland); and 

a system of early notification of surplus land by public bodies. 

“Funds should be made available to communities to engage 

professionals to support their asset transfer processes. 

Groups often require professional skills on a one-off basis 

but such capacity is often lacking. It would not, however, be 

an appropriate use of time or funds to build that one-off 

capacity within the community group. The fund should be 

operated via an independent body.” 

(Community Land Advisory Service) 

80

“In our experience, communities have often not been given 

enough time to respond to the news that public assets are 

being placed on the market. ....The National Forest Land 

Scheme may provide a model for other public bodies: assets 

once identified as surplus are “pre-notified”, giving an 

opportunity for community interest to be declared prior to 

formal marketing.” 

(Community Woodlands Association) 

81

Theme 17: Allotments 

This theme covers questions 31 and 32 of the main consultation questionnaire and 


What, if any, changes should be made to existing legislation on allotments? 

Are there any other measures that could be included in legislation to support 

communities taking forward grow-your-own projects? 

Do you think communities should have more land for allotments and 

community gardens so people can grow their own food or flowers? 

4.80 The vast majority of respondents supported the idea that communities should 

have more land for allotments. Reasons given focused on the social and 

environmental benefits of gardening and grow-your-own projects, with 

respondents placing strong emphasis both on community engagement and 

sustainability. The proposal was also praised on the grounds that it would 

promote physical and psychological good health, primarily through the 

promotion of healthy eating, exercise and social interaction, and a number of 

respondents also highlighted opportunities for education. Economic benefits, 

such as cheaper food bills and the ability to sell produce were also 

emphasised, with some respondents putting these issues in the context of 

global rising food prices. These comments predominantly came from 

community councils and their local networks, third sector organisations and 

individuals. 

“The health outcomes from working an allotment are well 

documented – therapeutic opportunities especially in relation 

to mental health and wellbeing; physical wellbeing through 

increased exercise; social interaction; learning new skills and 

confidence.” 

(Community Health Exchange) 

4.81 A number of respondents lamented the length of waiting lists for allotments 

(particularly in Edinburgh), and asserted that interest in community gardening 

is growing. A few were more cautious, supportive of the proposal in principle 

but unsure as to whether there is currently sufficient demand. Others simply 

stated that if the demand is there, then more space should be made available. 

4.82 While some took the view that existing legislation is adequate, the vast 

majority of those who responded did suggest changes. Many made general 

comments, calling for clarification and simplification. Others expressed 

concern over the fact that current legislation is over 100 years old, with 

Planning Aid for Scotland suggesting that entirely new legislation should be 

drafted. These comments came from across the respondent groupings. 

4.83 Some respondents, primarily community councils and their local networks, felt 

that legislation should be amended to allow local authorities to monitor 

allotments and compel those who fail to maintain their plot to give it up. 

82

4.84 Others outlined more specific proposals. The Grow Your Own Working Group 

suggested a citizens’ right to 250 square meters of land for community 

allotments, and a requirement on local authorities to maintain a register of 

unused land that details its potential for allotment use. They also proposed 

that ‘A’ listed land – that which is uncontaminated – should be preserved for 

allotments and grow your own projects, and that measures should be taken 

nationally to ensure that this preservation takes place. 

4.85 These proposals were endorsed by a number of community councils, other 

community groups, third sector organisations and one private sector 

organisations. Others echoed the comments made here, particularly in 

reference to the preservation of land for allotments. 

4.86 Many linked allotments to community land purchase, and some suggested 

that local authorities could employ compulsory purchase orders in order to 

secure more land for community use. 

“Communities should be given the right to buy vacated land 

or property for public use such as allotments.” 

(Community Council of the Royal Burgh of Peebles and District) 

“Local authorities should be compelled to respond positively 

to requests for allotment provision where there is a shortfall, 

by either providing sites or using compulsory purchase 

powers to acquire land for resale to allotments associations.” 

(Individual) 

4.87 Another common suggestion was the temporary use of land. Many took the 

view that the introduction of short-term use would be a positive step, but some 

warned that this may not always be suitable, again echoing GYOWG’s 

emphasis on uncontaminated land. 

4.88 One individual cited the Granton Community Garden Project as an example of 

good practice. Planning Aid for Scotland and Glasgow City Council also 

noted Glasgow City Council’s ‘Stalled Spaces’ initiative. Landscape Institute 

Scotland also praised Glasgow’s SAGE (Sowing and Growing Everywhere) 

initiative. 

83





that you feel have worked well in practice. 

4.89 Only 14% of respondents gave any views on definitions. Respondents 

discussed the meaning of “community” again, in the context of ‘Unlocking 

Enterprising Community Development’. Many felt that in order to practically 

implement the consultation’s aspirations, more concrete definitions of 

“community” were required. Respondents called for clearer boundaries and 

demarcations. 

“For issues like ownership or management of assets, there 

has to be, in our opinion, a specially constituted “community 

body” that is defined by postcode, or perhaps local authority 

boundary.” 


4.90 Some also called for more discussion on how an asset is intended to be used. 

“Use of Assets – need to acknowledge that “use” may be 

interpreted differently, e.g. some parties may see benefit of 

freeplay, greenspace while others would see that as 

underuse and champion formalised programming of 

activities. There is also a need to protect services to 

vulnerable groups that may not be income generating 

activities or popular in the community.” 


4.91 Respondents also questioned the term “underused”, feeling that it was too 

subjective to be practically applicable. Again, some comments related to the 

consultation itself, with some asserting that this part of the consultation 

included too much jargon and demanded too great a level of expertise from 

respondents. 

84

5. PART THREE: RENEWING OUR COMMUNITIES 

Theme 19: Leases and Temporary Leases 

This theme covers question 34, 34a, 34b and 34c in the main consultation 

questionnaire and question 11 in the easy read version: 

Should communities have a right to use or manage unused and underused 

public sector assets? 

In what circumstances should a community be able to use or manage unused 

or underused public sector assets? 

What, if any, conditions should be placed on a community’s right to use or 

manage public sector assets? 

What types of asset should be included? 

Should your local community be able to use public buildings or resources like 

buses for part of the week or for a short time? 

5.1 Overall most respondents agreed that communities should have a right to use 

unused or underused public sector assets. Views were rather more split 

within local authority, executive agency/NDPB and private sector groups. 

5.2 Reasons put forward in support of the proposal included: 

local communities have a better insight into what’s needed locally; 

unused buildings fall into disrepair and cause blight; and 

it is a waste of resources if assets brought into community control could 

be used more efficiently. 

“In our experience, there are so many unused and 

underused buildings, parks, minibuses etc. in communities 

where local people have a number of ideas for using them. 

We often don’t need more resources – we simply need the 

ones which we have used far more effectively.” 

(Poverty Truth Commission) 

“There is good evidence to suggest that when a historic 

asset ceases to be occupied, basic maintenance is not 

undertaken and the asset quickly begins to fall into disrepair, 

blighting the surrounding area and initiating a downward 

spiral of decline. Therefore, it is in the best interests of 

communities to have the option to take on the responsibility 

of unused and underused heritage assets where they can 

make a positive difference.” 

(Heritage Lottery Fund) 

5.3 A number of those who were in favour nevertheless expressed concerns 

about the capacity of community organisations, potential conflicting 

community interests and the risk of failure. 

85

5.4 Another more fundamental qualification expressed by many respondents who 

answered “yes” was that they thought communities should be “able” to do this 

but not have the “right”. This was also the main reason put forward by local 

authorities opposing the proposal as worded. 

“We suggest this should be worded “be able to” rather than 

“have a right to.” 


“It would be good practice for communities to have the 

opportunity to use or manage unused and underused assets 

but the formal process and complexity of assessment would 

suggest this should not be a right.” 


5.5 Some respondents highlighted the problem with defining ‘underused’. If there 

was to be a ‘right to use or manage’, it was suggested that this cover only 

‘unused’ assets as this was a felt to be less subjective. 

5.6 There was more limited evidence of support for communities having access to 

assets other than land or buildings. In particular, some respondents raised 

specific issues with community groups having access to the temporary use of 

public transport vehicles. 

“Leases and temporary uses could be considered for 

properties subject to the same caveats as would apply to 

permanent transfer. The position of other public sector 

assets is less straightforward. Issues could arise in relation 

to the use, maintenance and insurance of assets such as 

transport vehicles which would make temporary provision to 

community groups problematic.” 

(East Dunbartonshire Council) 

5.7 One local authority referred to the powers which communities have under the 

Public Request to Order Disposal (PROD) to prompt a local authority to 

consider community management of assets. However, we understand that 

this power only applies in England. 

5.8 Respondents were asked in what circumstances a community should be able 

to use or manage unused or underused public sector assets. Many of the 

views expressed echoed those to some of the previous questions in the 

consultation. The most frequently cited circumstances were: 

where a need is identified; 

where there is unused land or property; 

where the community can make better use of an asset; 

where the community has the capacity skills and resources; and 

where there is a sound business case or business plan. 

86

5.9 Other points made included: 

where the public sector body concerned agrees; 

where the community group is representative and inclusive (and if need 

be any conflicting interests resolved); and 

where it brings community benefit without detriment to other public 

services or additional costs. 

5.10 On the question of conditions to be placed on a community’s right to use or 

manage public sector assets, views again reflected what has previously been 

reported. In summary, the main points made were: 

good governance should be in place and maintained; 

the asset should continue to be used for its intended use; 

the asset should be maintained; 

there should be regular reporting to the public sector owner 

(commensurate with the circumstances in each case); 

there should be a clear time period or review arrangements; and 

there should be an ‘escape clause’ enabling return to public sector 

control in the event that conditions of community use are not kept. 

5.11 These points were made by a cross section of respondents in each case. The 

only obvious distinction between what different groups said was that local 

authorities were often more specific in setting out the conditions which should 

be met. 

5.12 In terms of the types of asset which should be included, suggestions included: 

community centres and halls; 

historic buildings; 

parks and other open spaces; 

schools and libraries (for temporary use out of hours); 

empty shops; 

minibuses; 

plant/ machinery /tools (for example to use for community gardening); 

redundant IT equipment and office furniture; and 

slipways and moorings. 

5.13 While some respondents suggested limiting the types of asset which could be 

used in this way, many said that all types should be considered if this makes 

sense in the circumstances. 

“Buildings, recreation and sports facilities, workshops, stores, 

various equipment. We are not convinced that a reasonable 

regime could be devised for inclusion of vehicles in this 

provision, but would have no objection if satisfactory 

conditions for this were to be defined.” 

(Gorebridge Community Council and Gorebridge Community 

Development Trust) 

87

“Only assets which are not required for strategic, investment 

or operational purposes and where provision of such assets 

would not invite any maintenance and insurance issues.” 


“All assets should be considered rather than a particular type 

but each request should be looked at on its own merit to 

ensure that the community has the ability and resources to 

use and manage each asset.” 

(The City of Edinburgh Council) 

5.14 Those responding to the easy read version of the consultation overwhelmingly 

supported the idea of local communities being able to use public buildings or 

resources for part of the week or for a short time. These respondents tended 

to be individuals or representatives of community groups and third sector 

organisations. While many of the points they made were similar to those 

already reported, their concerns focused in particular on the cost and 

availability of lets of council buildings such as schools; and on problems of 

inadequate local transport routes and times. Many of the views expressed 

were dissatisfaction with current services rather than an explicit desire for the 

community to manage assets itself. There were also some examples, 

however, of arrangements which worked well. 

“[Our] council bus driver sits on our Community Council and 

is allowed to make use of council mini bus to do bus trips for 

the elderly members of the community. The driver does this 

on a voluntary unpaid basis. The village sees this as a 

marvellous facility for the elderly.” 

(Newton St Boswell and Eildon Community Council) 

“One barrier can sometimes be the cost or availability of 

caretaker staff to open up and close buildings. Some local 

authorities are willing to allow a responsible person in a 

community group to have keys to open and close buildings 

themselves.” 

(ENABLE Scotland) 

88

Theme 20: Encouraging Temporary Use Agreements 

This theme covers questions 35, 36 & 37 in the main consultation questionnaire and 


Should a temporary community use of land be made a class of permitted 

development? 

Should measures be introduced to ensure temporary community uses are not 

taken into account in decisions on future planning proposals? 

Are there any other changes that could be made to make it easier for 

landlords and communities to enter into meanwhile or temporary use 

agreements? 

Would it help your community if it could use land or buildings that owners are 

not using just now? 

5.15 A majority of respondents agreed with temporary community use of land being 

made a class of permitted development. However, there were differing views 

within local authority, community planning partnership and representative 

bodies for professionals. But even many of those agreeing did so with 

significant reservations. 

“Temporary use of stalled and vacant sites has the potential 

to be an important element of community renewal in much of 

urban Scotland..... If temporary use is to become more 

widespread, there needs to be a stronger driver for 

landowners to enter into temporary use agreements. This 

should include: 

recognition of temporary community use of land as a 

permitted development 

a duty for public bodies to support temporary 

community uses of unused land where communities 

come forward with ideas – this process must be faster 

than the process for full community ownership since 

temporary uses may be very short term.” 

(Greenspace Scotland) 

“An obvious change of use would be for a field to be 

converted into a playing field, but this would require a good 

deal of work before it could be used for sports and so the 

users would need an assurance that it would be available for 

a significant period. It is unlikely that the land owner, who 

probably has it earmarked for ... houses, would want to risk 

missing the boat on a sale because it was contracted to a 

user group.” 

(Kemnay Community Council) 

5.16 Many of those responding in favour made no comment on the types of use 

they had in mind. Among those who did, the most common uses were 

allotments, “grow your own” or community gardens. 

89

5.17 Several respondents from community organisations (in particular from 

community councils) were concerned about the impact of some temporary 

uses (preferring to retain existing planning rules as protection against 

inappropriate use) and others were concerned about the practicalities. 

5.18 A few local authorities gave unqualified support to the proposal but most 

others raised concerns in particular: 

how to define community use in planning terms (and also the definition 

of “temporary”); 

how to ensure protection of amenity and prevent adverse impact on 

neighbours; and 

issues with enforcement and ensuring vacant possession when required. 

“It will be important to define (a) what constitutes a 

“community” use, and (b) what is a “temporary” period e.g. 

would a development trust erecting a wind turbine for a 

period of 20 years constitute permitted development?” 


“The issues relating to use of land are generally the same 

whether the use is temporary or not. To grant Permitted 

Development Rights for such uses on a temporary basis 

without the requirement to undertake necessary 

investigations/ works in relation to flood risk, archaeology, 

contaminated land, etc might be seen to be prejudicial 

against applicants who may seek to implement a similar use 

but without the benefit of [these rights].” 


5.19 Other bodies with a direct interest expressing concern about the proposal 

included the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland, the Institute of 

Archaeologists, Scottish Water and Scottish Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

“There may well be some (limited) scope for permitted 

development rights to be introduced for minor 

uncontroversial types of temporary community use of land. 

Requiring planning applications in circumstances where the 

planning system can add little or no value imposes 

unnecessary costs and delays. However, [we] would not 

wish any such permitted development rights to be set too 

widely as this could lead to increased risk of inappropriate 

development taking place.” 

(Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) 

5.20 However, among those against or with reservations of the proposal in general, 

there was evidence of some support for using land specifically for allotments 

or similar activities. Some suggested that this was already possible given that 

agriculture/ horticulture is already a permitted development. 

90

“Even local authorities do not have permitted development 

rights for changes of use, so a general community right to 

use of land for any temporary purpose would not be 

reasonable. However, limited permitted development rights 

for a few specified temporary uses may be appropriate (e.g. 

community garden/allotments, which will rarely be 

contentious).” 


5.21 The suggestion from a number of organisations concerned was that the 

definition should be widened a little: 

“Some structures used for Grow Your Own such as fencing 

for security; storage for tools; small poly-tunnels etc. should 

be permitted.” 


5.22 In terms of whether measures should be introduced to ensure temporary 

community uses are not taken into account in decisions on future planning 

proposals, many respondents appeared to find the technical nature of the 

question challenging. 

“This is a complex question. On the one hand, temporary 

use is easier to arrange and more acceptable to landowners, 

if it is on a “without prejudice” basis.... But on the other hand, 

if the temporary use substantially enhances the value of the 

land, or leads to linked development or activity or to the 

upgrade of facilities such as access routes in the vicinity, 

then this might need to be taken into account when an 

eventual planning application is made.” 


5.23 Among the respondents who did address the question, there seemed overall 

to be a broad measure of support for not taking temporary community uses 

into account. 

“Whilst the productive use of vacant sites is obviously to be 

welcomed, the introduction of use must not be allowed to act 

as a barrier to the long term development of the site. Without 

such measures, there would be a danger of community 

groups taking over land as a means of obstructing its future 

redevelopment. Landowners will be reluctant to co-operate 

with legitimate community groups seeking genuinely 

temporary uses if they fear that this may inhibit or prevent 

redevelopment in the future.” 


91

“Unless this is done, councils and other landowners will 

continue to be reluctant to allow temporary use of land 

allocated for other purposes. For instance, house builders 

have considerable landholdings that are valuable to them 

only if they have the potential for housebuilding. They are 

unlikely to allow community use if that usage may negatively 

affect the likelihood of planning permission being granted for 

housebuilding.” 

(Elgin Allotment Association) 

“Scottish Ministers could encourage the lead shown by 

Glasgow City Council in terms of its temporary use of stalled 

development sites. This initiative was based on the ability of 

the developer to quickly regain possession of a site should 

circumstances support the commencement of development 

works. This is an initiative that we believe showed some 

success, with the engagement of local community groups 

and could perhaps be seen as best practice. Certainly the 

existent planning permission was not compromised and we 

would not wish this to be otherwise.” 


5.24 Respondents were asked to identify any other changes which would make it 

easier for landlords and community groups to enter into temporary 

agreements. About a third of respondents provided suggestions. The 

response rate for local authority and community planning partnership groups 

was particularly high. 

5.25 Suggestions included: 

financial assistance for community groups in the form of tax 

exemption/relief, reduced or waived planning fees or grants; 

advice and support generally for community groups; 

a model form of agreement; 

a duty on local authorities to consider requests from the community; and 

communication: both in terms of unused or underused land and buildings 

and in terms of awareness of what can be achieved through temporary 

use agreements. 

5.26 Some very specific points were also made in relation to accessing Crown 

Land and whether temporary living accommodation could be counted as 

“community use” to support community based holiday huts, perhaps 

associated with growing. 

92

5.27 Local authorities made a number of specific and practical suggestions: 

“Perhaps the local authority could act as “guarantor” for the 

period of use of the land to allow communities / groups to 

focus on making best use of the land in the knowledge that 

they would be helped to return it to a condition suitable for 

future use by the landlord, where necessary.” 


“Inclusion of community temporary uses in the Scheme of 

Delegation [published by each local authority] to improve the 

efficiency of the decision making.” 

(North Ayrshire Council) 

“There is a reluctance on the part of local authorities to grant 

temporary rights to use property (particularly for 

allotment/garden type use) because of the risk of creating 

rights that might be difficult to terminate. Rather than get into 

a situation where there was uncertainty about whether the 

local authority could clear the site to allow it to be 

sold/leased, or put to a more permanent use, local authorities 

have tended simply to leave the sites empty. A statutory 

licence, which expressly excluded any security of tenure, and 

allowed recovery of possession quickly without the need for 

protracted court proceedings, would be very useful.” 


5.28 In the easy read version of the consultation, the more general question was 

asked: would it help your community if it could use land or buildings that 

owners are not using just now? Most respondents agreed that it would, with 

the use of unused land for allotments or community gardens frequently cited 

as an example. Many of those who were not in favour gave no reasons: those 

who did tended to cite practical difficulties or the absence of suitable 

opportunities in their area. 

93

Theme 21: Dangerous and Defective Buildings 

This theme covers questions 38 and 39 in the main consultation questionnaire: 

What changes should be made to local authorities’ powers to recover costs 

for work they have carried out in relation to dangerous and defective buildings 

under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003? 

Should a process be put in place to allow communities to request a local 

authority to exercise their existing powers in relation to dangerous and 

defective buildings under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003? 

5.29 Just over a third of respondents gave their views on local authorities’ powers 

to recover costs for work they have carried out in relation to dangerous and 

defective buildings. A higher proportion of local authorities and their 

representative bodies responded than other respondent groups. 

5.30 While some felt that existing powers were sufficient to enable local authorities 

to recoup costs, a majority of respondents felt that extended powers were 

required. The most common suggestion, highlighted by a very significant 

number of those who responded, was the reintroduction of charging orders. 

“The single most important action required to reduce the 

risk of local authorities not covering costs for works they 

have carried out in relation to dangerous or defective 

buildings is the reintroduction of charging orders. It is 

unclear why these were removed when Building Standards 

legislation was amended. These should be reintroduced at 

the earliest opportunity.” 

(Scottish Borders Council) 

5.31 Others made more general comments calling for stricter laws to act as a 

deterrent. There was also a suggestion that data protection legislation be 

amended to allow owners to be traced more easily. 

5.32 A few respondents were more reticent in focusing on the powers available to 

local authorities, highlighting the possibility that an owner may not be able to 

afford repairs. 

5.33 It was also noted that, in the current climate of budgetary reductions, the 

extent to which a local authority can finance the repairs of privately owned 

properties ‘up front’ may be limited, so those properties where there is a risk 

of accident may need to be prioritised. 

5.34 Of those expressing a view, a majority felt that a process should be put in 

place to allow communities to request local authorities to exercise their 

existing powers in relation to dangerous and defective buildings. Community 

councils and their local networks were particularly supportive of the proposal. 

94

5.35 Respondents made general comments expressing the belief that this would 

prevent accidents and improve amenities. Some noted that communities are 

more likely to be aware of problem buildings, and therefore best placed to call 

for action. 

“In some instances the community might be the first to 

identify the problem. In the case of a dangerous building, a 

clear and rapid channel of communication would appear to 

be helpful.” 


5.36 However, local authorities generally disagreed with the proposal, with the 

majority stating that communities are already able to request that powers be 

exercised. This prompted these respondents to question the value of 

introducing a new process. 

“Although it is not specified in legislation or regulation, it is 

open to any member of the public or community to report a 

dangerous or defective building to the local authority who 

will then investigate. It is not entirely clear from the 

question what improvement in procedure is anticipated and 

it is not clear why a differentiation should be made between 

a “community” and an individual member of the public.” 


5.37 Some also discussed the proposal’s implications for local authorities taking 

action on dangerous or defective buildings. 

“The political demands brought to bear by community 

groups could impose an unnecessary pressure on the 

objectivity of this decision making process. Community 

groups would inevitably require local authorities to extend 

the scope of their statutory powers to include buildings 

where no danger existed, for instance in situations where 

buildings were considered eyesores.” 

(City of Edinburgh Council) 

5.38 Others, however, maintained that the proposal was worthwhile because they 

felt that local authorities can be slow to take action, and that a new process 

has the potential to improve that issue. 

“A process needs to be put in place to encourage 

authorities to make greater use of their existing powers. 

Councils can appear reluctant to act even when a building 

is dangerous and a blight to a town/area.” 

(Ayr Converses) 

95

Theme 22: Compulsory Purchase 

This theme covers questions 40, 40a, 41 and 41a in the main consultation 

questionnaire and questions 12 and 14 in the easy read version: 

Should communities have a right to request a local authority use a 

compulsory purchase order on their behalf? 

What issues (in addition to the existing legal requirements) would have to be 

considered when developing such a right? 

Should communities have a right to request they take over property that has 

been compulsory purchased by the local authority? 

What conditions, if any, should apply to such a transfer? 

Are empty homes and shops a problem in your community? 

Should your community have the right to ask the local council to arrange the 

sale of an empty building or land? 

5.39 Overall respondents were in favour of communities having the right to request 

a local authority to use compulsory purchase powers on their behalf. Many 

community organisations and individuals expressed strong feelings on the 

blighting effect of derelict buildings and land on surrounding communities. 

5.40 However, views were more divided among local authorities and the private 

sector (and generally against in the case of community planning partnerships). 

However, it was apparent that some respondents interpreted the ‘right to 

request’ in different ways and therefore care should be taken in drawing any 

conclusions. 

5.41 While some respondents queried why a ‘right to request’ is necessary at all, 

many community groups and third sector representatives saw this as a 

significant ‘shifting of the balance’ towards community empowerment, with the 

presumption that the local authority would then be obliged to consider such 

requests seriously. Examples cited of where this would help included 

enabling the re-use of derelict buildings or land, and promoting small-scale 

environmental projects. 

“The right to request is already in place – it is the right to 

have a request considered that is important.” 


“If community-led regeneration is going to begin to seriously 

address blight, then community organisations involved in 

regeneration efforts need to be empowered to do so. 

Establishing a community right to trigger a compulsory 

purchase order could be a necessary part of the armoury, 

sitting alongside, and complementing the community right to 

buy.” 


96

5.42 Local authorities raised a number of issues in their responses including: 

the potential cost; 

the risks of challenge if the objectives were unclear; and 

whether the community group is representative. 

5.43 The risk of challenge if a compulsory purchase order is seen to favour the 

interests of one party over another was also raised by the private sector. 

5.44 Several points were made regarding any potential legislation: 

Reference was made to the current review of compulsory purchase law 

by the Scottish Law Commission. It was suggested that it would be 

useful to await the findings. 

Current legislation might need strengthened to make “community 

benefit” a ground for compulsory purchase - or the “well-being” ground 

introduced in England should be considered. 

5.45 Some examples of good practice under the existing arrangements were also 

noted: 

“... progressive local authorities ... are working with 

communities to purchase, protect and hold in trust assets on 

behalf of communities. Glasgow City Council’s acquisition of 

the former St Margaret’s Church in Oatlands being a good 

example.” 

(Link Group) 

5.46 A minority of respondents gave their views on what issues (in addition to 

existing legal requirements) would have to be considered when developing 

any “right to request” compulsory purchase. 

5.47 Issues not previously highlighted included: 

the need for a clearly agreed end use; 

the need for a robust business plan and the capacity to deliver it; 

legitimacy (of the project and organisation), and appropriate governance 

arrangements on the part of the community group; and 

the need for an agreed ‘exit strategy, if the project failed at a future date. 

5.48 Respondents suggested that there should be a duty on the part of local 

authorities to consider any request and to give reasons for any decision to 

decline a request. Safeguards in the event of vexatious or self-interested 

requests were also mentioned as potentially being required. Many 

respondents acknowledged that compulsory purchase should be seen as a 

last resort. 

97

“We believe that a “right to request” should impose a duty on 

the local authority to consider that request and give reasons 

for their decision. We are conscious that compulsory 

purchase amounts to seizure of private property and we 

would be uncomfortable with any changes that made it easier 

to carry out.” 


5.49 The consultation sought views on whether communities should have a right to 

request that they take over property that has been compulsorily purchased by 

the local authority? It was not clear to many consultees whether this relates to 

property acquired by compulsory purchase instigated at the request of a 

community group with the view to transfer or whether it relates to any 

compulsorily purchased property. 

5.50 Many respondents (local authority and others) made clear that if the 

compulsory purchase had been promoted for a purpose other than community 

use and if that original purpose had expired, then the “Crichel Down” rules 

would apply. In other words, the property would be offered back to the 

original owner. Only if the original owner did not agree to buy back would the 

property be considered for other uses such as the needs of community 

groups. 

5.51 Local authorities, in particular, made the point that where compulsory 

purchase had been promoted at the request of a community group for a 

specific purpose, this purpose would have been specified at the time – and 

would have been subject to scrutiny in all the usual ways (evidence of need, 

community capacity, robust business plan and wider community support). 

“A local authority will not exercise CPO powers without 

having made plans for the future of the property to be 

purchased. Local authorities do not rush into compulsorily 

purchasing a property. Both the officer time and costs 

involved can be substantial and would be difficult if not 

impossible to recover from a community group. For the 

authority to have purchased the property there would have 

had to have been a very good reason involving a future 

proposal for the property or area. If this proposal involved 

the community then their aspirations would already be being 

served and, if not, a community right like this could interfere 

with wider, and long term regeneration plans, or the exercise 

of specific statutory functions, such as those of a Roads 

Authority.” 


5.52 The point was made again in this context that: 

“there seems no reason not to have a “right to request”. But 

this does not mean an obligation on the authority to accede.” 


98

Theme 23: Power to Enforce Sale or Lease of Empty Property 

This theme covers questions 42, 42a, 42b, 42c, 43, 43a, 43b, 43c, 44 and 44a in the 

main consultation questionnaire and question 12 of the easy read version: 

Should local authorities to be given additional powers to sell or lease longterm 

empty homes where it is in the public interest to do so? 

In what circumstances should a local authority be able to enforce a sale and 

what minimum criteria would need to be met? 

In what circumstances should a local authority be able to apply for the right to 

lease an empty home? 

Should a local authority be required to apply to the courts for an order to sell 

or lease a home? 

Should local authorities be given powers to sell or lease long-term empty and 

unused non-domestic property where it is in the public interest to do so? 

In what circumstances should a local authority be able to enforce the sale of a 

long-term empty and unused non-domestic property and what minimum 

criteria would need to be met? 

In what circumstances could a local authority be able to apply for the right to 

lease and manage a long-term empty non-domestic property? 

Should a local authority be required to apply to the courts for an order to sell 

or lease a long-term empty non-domestic property? 

If a local authority enforces a sale of an empty property, should the local 

community have a ‘first right’ to buy or lease the property? 

In what circumstances should a community have the right to buy or lease the 

property before others? 

Are empty houses, shops or areas of land a problem in your local community? 

Why do you think this? If you said yes, what would you like to happen to the 

buildings or land? 

5.53 The majority of respondents to the easy read version of the consultation felt 

that empty houses and shops in their community were indeed a problem. 

Interestingly about a third of respondents did not consider this to be a problem 

in their area. From the community council responses it would appear that 

more people in urban areas may see this as a problem and fewer people in 

rural areas – but this is by no means clear-cut. 

5.54 While some respondents mentioned problems of empty houses (citing, for 

example, holiday homes in rural areas), the overwhelming majority of 

comments related to empty shops. These were referred to as ‘eyesores’, a 

‘wasted opportunity’ and ‘the cause of anti-social behaviour problems’. Town 

centres with high vacancy levels were seen as a particular issue. A number of 

respondents saw the reasons as deep-rooted, citing out of town shopping 

centres, the rise of internet shopping, high commercial rates and the 

recession. A range of community or new enterprise uses were suggested 

(and also the scope for environmental improvements). 

5.55 Most respondents agreed that local authorities should be given more power to 

sell or lease long-term empty homes where it is in the public interest to do so. 

99

5.56 The wording of this question caused some confusion but the consultation 

document itself makes clear that the ‘power to sell’ actually means the ‘power 

to enforce the sale’. In other words this is about local authorities taking 

enforcement action against owners. 

5.57 While this was the majority view in responses, there were some significant 

qualifications among those who agreed, as well as comments by those 

against or more neutral on the issue: 

who defines public interest; 

what does long-term mean (individual owners may be working away 

from home, or may reasonably be unwilling to sell when the market is 

poor); 

are new powers needed at all (some respondents criticised the 

reluctance to use existing powers and some local authorities suggested 

that existing compulsory purchase powers may be preferable); and 

the costs to the local authority would be difficult to bear. 

5.58 A number of individuals and local authorities mentioned human rights issues: 

“The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) sets 

out a very strong framework that protects individuals’ 

property rights from interference from public sector bodies. 

Any public interest argument would need to be set out in 

primary legislation and then in any subsequent cases that 

were argued in court.” 

(The City of Edinburgh Council) 

5.59 Several respondents referred to parallel powers in England. The suggestions 

here were that these should be tailored to suit Scotland or that the 

effectiveness of the English measures should be evaluated before applying 

similar arrangements in Scotland. Parallels were also drawn with work in 

Scotland on Council Tax on long term empty properties. 

“In Scotland communities face similar problems caused by 

empty homes as those in England and Wales. So we believe 

that there is a case for considering whether councils need 

similar powers to effect change in the worst empty homes. 

However, we do not consider that the best option is simply to 

lift the powers in England and Wales and apply them in 

Scotland. What is needed, we believe, is a specific tailored 

empty homes power to bring back into use the worst problem 

empty homes in situations where owners have either 

abandoned such properties or have proved unwilling to 

engage despite extensive offers to help from a local council.” 

(Scottish Empty Homes Partnership) 

100

“We can see significant difficulties in enforcing a power to 

sell or lease long-term empty homes, particularly in the 

current economic climate when the home may be empty 

because of a stagnant property market! Similar issues are 

being considered by a Scottish Government working group 

looking at increasing council tax levies on long-term empty 

homes, in which [we participate], and some cross cutting 

thinking may be useful here.” 

(Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers) 

5.60 Other specific issues included: 

the need to consult with any lenders with an interest in the property 

concerned (Council of Mortgage Lenders); and 

the view of the Ministry of Defence that its accommodation should be 

excluded. 

5.61 There was widespread support from community representatives for the 

additional powers proposed, with the blighting effect of empty and badly 

maintained houses and the shortage of affordable homes cited as reasons. 

5.62 While a number of local authorities and other organisations supported 

additional powers, several respondents also made clear that these should be 

used as a last resort and only if voluntary sale or lease cannot be agreed. 

“Councils do need more powers in terms of long-term empty 

properties. Existing options are limited and lack strength to 

help ensure that properties are maintained and ultimately 

brought back into use, or indeed demolished.” 

(North Ayrshire Council) 

5.63 Respondents were asked in what circumstances a local authority should be 

able to enforce a sale of an empty home and what minimum criteria would 

need to be met. The response rate for this question was fairly low, but there 

was general agreement in the responses. 

5.64 Circumstances proposed by several respondents included: 

evidence of neglect of the property (and evidence that this is causing a 

problem such as anti-social behaviour); 

length of time vacant (suggestions varying between 18 months and 20 

years – but mostly around two to three years); 

refusal of the owner to address the problems identified or to respond to 

repairs notices; and 

the need for housing in the area. 

101

5.65 It was also suggested that the cost of bringing back into use should be 

reasonable; and that: 

“the owner should be entitled to the market value for the 

property (less any costs met by the council in enforcing the 

sale and in undertaking necessary building work to allow the 

property to be sold).” 


5.66 Generally, respondents made similar suggestions regarding the 

circumstances in which local authorities should be able to enforce a lease of 

an empty home. However, a number of local authorities identified some 

important differences: 

“It is expected that the local authority would prefer the option 

of outright sale. However, in circumstances where there may 

be future plans to redevelop an area, short-term leases may 

be an option to help address short-term housing shortages. 

Of course the cost of bringing these homes up to habitable 

standard may outweigh any short-term benefits from bringing 

them back into use. There are complicated issues around 

leasing such as maintenance, management and rent 

collection which would need to be considered.” 

(Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeenshire Community Planning 

Partnership) 

“There may be some circumstances where this may be 

appropriate, such as where the property is in a high demand 

area, but the Council would need to ensure that any money it 

invested in a property that it did not own to bring it up to a 

lettable standard can be recovered through the rental income 

for the property. In other words, the Council should not be 

increasing the value of an asset that it does not own without 

a mechanism for recovering its expenditure.” 


5.67 The consultation asked if a local authority should be required to apply to the 

courts for an order to sell or lease a home. Again the overall response rate 

was quite low. More agreed with the proposal than disagreed, but with 

community and third sector representatives tending to agree and other groups 

having more mixed views. 

102

5.68 The points made in agreeing that application to the courts should be required 

were: 

to safeguard the rights of the owner; and 

to ensure that the local authority is working within the law. 

5.69 Those who did not agree in most cases pointed to protracted timescales and 

costs involved in going to court. A number of local authorities and community 

planning partnerships suggested some possible alternatives such as: 

incorporating a new power instead in housing or planning legislation (or 

if there are clear regulations laid down by Scottish Government); 

restricting the need to apply to the courts to enforce a sale (rather than 

lease) or making this the last resort; and 

requiring reference to Scottish Ministers or possibly to the Lands 

Tribunal rather than to the courts. 

“It is suggested that this is an issue for the Scottish Ministers 

rather than the courts. The other option would be to 

introduce a procedure under which the council would apply to 

the Lands Tribunal. This would involve a change to the remit 

of the Lands Tribunal. As a final alternative the council 

would not need to seek anyone’s consent but there would be 

a notice procedure, whereby a notice would be served on the 

owner and they would have a set period within which to 

challenge in the courts. There would be a need to ensure 

that the sale is legally enforceable and defensible if 

challenged in court.” 


“The Council would see merit in an approach that did not 

require it to apply to the courts in order to sell or lease a 

home but unless there is a specific way of framing legislation 

and related guidance, it is difficult to see how councils can 

avoid court action which would enable the owner to 

challenge the use of these powers – for example on human 

rights grounds – with this likely to increase the costs and time 

involved in dealing with these cases.” 


5.70 A similar set of questions was included in relation to non-domestic property. 

First, whether local authorities should be given powers to sell or lease longterm 

non-domestic property where it is in the public interest to do so. In this 

instance “powers to sell” seemed to be correctly interpreted as “powers to 

enforce sale”. 

103

5.71 The vast majority of those who answered this question were in favour: this 

applied across all respondent groups apart from the very small number of 

private sector responses. Those supporting the proposal referred in many 

cases to the need to address derelict buildings or areas and to make better 

use of these. 

“Such a power would be useful for local authorities as empty 

and unused non-domestic property can also lead to negative 

effects on a community, including attracting anti-social 

behaviour, acting as a barrier to economic growth and having 

a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.” 


5.72 A number of the local authorities who agreed did so with some qualifications 

including: 

the need to exhaust negotiation first; 

the fit with a regeneration strategy; and 

the need to have any new responsibilities clarified (and the advantages 

over existing Compulsory Purchase powers demonstrated). 

5.73 Those who expressed a neutral view on the question made some further 

points: 

who defines what public interest is? and 

if the property is in a run-down area, who will then buy or lease it from 

the local authority? 

5.74 Those opposing this power gave a number of different reasons for their views: 

In the case of Scottish Water, some land holding was considered 

necessary for operational reasons and should be excluded from any 

powers. In other cases voluntary agreement with the local authority 

would be preferred. 

Practical implementation difficulties (raised by several local authorities). 

Impact on private investment. 

“This proposal would result in the council in some 

circumstances acting as an estate agency. Again this would 

give rise to resource implications for public bodies.... Public 

sector intervention in the private sector market is a complex 

and problematic area. There are issues such as high 

rateable values within town centres and poor quality of 

building fabric being a barrier to bringing properties into 

active use during a recession.” 


104

“...the issue here is that the perception of this power as a 

threat to legal interests in a property will be received 

negatively by potential developers and investors, who would 

not commit to property investment where there was a threat 

of an asset being removed from their control. Also, we are 

not clear how this proposal would relate to the control of 

properties placed into administration which is an increasing 

feature of vacant premises in Scotland.” 


5.75 The question was asked in what circumstances should a local authority be 

able to enforce the sale of a long-term empty and unused non-domestic 

property and what minimum criteria would need to be met. The overall 

response rate here was quite low but healthier among local authorities, 

community planning partnerships and community councils. 

5.76 The answers to this question very much echoed views expressed in relation to 

empty homes: 

if the property is derelict and causing problems; 

if the owner is un-contactable or is otherwise not cooperating voluntarily; 

if the problem has persisted for a long time (suggestions ranged from 2- 

10 years; and 

if there is a clear strategy for re-using or redeveloping the building or an 

identified need and user (supported by a “back to back” agreement). 

5.77 It was also suggested that any action taken should be at no net cost to the 

local authority. 

5.78 Respondents made very similar points regarding the circumstances in which 

the local authority should be able to apply for the right to own or lease such 

property. Some additional issues raised by individual local authorities were: 

the cost and staffing implications of taking on additional property 

management responsibilities; and 

there may be less justification for local authorities leasing rather than 

selling non-domestic property (as opposed to leasing empty homes 

where there is evidence of housing need). 

5.79 It was asked whether local authorities should be required to apply to the 

courts for an order to sell or lease a long-term empty non-domestic property. 

The response rate and pattern of responses across different groups were very 

similar to those for domestic property. 

5.80 The majority of respondents were in favour, on the grounds that this would 

safeguard the rights of owners and ensure that local authorities act within the 

law. Within the local authority group, mixed views were expressed however: 

105

“Councils will be challenged on judgements about public 

interest; so use of courts is a likely outcome in most cases. 

Application for permission via the court system would speed 

matters up rather than having to face challenges after 

decisions are made.” 


“No, it would be preferable for this power not to require 

involvement of the courts, as the cost and time implications 

for court action would be prohibitive for most local authorities. 

There does need to be a formal process for approving an 

authority’s proposal to sell or lease a home. This process 

would have to be transparent and consistent, with clear 

guidelines and unbiased decision making. However, it must 

also be straightforward, inexpensive, and quick to implement, 

otherwise it will not be effective.” 


5.81 Respondents view’s were sought on whether the local community should have 

‘first right’ to buy or lease the property if a local authority enforces the sale of 

an empty property. Within community and third sector groups, most 

respondents favoured this “first right”. Representatives of local authorities and 

professional bodies were, for the most part, against this proposal. 

5.82 Those supporting the proposal referred in many cases to the local knowledge 

of local needs. Some mentioned the principle of supporting community 

empowerment. 

“The proposal aligns with the principle which we support of 

asset transfer.” 


5.83 Many who agreed with or were more neutral on the proposal expressed some 

reservations: 

only if the community has the need and the capacity; 

only if the enforced sale was instigated for the purpose of the community 

use concerned; 

subject to community consultation on potential uses and users; and 

from a community group’s point of view, leasing may be better than 

buying. 

5.84 Local authorities expressed differing views. One suggestion was that this 

should not apply to empty housing – where the presumption would be re-use 

as housing either for social rent or for owner-occupation. Another comment 

was that any onward sale other than for the purpose specified at the time of 

enforcement risked legal challenge (as would be the case with compulsory 

purchase at present). Several local authorities stated that they would have to 

recoup their full costs. 

106

“Any action taken by a local authority in relation to an 

enforced sale must be taken with the positive benefits to the 

local community in mind. Therefore, a “first right” to the 

community to use the property to support locally agreed 

priorities and initiatives would be advantageous.” 


“This presupposes appropriate community structures exist 

capable of taking on this role. If they do not, there is a danger 

of a single interest group using such legislation to its own 

rather than the community’s interest.” 


5.85 Some additional points made by other respondents included: 

“With regards to re-use of residential properties we can see 

some benefit in allowing communities to have an influence 

over how such properties are used, i.e. by an RSL or Local 

Housing Trust, rather than a first right of direct ownership.” 

(Scottish Empty Homes Partnership) 

“We would... urge caution in relation to the proposal to link a 

local authority’s power to enforce the sale or lease of a 

vacant property to the right for the community to take it over. 

This is because we would want the parties involved to be 

certain that the property constitutes an asset to the 

community rather than a liability.” 

(The Big Lottery Fund) 

“There is no reason why a community should be given a right 

of pre-emption. If a council enforces the sale of an empty 

property, it should be sold on the open market, but the owner 

should not be required to accept any offers below the DV 

valuation. Any right of pre-emption reduces the valuation of 

a property and we would therefore not support this proposal.” 


5.86 Lastly under this theme, respondents were asked in what circumstances a 

community should have the right to buy or lease property before others. Just 

over a quarter of respondents answered this particular question. 

5.87 A number of respondents referred to the views they had expressed in 

response to a community right to buy. Circumstances frequently mentioned 

included: 

where a need has been identified; 

where the community group has the capacity and wider community 

support; and 

where enforced sale was instigated for the purpose of this particular 

community use. 

107

5.88 One local authority again made the point that any community pre-emption 

right should exclude domestic property, which should be re-used in the first 

instance to meet housing need. And several others mentioned the need for 

any purchaser to meet market costs (or costs incurred by the local authority). 

5.89 Summing up many of the views expressed on the circumstances in which a 

community should have the right to buy or lease property, one community 

council stated: 

“In any circumstances, provided the community has a 

realistic proposal for the use of the property and the local 

authority recoups its costs”. 

Nairn West Community Council 

108






5.90 Only 12% of respondents offered any views. A number of comments from 

those who did respond repeated comments made in Parts 1 and 2. 

5.91 Some argued that “long-term” empty property and “temporary” use needed 

clearer definition. It was suggested that homes should be considered “empty” 

if they have been unoccupied for six months. 

5.92 The need for clarification of the term “public interest” in relation to compulsory 

purchase orders was also highlighted: 

“This term is too vague... If it is to be used to deprive people 

of ownership of their property, then it should be closely 

defined.” 

(Gorebridge Community Council and Gorebridge CDT) 

5.93 Community anchor organisations were also referred to, and were defined by 

three respondents as independent, community-led groups that deliver 

services. A small number of respondents referred to COSLA and the Scottish 

Government’s Community Empowerment Action Plan as a source for useful 

definitions. 

109

Theme 25: Assessing Impact 

This theme covers questions 46, 47, 48 and 49 in the main consultation 


Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel 

any of the ideas in this consultation may have on particular group or groups of 

people? 

Please also tell us what potential there may be within these ideas to advance 

equality of opportunity between different groups and to foster good relations 

between different groups? 

Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel 

any of the ideas in this consultation may have on the environment? 

Please tell us about any potential economic or regulatory impacts, either 

positive or negative; you feel any of the proposals in this consultation may 

have? 

5.94 Overall, around half of all respondents provided answers to this part of the 

consultation. The most likely groups to respond were community planning 

partnerships, local authorities, community councils and other community 


5.95 In terms of impact on particular groups, community councils and their local 

networks tended to focus on the potential for improved transparency, social 

cohesion and local involvement with service provision and decision making. 

However, many respondents qualified this view with the concern that 

communities may be forced to take on work that they do not have the capacity 

to complete. 

“Whilst the notion of Community Empowerment may seem a 

positive move it must be weighed against the practical 

implications of community volunteers being put into the 

situation of having to deliver a service or carry through a 

project.” 


5.96 Others from across the respondent categories worried that vulnerable groups 

may be excluded, and that those with greater resources would ultimately 

benefit most from the consultation’s proposals. 

“If the Bill does not take account of the needs of specific 

sections of the community who suffer inequality then this 

inequality could be exacerbated even when conditions for 

communities generally improve.” 

(Education Scotland) 

110

“There is a very real danger of the siphoning of resources 

away from more disadvantaged areas towards more affluent 

and capable areas.” 


5.97 In response, many recommended that additional support be made available to 

these disadvantaged areas. Similar points were made in reference to asset 

transfer, with respondents expressing concern that the outlined proposals 

would result in smaller groups losing out. 

“Small community groups (e.g. the smaller Community 

Councils) are likely to see any unused assets in the locality 

passing to the larger villages in which they are situated, even 

though these assets currently belong to all communities, e.g. 

through current ownership by the Council. There is a very 

high risk that small communities which themselves have little 

in the way of public or unused assets within their area and 

who depend on other larger communities nearby for 

resources, amenities and social infrastructure, may be 

excluded or disadvantaged if their interests are not 

recognised and included.” 

(Arnprior Community Council) 

5.98 Some argued that asset transfer could greatly contribute to community 

cohesion, creating links between people of different backgrounds and 

generations. However, others felt that asset transfer may lead to competition 

between communities, resulting in disharmony rather than cohesion. Again, 

many respondents from across the groups also highlighted the danger of 

exacerbating inequalities. 

5.99 A few respondents noted the potentially adverse impact of compulsory 

purchase on property owners who may be unable to sell or utilise unused 

assets. Human rights law was often referenced in relation to this point. 

“Great care will also need to be taken in the Bill not to breach 

the right to property under European Convention on Human 

Rights Protocol 1, Article 1.” 


5.100 In terms of environmental impact, community councils, community planning 

partnerships and other community groups were again the most prolific 

respondents. From across all respondent groups, comments were broadly 

very positive, particularly in reference to allotments and grow-your-own 

projects. Most referred to allotments’ ability to improve biodiversity and 

contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, and to increase 

environmental awareness within communities. 

111

“Community gardens and allotments raise a lot of 

environmental awareness which is a much needed thing, 

considering what is happening with our climate.” 

(Individual) 

5.101 The vast majority of respondents were very supportive of proposals to bring 

derelict buildings back into use. Comments from across the respondent 

groups expressed hope that this proposal would minimise waste and provide 

an alternative to building on greenfield sites. Many also discussed the impact 

on the built environment, and asserted that the re-use of derelict sites would 

improve town centres. 

“These ideas would reduce the incidence of derelict property, 

wasteland and buildings at risk. It would also reduce the 

requirement for new build projects through the increased and 

extended use of existing assets.” 

(Individual) 

5.102 Some other respondents made the more general point that increased 

community control over the environment is desirable. 

“If local people sense that they are in more control of what 

goes on around them they are more likely to care about the 

assets they own or have ready access to. This is likely to 

lead to more focus on improving the local environment.” 

(Community Transport Association) 

5.103 Comments relating to economic and regulatory impact were again broadly 

positive. The principle of community participation and engagement was often 

predicted to bring economic benefits. Asset transfer and community 

ownership were thought to be particularly promising in terms of opportunities 

for employment and economic growth. 

“In all aspects of the proposals the potential exists for a 

community to develop and grow economically. Ownership 

grows confidence and determination to do something 

worthwhile in the community.” 

(Govanhill Baths Community Trust) 

5.104 A number of respondents also endorsed social enterprises, believing that they 

present a path towards employment opportunities and economic growth. 

Respondents also felt that ideas contained in the consultation would support 

this sector. 

“The consultation raises opportunities for the development of 

the social economy which is a positive development.” 


112

5.105 Private sector organisations and their representatives were slightly more likely 

to discuss this aspect of this theme than they were to discuss equality or the 

environment. However, their response rate was still very low, and those that 

did provide a response were generally less enthusiastic. It was felt that the 

consultation failed to engage with the private sector’s interests and views, and 

with the contribution business makes to communities. 

“The consultation paper itself does not make reference to the 

positive economic and social effect which businesses have 

on the communities in which they operate. The sense that 

businesses too are part of the community is not really evident 

in the consultation... Overall consideration of investment and 

the wider economy need to be given more explicit 

consideration in further reviewing the proposals.” 


5.106 While some respondents welcomed the consultation, which specifically sought 

views only on those topics respondents had an interest in or held views on, a 

few respondents used this section of the document as an opportunity to 

express criticism towards the consultation paper itself, finding its length and 

level of detail discouraging. A number also felt unable to answer this part of 

the consultation because they felt that the impacts were too difficult to predict. 

113

APPENDIX ONE: LIST OF RESPONDENTS 

The following organisations and individuals responded to the consultation and were 

willing for their responses to be made public. 

Individuals – 111 individuals submitted a response 

Community Councils and their local networks 

Aberdour Community Council 

Ardgay & District Community Council 

Ardrishaig Community Council 

Ardross Community Council 

Arnprior Community Council 

Arran Community Council 

Auchenshuggle Community Council 

Auchinloch Community Council 

Bailieston Community Council 

Balloch & Haldane Community Council 

Bridge of Allan Community Council 

Charlestown, Limekilns and Pattiesmuir Community Council 

City and Royal Burgh of Elgin Community Council 

Coigach Community Council 

Colonsay Community Council 

Community Council of the Royal Burgh of Peebles and District 

Connel Community Council 

Convention of Perth & Kinross Community Councils 

Corstorphine Community Council 

Cramond & Barnton Community Council 

Dalry Community Council 

Dunbarton East and Central Community Council 

Dunning Community Council 

Dunpender Community Council 

East Calder & Wilkieston Community Council 

Eyemouth Town Community Council 

Fairmilehead Community Council 

Fortrose and Rosemarkie Community Council 

Gavinton Fogo and Polwarth Community Council 

Glenfarg Community Council 

Gorebridge Community Council and Gorebridge Community Development Trust 

Grange Howard Community Council 

Greengairs Community Council 

Gullane Area Community Council 

Hawkhead and Lochfield Community Council 

Hillhead Community Council 

114

Howood Community Council 

Innerleithen & District Community Council 

Juniper Green Community Council 

Kalewater Community Council 

Kemnay Community Council 

Kettle Community Council 

Killearn Community Council 

Kiltarlity Community Council 

Kirliston Community Council 

Lambhill & District Community Council 

Larkfield, Braeside and Branchton Community Council 

Lenzie Community Council 

Liberton and District Community Council 

Luing Community Council 

Maddiston Community Council 

Maybole Community Council 

Milnathort Community Council 

Mintlaw & District Community Council 

Morningside Community Council 

Nairn West Community Council 

Newtonhill Muchalls Cammachmore Community Council 

Newtown St Boswells & Eildon Community Council 

North Ayrshire Community Council 

Old Kilpatrick Community Council, West Dunbartonshire 

Paisley West and Central Community Council 

Pitlochry & Moulin Community Council 

Portmoak Community Council 

Portobello Community Council 

Portree & Braes Community Council 

Queensferry & District Community Council 

Renfrew Community Council 

Renfrewshire Community Council Forum 

Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council 

Royal Burgh of Tain Community Council 

Shapinsay Community Council 

Silverton and Overtoun Community Council 

Stow and Fountainhall Community Council 

Strathaven Community Council 

Strathblane Community Council 

The City of Brechin & District Community Council 

Thorthorwald Community Council 

West Lothian Association of Community Councils 

Westhill and Elrick Community Council 

Yorkhill and Kelvingrove Community Council 

(7 community councils did not give permission for their response to be made public) 

115

Other community organisations and their representative bodies 

Aberdeen Civic Forum 

Ardrossan Sea Cadets 

Ayr Converses 

Ballanter (Royal Deeside) Ltd. 

Broughty Ferry Development Trust 

Buchan Development Partnership 

Carnoustie Allotments Association 

Carnoustie Development Group (Local Area Partnership) 

Co-Cheangal Innse Gall 

Colinton Amenity Association 

Commuity Land Scotland 

Community Central Hall 

Community Transport Association 

Community Woodlands Association 

Cultenhove Opportunities 

Development Trusts Association Scotland 

Edinburgh Tenants Federation 

Elgin Allotment Association 

Elgin South Area Forum 

Federation of City Farms & Community Gardens 

Federation of Edinburgh and District Allotments and Gardens Associations 

Fife Federation of Tenants & Residents Association 

Forfar Area Partnership 

Formartine Partnership Ltd and Aberdeen Rural Partnership Federation 

G3 Growers 

Garrowhill Garden Estate Community Group 

Govanhill Baths Community Trust 

Helensburgh Community Woodlands Group 

Holmehill Community Buyout 

Inverclyde Elderly Forum 

Kilmadock Community Allotments Group 

Laurencekirk Villages in Control 

LINKES 

Locus Breadalbane Limited 

Marr Area Partnership 

Muirkirk Enterprise Group 

Nairn Improvement Community Enterprise 

North Lanarkshire Scramble and Quad Bike Club 

Paisley Development Trust 

Portobello Amenity Society 

Portobello Park Action Group 

Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society 

Scottish Community Alliance 

Scottish Community Development Centre 

Scottish Orchards 

Sol Community Garden 

Stevenston Elderly Forum 

116

Stratchblanefield Community Development Trust 

The Bridge (Scottish Borders Community Development Company) 

The Community Regeneration Forum 

The Strathbungo Society 

The West Harris Trust 

Three Towns Forum on Disability 

Transition Edinburgh South 

West Lothian Wolves Basketball Club 

Wester Hailes Allotments Association 

(6 organisations did not give permission for their response to be made public) 

Third sector/equality organisations and their representative bodies 

Age Concern Girvan 

Article 12 in Scotland 

Association of British Credit Unions Limited 

Ayrshire Independent Living Network 

Ayrshire Minority Ethnic Communities Association 

Barnardo's Scotland 

BEMIS 

Carnegie UK Trust 

Central Advocacy Partners 

Changeworks 

Children in Scotland 

Community Health Exchange 

Community Land Advisory Service 

Cooperation and Mutuality Scotland 

Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations Scotland 

CVS Inverclyde representing various groups across Inverclyde 

Dundee Voluntary Action 

East Dunbartonshire Voluntary Action via local community consultation 

Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations' Council 

ENABLE Scotland 

ENABLE Scotland, Inverness ACE Group 

Forth Environment Link 

Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector 

Glasgow Disability Alliance 

Glasgow Homelessness Network 

Greenspace Scotland 

Highland Third Sector Partnership 

Independent Living in Scotland 

Involve 

Lead Scotland 

Linked Work Training Trust 

Midlothian Voluntary Sector Forum 

Nithsdale Council of Voluntary Service & Stewartry Council of Voluntary 

Service 

Oxfam Scotland 

Planning Aid for Scotland 

Play Scotland 

117

Poverty Truth Commission 

Ramblers Scotland 

Reforesting Scotland 

Rural Housing Service 

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations 

Scottish Council on Deafness 

Scottish Recovery Consortium 

Scottish Refugee Council 

Scottish Sports Association 

Scottish Youth Parliament 

Shelter Scotland 

Sikh Sanjog 

Social Enterprise Scotland 

Tenants Information Service 

Voluntary Action Lochaber 

Voluntary Action Scotland 

Voluntary Action Shetland 

Voluntary Sector Gateway West Lothian 

Volunteer Development Scotland 

West Dunbartonshire Community and Voluntary Service 

Your Voice - Inverclyde Community Care Forum 


Other 

Alexander Thomson Society 

BIDs Scotland 

Centre Point Church 

Communities Sub-group of the Glasgow City Alcohol and Drugs Partnership 

Community Justice Authorities 

Consortium led by Durham University 

East Community Addiction Forum 

Glasgow Centre for Population Health 

Grow Your Own Working Group 

Jimmy Reid Foundation 

Local Communities Reference Group 

Ministry of Defence 

Moray Council Labour Group 

National Network for Change and Community 

Regeneration Matters 

Rural Law Research Group, University of Aberdeen, School of Law 

Scottish Business in the Community 

Scottish Communities Climate Action Network 

Scottish Co-production Network 

Scottish Empty Homes Partnership 

Scottish Library & Information Council 

Sport Social Enterprise Network 

SURF Scotland's Independent Regeneration Network 

The Church of Scotland 

The James Hutton Institute 

118

UNISON Scotland 

YouthLink Scotland 


Local authorities and their representative bodies 

Aberdeen City Council 

Argyll and Bute Council 

City of Edinburgh Council 

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 

Dundee City Council 

East Ayrshire Council 

East Dunbartonshire Council 

East Lothian Council 

East Renfrewshire Council 

Falkirk Council 

Glasgow City Council 

Improvement Service 

Inverclyde Council 

Midlothian Council 

North Ayrshire Council 

North Lanarkshire Council 

Orkney Islands Council 

Perth & Kinross Council 

Renfrewshire Council 

Scottish Borders Council 

South Ayrshire Council 

South Lanarkshire Council 

Stirling Council 

The Highland Council 

West Dunbartonshire Council 

West Lothian Council 

Representative bodies for professionals 

Accountability Scotland 

Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers 

Association of Public Service Excellence 

Built Environment Forum 

Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland 

Community Development Alliance Scotland 

Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland 

Fife Community Learning & Development Team Leaders Network 

Institute for Archaeologists 

Institute of Historic Buildings Conservation 

Landscape Institute Scotland 

Local Authority Building Standards Scotland 

REHIS Public Health and Housing Working Group 

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Scotland 

Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland 

Scottish Assessors' Association 

119

Scottish Community Development Network 

Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance 

Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland 

Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) (Scotland) 

The Law Society of Scotland 

Executive agencies, NDPBs, other statutory organisations & NHS 

Audit Scotland 

Big Lottery Fund 

Cairngorms National Park Authority 

Consumer Focus Scotland 

Education Scotland 

Equality & Human Rights Commission 

Heritage Lottery Fund 

Highlands & Islands Enterprise 

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde 

NHS Lothian 

Scottish Health Council 

Scottish Human Rights Commission 

Scottish Information Commissioner 

Scottish Natural Heritage 

Scottish Water 

Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

Skills Development Scotland 

The Community Learning and Development Standards Council for Scotland 


Community planning partnerships 

Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeenshire Community Planning Partnership 

Angus Community Planning Partnership 

Argyll and Bute Community Planning Partnership 

Clackmannanshire Council Partnership 

Community Planning Aberdeen 

Dumfries & Galloway Strategic Partnership 

Fife Community Planning Partnership 

Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership 

Shetland Partnership Board 

The Edinburgh Partnership 

Private sector organisations 

Brodies LLP 

Catch the Light 

Clarendon Planning and Development Ltd on behalf of Lothian Estates 

Council of Mortgage Lenders 

First Scottish 

Greenbelt Group Limited 

GVA 

Scottish Land and Estates 

Scottish Property Federation 

120

RSLs and their representative bodies 

Glasgow & West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations 

Glasgow Housing Association 

Kingdom Housing Association 

Link Group 

Port of Leith Housing Association 

SFHA 

West Whitlawburn Housing Co-Operative 

121

APPENDIX TWO: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES 

Main Consultation Questionnaire 

Theme: Community Planning 

1. What would you consider to be effective community engagement in the 

Community Planning process? What would provide evidence of effective 

community engagement? 

Groups Response No 

Response 

Individual 30 67% 15 33% 

Community councils and their local 

networks 49 83% 10 17% 

Other community organisations and their 

representative bodies 27 68% 13 33% 

Third sector/equality organisations and 

their representative bodies 42 84% 8 16% 

Other 17 71% 7 29% 

Representative body for professionals 13 65% 7 35% 

Local authorities and their representative 

bodies 25 96% 1 4% 

Executive agencies, NDPBs, other 

statutory organisations & NHS 16 80% 4 20% 

Community planning partnership 10 100% 0 0% 

Private sector organisations and their 


RSLs and their representative bodies 6 86% 1 14% 

Total 238 77% 72 23% 

122

2. How effective and influential is the community engagement currently 

taking place within Community Planning? 


Response 



networks 49 83% 10 17% 





Other 13 54% 11 46% 



bodies 24 92% 2 8% 







Total 219 71% 91 29% 

123

3. Are there any changes that could be made to the current Community 

Planning process to help make community engagement easier and more 

effective? 


Response 



networks 47 80% 12 20% 





Other 14 58% 10 42% 



bodies 26 100% 0 0% 







Total 212 68% 98 32% 

124

Theme: Overarching Duty to Engage 

4. Do you feel the existing duties on the public sector to engage are 

appropriate? 


Response 



networks 44 75% 15 25% 





Other 9 38% 15 63% 



bodies 24 92% 2 8% 







Total 206 66% 104 34% 

125

5. Should the various existing duties on the public sector to engage 

communities be replaced with an overarching duty? 

Groups Yes No Other No 

response 

Individual 15 33% 7 16% 4 9% 19 42% 


22 37% 18 31% 6 10% 13 22% 

networks 

Other community organisations and their 20 50% 6 15% 3 8% 11 28% 


Third sector/equality organisations and their 17 34% 9 18% 6 12% 18 36% 


Other 8 33% 4 17% 1 4% 11 46% 

Representative body for professionals 8 40% 5 25% 1 5% 6 30% 

Local authorities and their representative 13 50% 9 35% 3 12% 1 4% 

bodies 

Executive agencies, NDPBs, other statutory 6 30% 1 5% 7 35% 6 30% 

organisations & NHS 

Community planning partnership 3 30% 5 50% 2 20% 0 0% 

Private sector organisations and their 2 22% 1 11% 0 0% 6 67% 


RSLs and their representative bodies 1 14% 2 29% 1 14% 3 43% 

Total 115 37% 67 22% 34 11% 94 30% 

Percentage of those who responded 53% 31% 16% 

126

5a. What factors should be considered when designing an overarching 

duty? 


Response 


Community councils and their local networks 23 39% 36 61% 

Other community organisations and their 20 50% 20 50% 


Third sector/equality organisations and their 15 30% 35 70% 


Other 10 42% 14 58% 


Local authorities and their representative 17 65% 9 35% 

bodies 

Executive agencies, NDPBs, other statutory 8 40% 12 60% 




2 22% 7 78% 



Total 127 41% 183 59% 

5b. How would such a duty work with existing structures for engagement? 


Response 





Third sector/equality organisations and their 


Other 10 42% 14 58% 



bodies 17 65% 9 35% 

Executive agencies, NDPBs, other statutory 

organisations & NHS 8 40% 12 60% 





Total 120 39% 190 61% 

127

Theme: Community Councils 

6. What role, if any, can community councils play in helping to ensure 



Response 







Other 17 71% 6 25% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 236 76% 74 24% 

7. What role, if any, can community councils play in delivering public 

services? 


Response 







Other 15 63% 9 38% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 221 71% 89 29% 

128

8. What changes, if any, to existing community council legislation can be 

made to help enable community councils maximise their positive role in 

communities? 


Response 







Other 13 54% 11 46% 



bodies 





2 22% 7 78% 



Total 203 65% 107 35% 

129

Theme: Third Sector 

9. How can the third sector work with Community Planning partners and 

communities to ensure the participation of communities in the Community 

Planning process? 


Response 







Other 14 58% 10 42% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 200 65% 110 35% 

130

Theme: National Standards 

10. Should there be a duty on the public sector to follow the National 

Standards for Community Engagement? 

Groups Yes No Other No response 

Individual 22 49% 2 4% 2 4% 19 42% 

Community councils and their local 42 71% 2 3% 2 3% 13 22% 

networks 

Other community organisations and 19 48% 6 15% 5 13% 10 25% 


Third sector/equality organisations and 20 40% 5 10% 8 16% 17 34% 


Other 10 42% 5 21% 3 13% 6 25% 



15 58% 8 31% 1 4% 2 8% 


Executive agencies, NDPBs, other 6 30% 3 15% 5 25% 6 30% 

statutory organisations & NHS 





Total 148 48% 45 15% 29 9% 88 28% 


131

Theme: Community Engagement Plans 

11. Should there be a duty on the public sector to publish and communicate a 

community engagement plan? 


Individual 21 47% 5 11% 1 2% 18 40% 


networks 





Other 11 46% 2 8% 3 13% 8 33% 



13 50% 10 38% 2 8% 1 4% 








Total 155 50% 43 14% 22 7% 90 29% 


11a. What information would be included in a community engagement plan? 


Response 




21 53% 19 48% 




Other 11 46% 13 54% 



16 62% 10 38% 

bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 159 51% 151 49% 

132

Theme: Auditing 

12. Should community participation be made a more significant part of the 

audit of best value and Community Planning? 


Response 







Other 13 54% 11 46% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 201 65% 109 35% 

133

Theme: Named Officer 

13. Should public sector authorities have a named accountable officer, 

responsible for community participation and acting as a primary point of 

contact for communities? 


response 

Individual 19 42% 5 11% 3 7% 18 40% 


35 59% 10 17% 2 3% 12 20% 

networks 





Other 7 29% 6 25% 3 13% 8 33% 



bodies 







Total 113 36% 83 27% 26 8% 88 28% 


134

Theme: Tenants’ Right to Manage 

14. Can the Scottish Government do more to promote the use of the existing 

tenant management rights in sections 55 and 56 of the Housing (Scotland) 

2001 Act? 


response 

Individual 6 13% 1 2% 4 9% 34 76% 


9 15% 2 3% 6 10% 42 71% 

networks 





Other 3 13% 0 0% 5 21% 16 67% 



bodies 







Total 66 21% 19 6% 32 10% 193 62% 


15. Should the current provisions be amended to make it easier for tenants 

and community groups to manage housing services in their area? 


Individual 11 24% 2 4% 2 4% 30 67% 


networks 





Other 2 8% 1 4% 4 17% 17 71% 



bodies 







Total 65 21% 39 13% 23 7% 183 59% 


135

Theme: Community Service Delivery 

16. Can current processes be improved to give community groups better 

access to public service delivery contacts? 


response 

Individual 19 42% 0 0% 1 2% 25 56% 


29 49% 3 5% 6 10% 21 36% 

networks 





Other 6 25% 0 0% 6 25% 12 50% 



bodies 







Total 146 47% 9 3% 30 10% 125 40% 


17. Should communities have the right to challenge service provision where 

they feel the service is not being run efficiently and that it does not meet their 

needs? 


response 

Individual 23 51% 0 0% 2 4% 20 44% 


45 76% 1 2% 1 2% 12 20% 

networks 





Other 12 50% 0 0% 2 8% 10 42% 



bodies 







Total 170 55% 6 2% 28 9% 106 34% 


136

Theme: Community Directed Spending – Participatory Budgeting 

18. Should communities have a greater role in deciding how budgets are spent 

in their areas? 


response 

Individual 24 53% 1 2% 3 7% 17 38% 


41 69% 3 5% 4 7% 11 19% 

networks 





Other 12 50% 1 4% 2 8% 9 38% 



bodies 







Total 177 57% 11 4% 28 9% 94 30% 


19. Should communities be able to request the right to manage certain areas of 

spending within their local area? 


Individual 19 42% 2 4% 3 7% 21 47% 


networks 





Other 10 42% 1 4% 2 8% 11 46% 



10 38% 8 31% 7 27% 1 4% 








Total 136 44% 31 10% 30 10% 113 36% 


137

19a. What areas of spending should a community be responsible for? 


Response 







Other 9 38% 15 63% 



bodies 





4 44% 5 56% 



Total 131 42% 179 58% 

19b. Who, or what body, within a community should be responsible for 

decisions on how the budget is spent? 


Response 







Other 8 33% 16 67% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 128 41% 182 59% 

138

19c. How can we ensure that decisions on how the budget is spent are made in 

a fair way and consider the views of everyone within the community? 


Response 







Other 9 38% 15 63% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 133 43% 177 57% 

139

Theme: Definitions for Part 1 

20. Please use this space to give us your thoughts on any definitions that may 

be used for the ideas in Part 1. Please also give us examples of any definitions 



Response 







Other 8 33% 16 67% 



bodies 





2 22% 7 78% 



Total 102 33% 208 67% 

140

Theme: Community Right to Buy 

21. Would you support a community right to buy for urban communities? 


response 

Individual 21 47% 2 4% 2 4% 20 44% 


networks 27 46% 3 5% 5 8% 24 41% 


representative bodies 26 65% 1 3% 2 5% 11 28% 



Other 10 42% 0 0% 5 21% 9 38% 



bodies 15 58% 3 12% 4 15% 4 15% 


organisations & NHS 7 35% 1 5% 2 10% 10 50% 





Total 160 52% 12 4% 31 10% 107 35% 


21a. Should an urban community right to buy work in the same way as the 

existing community right to buy (as set out in Part II of the Land Reform 

(Scotland) Act 2003?) 


Response 







Other 11 46% 13 54% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 127 41% 183 59% 

141

21b. How should an ‘urban community’ be defined? 


Response 







Other 11 46% 13 54% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 138 45% 172 55% 

21c. How would an urban and rural community right to buy work alongside 

each other? 


Response 


Community councils and their local 20 34% 39 66% 

networks 



Third sector/equality organisations and 14 28% 36 72% 


Other 10 42% 14 58% 



bodies 


5 25% 15 75% 



Private sector organisations and their 4 44% 5 56% 



Total 119 38% 191 62% 

142

Theme: Community Asset Transfer 

22. The public sector owns assets on behalf of the people of Scotland. Under 

what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to transfer unused or 

underused public sector assets to individual communities? 


Response 







Other 17 71% 7 29% 



bodies 





5 56% 4 44% 



Total 208 67% 102 33% 

22a. What information should a community body be required to provide during 

the asset transfer process? 


Response 







Other 10 42% 14 58% 



bodies 





4 44% 5 56% 



Total 170 55% 140 45% 

143

22b. What information should a public sector authority be required to provide 

during the asset transfer process? 


Response 







Other 10 42% 14 58% 



bodies 





4 44% 5 56% 



Total 160 52% 150 48% 

22c. What, if any, conditions should be placed on a public sector authority when an 

asset is transferred from the public sector to a community? 


Response 







Other 11 46% 13 54% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 156 50% 154 50% 

144

22d. What, if any, conditions should be placed on a community group when an 

asset is transferred from a public sector body to a community? 


Response 







Other 11 46% 13 54% 



bodies 





4 44% 5 56% 



Total 168 54% 142 46% 

23. Should communities have a power to request the public sector transfer 

certain unused or underused assets? 


response 

Individual 18 40% 1 2% 3 7% 23 51% 


networks 36 61% 1 2% 1 2% 21 36% 





Other 10 42% 1 4% 2 8% 11 46% 



bodies 15 58% 7 27% 2 8% 2 8% 


organisations & NHS 6 30% 1 5% 2 10% 11 55% 





Total 148 48% 18 6% 21 7% 123 40% 


145

24. Should communities have a right to buy an asset if they have managed or 

leased it for a certain period of time? 


Individual 16 36% 3 7% 2 4% 24 53% 


networks 





Other 8 33% 3 13% 2 8% 11 46% 



9 35% 10 38% 5 19% 2 8% 








Total 132 43% 34 11% 15 5% 129 42% 


24a. What, if any, conditions should be met before a community is allowed to 

buy an asset in these circumstances? 


Response 







Other 8 33% 16 67% 



bodies 





2 22% 7 78% 



Total 133 43% 177 57% 

146

Theme: Common Good 

25. Do the current rules surrounding common good assets act as a barrier to 

their effective use by either local authorities or communities? 


Individual 16 36% 3 7% 3 7% 23 51% 


networks 





Other 7 29% 1 4% 5 21% 11 46% 



13 50% 6 23% 3 12% 4 15% 








Total 85 27% 25 8% 40 13% 160 52% 


26. Should common good assets continue to be looked after by local 

authorities? 


response 

Individual 11 24% 4 9% 6 13% 24 53% 


networks 





Other 7 29% 1 4% 4 17% 12 50% 



20 77% 0 0% 2 8% 4 15% 








Total 99 32% 29 9% 25 8% 157 51% 


147

26a. What should a local authority’s duties towards common good assets be 

and should these assets continue to be accounted for separately from the rest 

of the local authority’s estate? 


Response 







Other 8 33% 16 67% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 111 36% 199 64% 

26b. Should communities have a right to decide, or be consulted upon, how 

common good assets are used or how the income from common good assets 

is spent? 


Response 







Other 9 38% 15 63% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 120 39% 190 61% 

148

26c. Who should be responsible for common good assets and how should 

they be managed? 


Response 

Individual 7 16% 38 7 

Community councils and their local networks 11 19% 48 11 

Other community organisations and their 11 28% 29 11 


Third sector/equality organisations and their 4 8% 46 4 


Other 1 4% 23 1 

Representative body for professionals 1 5% 19 1 

Local authorities and their representative 5 19% 21 5 

bodies 

Executive agencies, NDPBs, other statutory 1 5% 19 1 


Community planning partnership 2 20% 8 2 


1 11% 8 1 


RSLs and their representative bodies 1 14% 6 1 

Total 45 15% 265 85% 

149

Theme: Asset Management 

27. Should all public sector authorities be required to make their asset 

registers available to the public? 


response 

Individual 26 58% 1 2% 0 0% 18 40% 


networks 





Other 12 50% 1 4% 3 13% 8 33% 



22 85% 1 4% 1 4% 2 8% 








Total 183 59% 5 2% 14 5% 108 35% 


27a. What information should the asset register contain? 


Response 







Other 7 29% 17 71% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 157 51% 153 49% 

150

28. Should all public sector authorities be required to make their asset 

management plans available to the public? 


Individual 22 49% 2 4% 1 2% 20 44% 


networks 





Other 10 42% 1 4% 1 4% 12 50% 



bodies 







Total 166 54% 10 3% 9 3% 125 40% 


28a. What information should the asset management plan contain? 


Response 







Other 7 29% 17 71% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 131 42% 179 58% 

151

29. Should each public sector authority have an officer to co-ordinate 

engagement and strategy on community asset transfer and management? 


response 

Individual 15 33% 3 7% 2 4% 25 56% 


30 51% 8 14% 1 2% 20 34% 

networks 





Other 5 21% 3 13% 2 8% 14 58% 



bodies 







Total 115 37% 35 11% 23 7% 137 44% 


30. Would you recommend any other way of enabling a community to access 

information on public sector assets? 


Response 







Other 7 29% 17 71% 



bodies 





1 11% 8 89% 



Total 137 44% 173 56% 

152

Theme: Allotments 

31. What, if any, changes should be made to existing legislation on 

allotments? 


Response 







Other 7 29% 17 71% 



bodies 





1 11% 8 89% 



Total 137 44% 173 56% 

32. Are there any other measures that could be included in legislation to 

support communities taking forward grow-your-own projects? 


Response 







Other 8 33% 16 67% 



bodies 





1 11% 8 89% 



Total 119 38% 191 62% 

153


33. Please use this space to give us your thoughts on any definitions that may 

be used for the ideas in Part 2. Please also give us examples of any definitions 



Response 







Other 3 13% 21 88% 



bodies 





1 11% 8 89% 



Total 43 14% 267 86% 

154

Theme: Leases and Temporary Uses 

34. Should communities have a right to use or manage unused or underused 

public sector assets? 


Individual 21 47% 2 4% 2 4% 20 44% 


networks 





Other 9 38% 1 4% 4 17% 10 42% 



14 54% 8 31% 3 12% 1 4% 








Total 156 50% 18 6% 26 8% 110 35% 


34a. In what circumstances should a community be able to use or manage 

unused or underused public sector assets? 


Response 







Other 10 42% 14 58% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 145 47% 165 53% 

155

34b. What, if any, conditions should be placed on a community’s right to use 

or manage public sector assets? 


Response 







Other 11 46% 13 54% 



bodies 





2 22% 7 78% 



Total 142 46% 168 54% 

34c. What types of asset should be included? 


Response 







Other 7 29% 17 71% 



bodies 





2 22% 7 78% 



Total 132 43% 178 57% 

156

Theme: Encouraging Temporary Use Agreements 

35. Should a temporary community use of land being made a class of 

permitted development? 


response 

Individual 13 29% 3 7% 2 4% 27 60% 


networks 





Other 5 21% 2 8% 3 13% 14 58% 



11 42% 11 42% 2 8% 2 8% 








Total 99 32% 36 12% 16 5% 159 51% 


36. Should measures be introduced to ensure temporary community uses are 

not taken into account in decisions on future planning proposals? 


Individual 9 20% 7 16% 2 4% 27 60% 


networks 12 20% 15 25% 7 12% 25 42% 

Other community organisations and 

their representative bodies 9 23% 8 20% 1 3% 22 55% 



Other 3 13% 1 4% 3 13% 17 71% 





statutory organisations & NHS 0 0% 4 20% 0 0% 16 80% 





Total 63 20% 48 15% 20 6% 179 58% 


157

37. Are there any other changes that could be made to make it easier for 

landlords and communities to enter into meanwhile or temporary use 

agreements? 


Response 







Other 6 25% 18 75% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 94 30% 216 70% 

158

Theme: Dangerous and Defective Buildings 

38. What changes should be made to local authorities’ powers to recover costs 

for work they have carried out in relation to dangerous and defective buildings 

under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003? 


Response 







Other 6 25% 18 75% 



bodies 





3 33% 6 67% 



Total 111 36% 198 64% 

39. Should a process be put in place to allow communities to request a local 

authority exercise their existing powers in relation to dangerous and defective 

buildings under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003? 


Individual 12 27% 1 2% 3 7% 29 64% 


networks 38 64% 1 2% 1 2% 19 32% 





Other 5 21% 0 0% 2 8% 17 71% 





statutory organisations & NHS 5 25% 0 0% 0 0% 15 75% 





Total 98 32% 23 7% 19 6% 170 55% 


159

Theme: Compulsory Purchase 

40. Should communities have a right to request a local authority use a 

compulsory purchase order on their behalf? 


Individual 15 33% 1 2% 1 2% 28 62% 


networks 





Other 6 25% 1 4% 2 8% 15 63% 



12 46% 8 31% 4 15% 2 8% 








Total 122 39% 24 8% 15 5% 149 48% 


40a. What issues (in addition to the existing legal requirements) would have to 

be considered when developing such a right? 


Response 







Other 5 21% 19 79% 



bodies 





2 22% 7 78% 



Total 97 31% 213 69% 

160

41. Should communities have a right to request that they take over property 

that has been compulsorily purchased by the local authority? 


response 

Individual 13 29% 4 9% 2 4% 26 58% 


networks 





Other 5 21% 0 0% 3 13% 16 67% 



13 50% 9 35% 2 8% 2 8% 








Total 110 35% 21 7% 19 6% 160 52% 


41a. What conditions, if any, should apply to such a transfer? 


Response 







Other 4 17% 20 83% 



bodies 





2 22% 7 78% 



Total 89 29% 221 71% 

161

Theme: Power to Enforce Sale or Lease of Empty Property 

42. Should local authorities be given additional powers to sell or lease 

longterm empty homes where it is in the public interest to do so? 


Individual 15 33% 1 2% 2 4% 27 60% 


networks 





Other 7 29% 0 0% 3 13% 14 58% 



17 65% 3 12% 3 12% 3 12% 








Total 118 38% 13 4% 17 5% 162 52% 


42a. In what circumstances should a local authority be able to enforce a sale 

and what minimum criteria would need to be met? 


Response 







Other 4 17% 20 83% 



bodies 





0 0% 9 100% 



Total 94 30% 216 70% 

162

42b. In what circumstances should a local authority be able to apply for the 

right to lease an empty home? 


Response 







Other 4 17% 20 83% 



bodies 





0 0% 9 100% 



Total 86 28% 224 72% 

42c. Should a local authority be required to apply to the courts for an order to 

sell or lease a home? 


response 

Individual 9 20% 3 7% 0 0% 33 73% 


21 36% 5 8% 3 5% 30 51% 

networks 





Other 2 8% 2 8% 1 4% 19 79% 



bodies 






0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9 100 

% 


Total 64 21% 22 7% 8 3% 216 70% 


163

43. Should local authorities be given powers to sell or lease long-term empty 

and unused non-domestic property where it is in the public interest to do so? 


Individual 18 40% 0 0% 1 2% 26 58% 


networks 





Other 5 21% 0 0% 3 13% 16 67% 



bodies 







Total 117 38% 11 4% 14 5% 168 54% 


43a. In what circumstances should a local authority be able to enforce the sale 

of a long-term empty and unused non-domestic property and what minimum 

criteria would need to be met? 


Response 







Other 4 17% 20 83% 



bodies 





0 0% 9 100% 



Total 95 31% 215 69% 

164

43b. In what circumstances could a local authority be able to apply for the 

right to lease and manage a long-term empty non-domestic property? 


Response 







Other 4 17% 20 83% 



bodies 





0 0% 9 100% 



Total 91 29% 219 71% 

43c. Should a local authority be required to apply to the courts for an 

order to sell or lease a long-term empty non-domestic property? 


Individual 8 18% 2 4% 2 4% 33 73% 


networks 





Other 1 4% 1 4% 2 8% 20 83% 



11 42% 4 15% 2 8% 9 35% 








Total 65 21% 15 5% 10 3% 220 


165

44. If a local authority enforces a sale of an empty property, should the local 

community have a ‘first right’ to buy or lease the property? 


Individual 14 31% 2 4% 2 4% 27 60% 


networks 





Other 2 8% 2 8% 3 13% 17 71% 



bodies 







Total 80 26% 38 12% 25 8% 167 54% 


44a. In what circumstances should a community have the right to buy or lease 

the property before others? 


Response 







Other 3 13% 21 88% 



bodies 





0 0% 9 100% 



Total 84 27% 226 73% 

166


45. Please use this space to give us your thoughts on any definitions that 

may be used for the ideas in Part 3. Please also give us examples of any 

definitions that you feel have worked well in practice 


Response 







Other 2 8% 22 92% 



bodies 





1 11% 8 89% 



Total 36 12% 274 88% 

167

Theme: Assessing Impact 

46. Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, 

you feel any of the ideas in this consultation may have on particular group 

or groups of people? 


Response 







Other 11 46% 13 54% 



bodies 





1 11% 8 89% 



Total 160 52% 150 48% 

47. Please also tell us what potential there may be within these ideas to 

advance equality of opportunity between different groups and to foster 

good relations between different groups? 


Response 







Other 6 25% 18 75% 



bodies 





1 11% 8 89% 



Total 126 41% 184 59% 

168

48. Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, 

you feel any of the ideas in this consultation may have on the environment? 


Response 







Other 6 25% 18 75% 



bodies 





1 11% 8 89% 



Total 119 38% 191 62% 

49. Please tell us about any potential economic or regulatory impacts, either 

positive or negative, you feel any of the proposals in this consultation may 

have? 


Response 







Other 5 21% 19 79% 



bodies 





2 22% 7 78% 



Total 113 36% 197 64% 

169

Easy Read Questionnaire 

1. What does the word ‘community’ mean to you? 


Response 







Other 7 78% 2 22% 


Total 130 95% 7 5% 

2. Can you tell us something about your community? 


Response 







Other 7 78% 2 22% 


Total 128 93% 9 7% 

3. How can community councils do more to help local people have their 

say about how local services are run or managed? 


Response 







Other 7 78% 2 22% 


Total 128 93% 9 7% 

4. Do you have any ideas about how to make it easier for community 

organisations to help run or manage local services? 

170


Response 







Other 8 89% 1 11% 


Total 118 86% 19 14% 

5. Do you think communities in Scotland should be able to challenge a 

local service if they feel the service is not run well or does not meet their 

needs? 


response 

Individual 60 91% 1 2% 3 5% 2 3% 


networks 26 93% 0 0% 2 7% 0 0% 





Other 8 89% 0 0% 0 0% 1 11% 


Total 125 91% 1 1% 5 4% 6 4% 


171

6. Should local communities be involved in deciding how money for local 

services is spent? 


response 

Individual 50 76% 7 11% 4 6% 5 8% 


networks 24 86% 1 4% 2 7% 1 4% 





Other 5 56% 1 11% 1 11% 2 22% 


Total 106 77% 12 9% 7 5% 12 9% 


7. Would it help your community if it owned land or buildings? 


Individual 43 65% 10 15% 6 9% 7 11% 


networks 12 43% 8 29% 6 21% 2 7% 





Other 6 67% 0 0% 1 11% 2 22% 


Total 80 58% 22 16% 19 14% 16 12% 


172

8. Should communities in towns and cities have a right to buy land and 

buildings that are for sale in their area? 


response 

Individual 53 80% 2 3% 2 3% 9 14% 


networks 17 61% 4 14% 5 18% 2 7% 





Other 6 67% 1 11% 0 0% 2 22% 


Total 100 73% 10 7% 9 7% 18 13% 


9. If the local council or other public authority own land or buildings they 

are not using, should the local community have a right to ask for the 

land and buildings? 


response 

Individual 52 79% 3 5% 4 6% 7 11% 


networks 24 86% 1 4% 2 7% 1 4% 





Other 8 89% 0 0% 1 11% 0 0% 


Total 111 81% 7 5% 9 7% 10 7% 


173

10. Do you think communities should have more land for allotments and 

community gardens so people can grow their own food or flowers? 


Individual 54 82% 4 6% 2 3% 6 9% 


networks 25 89% 0 0% 1 4% 2 7% 





Other 6 67% 0 0% 2 22% 1 11% 


Total 116 85% 4 3% 6 4% 11 8% 


11. Should your local community be able to use public buildings or 

resources like buses for part of the week or for a short time? 


Individual 49 74% 3 5% 4 6% 10 15% 


networks 23 82% 1 4% 1 4% 3 11% 





Other 7 78% 0 0% 1 11% 1 11% 


Total 110 80% 5 4% 6 4% 16 12% 


12. Are empty houses and shops a problem in your local community? 


Individual 38 58% 19 29% 5 8% 4 6% 


networks 12 43% 12 43% 3 11% 1 4% 





Other 5 56% 1 11% 1 11% 2 22% 


Total 74 54% 37 27% 14 10% 12 9% 


174

13. Would it help your community if it could use land or buildings that 

owners are not using just now? 


Individual 48 73% 11 17% 3 5% 4 6% 


networks 13 46% 6 21% 4 14% 5 18% 





Other 5 56% 2 22% 0 0% 2 22% 


Total 90 66% 23 17% 9 7% 15 11% 


14. Should your community have the right to ask the local council to 

arrange the sale of an empty building or land? 


Individual 49 74% 5 8% 5 8% 7 11% 


networks 18 64% 1 4% 5 18% 4 14% 





Other 4 44% 0 0% 1 11% 4 44% 


Total 95 69% 7 5% 12 9% 23 17% 


15. Do you have any other ideas or comments for the Scottish Government? 


Response 







Other 7 78% 2 22% 


Total 105 77% 32 23% 

175

© Crown copyright 2012 

You may re-use this information (excluding logos and images) free of charge in any 

format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this 

licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ 

or e-mail: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. 

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to 

obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. 

ISBN: 978-1-78256-272-6 (web only) 

The Scottish Government 

St Andrew’s House 

Edinburgh 

EH1 3DG 

Produced for the Scottish Government by APS Group Scotland 

DPPAS13693 (12/12) 

Published by the Scottish Government, December 2012 

w w w . s c o t l a n d . g o v . u k

Consultation On The Proposed Community Empowerment - Scottish ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?