Impact Evaluation of the Community Right to Buy

3 Inputs

3.1 This section explores the extent to which the inputs in the logic model (see Figure 1.1) have been realised, including highlighting inputs considered the most important. It includes survey findings relating to the reasons community bodies were set up and any changes to the aims of the community bodies over time. It also reports on case study findings, focusing on the key reasons (i.e. drivers) communities engaged with the CRtB process and sought to acquire land/assets. Stakeholders' views on the key inputs to the CRtB have also been noted where relevant.

3.2 This section includes reference to some inputs which may not be included in the logic model but are considered important in the context of specific case studies. Some additional detail on inputs is also included in the "Outcomes" section, where inputs are explored in terms of how they have contributed to outcomes. The degree of community support for CRtB applications to register an interest in land (an input in the logic model) is not discussed here, as it is reviewed in the activities section in relation to how communities experienced the process.

3.3 As well as a core aim of asset acquisition, a number of additional inputs were evident from case studies. These can be divided into drivers (key factors driving community concern) and necessary inputs (key mechanisms and wider contextual factors required to facilitate the process). Drivers included the local context and concern around community decline, the desire to improve or maintain assets and the opportunity to provide the community with a voice. Necessary inputs included: i) time given by volunteers and local leadership; ii) advice and funding from stakeholders; and iv) the legislative context. The relative importance of different drivers and inputs varied between case studies, with multiple factors apparent in most cases.

Reasons for forming a community body

3.4 Reasons for forming a community body evident from survey responses were varied, but centred on a desire to acquire assets for the community and/or to benefit the community in some way. The most common reason for forming the group, cited by around one third of respondents, was to purchase specific land or land asset. These assets included wind farms, a former primary school, woodlands, a caravan park, and a lighthouse. Community bodies aimed to acquire these assets so that they could be owned and run by the community, or developed into new uses such as sports facilities, education facilities and affordable housing. For some respondents (around 10%), the main reason for forming the community body was in reaction to a decline in population and a poor economy. In these cases, groups were formed to help regenerate the community, with one respondent stating that their aim was to "help the community regain its self-esteem".

3.5 Setting up a community company was viewed as necessary to engage with the process of registration (and purchase) and comply with the legislation. Community companies also represented a mechanism to demonstrate to landowners (and other stakeholders) the seriousness of community ambitions to acquire the land/asset, as well as a structure through which to fundraise and apply for grants (subject to acquiring charitable status). Establishing a community company was seen by some as a natural progression from an existing working group in preparation for making a CRtB application to register an interest in land.

3.6 Three quarters (76%) of survey respondents felt that the aims of their community body had remained broadly the same since it was formed, while 14% felt they had changed "somewhat" and 6% felt that they had changed 'a lot'. Those who felt their aims had changed had either stopped at an early stage in the CRtB process (they had not applied to register an interest, or had applied but had been unsuccessful) or had attempted to make a purchase through the CRtB but were unsuccessful (and presumably had then carried on to do something else, although this is not clear from the data).

The importance of local context

3.7 Based on case study analysis the local context input can be further divided into four sub-themes: i) desire to retain and protect and/or improve a community asset to ensure long term provision of the asset; ii) creating new greenspace and improving the community setting; iii) delivering local economic development; and iv) safeguarding the land for development that would meet community needs.

3.8 The desire to retain and enhance an asset for community use and secure provision of the asset (and any associated services) in perpetuity was a key driver in a number of cases, relating to community buildings (e.g. village halls, community spaces), tourist attractions, sites of cultural significance and sports facilities. In one case, the community had registered an interest in land on a building which had local cultural significance and was regularly used for a variety of community activities. The community had managed the facility for a number of years through a local trust, but it remained under local authority ownership, with community concerns at the time based on the view that: 'there was no council spending [on the building] during all that time….and it was known that the local authority had discussed selling or demolishing the building…community ownership offered a more secure future'

3.9 The desire to acquire the asset therefore related, in some cases, to dissatisfaction with the management of land or assets by existing owners (both public and private sector). In a number of cases, existing management was linked to the asset being poorly maintained or made less available to the community. Ownership was also viewed as a pathway to funding to regenerate and refurbish community assets, with funders seen as more accessible if facilities are under the ownership of the community.

3.10 Creating new recreational areas or "greenspace" and improving the community setting was a focus for at least six of the sixteen case studies. This included the development of children's play areas, development of "communal greenspace", and expansion of sporting facilities (e.g. development of sports fields). This included a registered interest in an area of partly derelict private land (a brownfield site), with the aim of removing buildings, improving site access and habitats, and developing interpretation. In a second example, the application to register an interest was based on creating a community garden in partnership with the local council. An aim to enhance and redevelop existing woodland areas was also evident in some cases.

3.11 Economic development and job creation was evident as a key driver in a smaller number of cases^[5] with this aim linked more to larger areas of land and complex land assets with significant income or development potential. Economic aims were varied and often included a bundle of targeted outcomes, with varying emphasis placed on different areas across case studies. In one case (a very large asset which had been successfully purchased), a core driver for the community had been the impending withdrawal of the existing (public) owner from the site and the possibility of the sale of the site to "asset strippers". The land asset had witnessed declining activity prior to the withdrawal and declining economic impact. A number of community members (including ex-employees) recognised the potential of the CRtB to facilitate community acquisition of the site, with the goal of "creating jobs, inward investment and economic regeneration". In a second case study, a community consultation had highlighted the pressing socio-economic issues in the area, including a lack of affordable housing, which led to a community company being established to develop projects to help to meet local needs. That in turn included an application to register an interest in land. In at least two other cases, economic objectives were strongly linked to the aspiration for owning the asset, including in relation to the potential for developing income from renewable energy and accessing a forest resource for timber extraction and sale.

3.12 In contrast to this drive for housing and broader economic development apparent in the cases above, a desire to safeguard the land for development that would meet community needs was also evident in a number of cases. This illustrates the highly context-specific nature of CRtB communities, with the desire to safeguard land commonly occurring in relation to the potential for large-scale housing development in an area with potential as community greenspace. Community concern was pre-emptive in certain cases (no development was occurring and no planning application had been submitted), with the use of the CRtB to register an interest in land offering the potential to "secure the potential of the site for the community long-term". In other cases, community concern (and a subsequent application to register an interest in land) had resulted directly from a planning application:

'We were made aware of a planning application by the landowner to develop a caravan site…which was really not suited to the area…it was refused….but we were worried about possible future uses of the site and its potential sale for industrial or intrusive applications in what is a very scenic area and the impacts on house values and the environment'.

3.13 The CRtB legislation was (to a degree) therefore being used strategically in certain cases, as one interviewee noted: "that area had potential as a development site, which threatened the site...but we had no eye on specific purchase funding at that time and there was no immediate prospect, it was viewed more as a tactic...to protect the site". In a further case, the community had pursued an application to register an interest in land partly in response to a proposal from an energy company to develop a large wind farm, from which the community would not have received remuneration. In this case, the CRtB and acquiring the asset represented a mechanism to gain control over the form and extent of development, as well as benefit from it directly:

'We thought this would be the only route we could take [where] we would be in control and decide how many wind turbines we'd want…We have decided since then that we would like a few large wind turbines…But that's our choice. We've only gone for three on a 14,000 hectare place…Just to control the renewable energy possibilities on the estate - we are in control and nobody else.'

3.14 Strategic use of the CRtB also related to leverage in negotiations with landowners, with one community noting that potential existed to use the offer of not re-registering their community interest in land (which was near the end of its term) as a negotiating point with the landowner relating to gaining access rights across a specific part of his land.

Other key inputs to the CRtB process

3.15 Further inputs or drivers were evident in case studies and feedback from stakeholders (and reflected in the logic model) which can be summarised as:

3.16 Leadership from key individuals within the community and the provision of their time was viewed as critical to the CRtB process. This often included involvement of people with strong skill sets and, in some cases, the existence of people locally with direct professional experience of community development and previous experience of CRtB. The determination, energy and motivation of key people was repeatedly noted as vital to driving the process forward. The existing logic model accounts for this factor only through inclusion of the "volunteer time" input. To reflect this, it is suggested an updated version expand this input to include leadership and volunteer knowledge and skills

3.17 As well as input from key individuals, stakeholders noted that existing community organisations had been important in certain cases. The requirements to think ahead, plan for community development and identify options for the most appropriate use of land were viewed as positive aspects of the CRtB process. However, stakeholders felt that it was difficult to encourage communities to take a more forward thinking view and register 'timeous' applications, and that this was more likely to happen where community anchor organisations (i.e. existing community organisations such as development trusts and residents associations) were already present in the community to put planning in place

3.18 The provision of advice, guidance and funding by stakeholder bodies (in particular the Scottish Government, HIE, local authorities and, in some cases, community councils) was also critical. These inputs were evident from case studies at different stages of the CRtB process, although they became particularly important for communities in cases where assets had been acquired/purchased. This included the provision of funding and support relating to staff positions, developing management plans, running ballots, accessing facilities (e.g. council buildings) and, in one case, negotiating a major joint-funded infrastructural upgrading as part of the transfer.

3.19 Stakeholders felt that the Scottish Government had created good awareness of the CRtB within communities, as well as providing advice on the process and ensuring compliance with regulations. It was felt that the wider support network of organisations was also important in terms of providing advice to communities and supporting acquisitions. They also pointed out that support mechanisms for community acquisitions were more developed in relation to the Highlands and Islands region and the west coast. It was felt that there is a need for some changes to existing support mechanisms, to facilitate a potential shift towards urban and wider Scotland.

3.20 Establishing a community company was also seen in some cases as offering a mechanism to provide the community with a forum to engage with the political process at local level. Three specific case studies noted that establishing a community company was seen as a means to "give the community a voice" and to "give a focus for the community, helping us to come together and target our efforts".

3.21 The existence of the Land Reform Act itself, as a wider contextual element, was also viewed in some case studies as having been influential in their deciding to pursue an asset acquisition. The existence of the Act was noted as giving some communities confidence that asset acquisition was a legitimate ambition.

3.22 Stakeholders also viewed the Land Reform Act as a key piece of legislation for community asset acquisition. It was noted, however, that the CRtB is only one of a number of avenues that communities may use to acquire assets. The Scottish Land Fund (SLF), for example, was considered an initiative with similar criteria and outcomes, although with a "less rigid" structure (e.g. less information required and more flexible timescales) than the CRtB. Further, the legislation was viewed as having been a key influencing factor on many purchases which occurred outwith the provisions of the legislation and was therefore seen as a catalyst for change and reform far beyond those occasions where the right to buy has been enacted. As such, the CRtB was viewed as one component of the development of greater localised democracy in Scotland.

3.23 Finally, funding was considered an important input. Stakeholders felt that, due to high cost of land, the Scottish Land Fund (SLF) and other grants were key to enabling purchases, although they noted that loans and commercial finance were becoming more common routes to acquiring funding. One of the perceived strengths of the SLF was that it is capable of responding quickly when CRtB timescales are tight. Stakeholders felt that, without the SLF, it would be difficult for communities to acquire the necessary funding within the timescales. The SLF was therefore considered critical to the CRtB process.