Impact Evaluation of the Community Right to Buy

4 Activities

4.1 This section describes and evaluates the activities involved in the CRtB process. It details the different stages involved in the CRtB application process and the stages reached by interested community bodies. It provides context and perspectives on the activities detailed in the logic model of the CRtB.

4.2 The information in this section is derived from results from the online survey and data collected from case study interviews and interviews with stakeholders.

Views on establishing a community body

4.3 Among case studies, setting up a community body was generally seen as a straightforward part of the CRtB process. This was especially true for communities that already had an existing community organisation or residents' association. Those involved in this stage reflected on the process as "fairly straightforward" or "quite easy". Community groups in this position also reflected positively upon the amount of advice provided to them by the Scottish Government, but many were unlikely to need much support.

4.4 For some case studies, however, establishment of the community body was viewed as a demanding stage in the process. Groups who relied on the involvement of a small number of volunteers or who lacked individuals with the necessary experience required to complete this part of the process had more difficulty establishing a community body. For such groups, having advice and support provided by the Scottish Government was particularly important.

Awareness raising and developing proposals

4.5 After the community bodies have been formed, those that wish to register an interest in land have carried out publicity and awareness-raising activities among the community about the CRtB. There was little evidence from case studies to suggest that community bodies had difficulty with this stage in the process. The outcomes section provides analysis of the extent which there has been increased awareness of the CRtB among the community body and the community as a whole.

4.6 Also before registering an interest, community bodies have aimed to develop and agree proposals for the use of land or assets. There was little evidence to suggest that community bodies had difficulty at this stage. Again, the impact of this activity is explored in more detail in the outcomes section, in relation to the specific outcomes "shared understanding and objectives for the community".

Registering an interest - level of success

4.7 The administrative data shows that of the 206 community bodies who received a Section 34(4) letter, 94 (46%) made at least one application to register an interest. Of these, 72 (76%) were successful.

4.8 Two thirds of the respondents in our online survey had tried to register an interest in land. Among those who had not registered an interest, 67% had considered registering an interest. Among the 33% that had not considered registering an interest through the CRtB, the main reason was that the community preferred to work with the landowner directly to negotiate a transfer or sale. This was either because there was a willing landowner who was cooperating with the community, or because the community felt that registering an interest would cause them to be viewed negatively by the landowner:

"We live in a small community where most people know each other. I think we would rather approach an owner directly rather than be seen as interfering."
[Survey respondent]

"They [landowner] would certainly be unwilling to sell to the community company who they see as a threat. Even registering an interest would be seen as an aggressive act on [our] part."
[Survey respondent]

4.9 As Figure 4.1 below shows, 61% of respondents in the online survey had been successful in registering an interest, while 30% were not successful (the remainder were currently in the process or did not know if they have been successful).

Figure 4.1: Level of success at registering an interest

Q: Was your Community Body successful in registering an interest in land through the Community Right to Buy?

Base: All respondents giving an answer (44).

Views on registering an interest in land using the CRtB

4.10 Sixty seven per cent of respondents in the online survey viewed the overall CRtB process as very or fairly difficult. The process to register was seen as particularly difficult, with 53% of respondents disagreeing that the process to register was straightforward (Figure 4.2)

4.11 Although the process was viewed as difficult by a majority of respondents, positive aspects of the process were identified. Sixty four per cent of respondents agreed that the process to register an interest in land using the CRtB was a helpful tool to move the community towards the community ownership of land and 62% agreed that it helped the community to think more about land and land assets (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Views on registering an interest in CRtB

Q. To what extent would you agree or disagree that that the process to register for the CRtB …..?

Base: All respondents giving an answer to each statement

4.12 Respondents identified the main hurdles to registering an interest in land under the CRtB as opposition from the landowner (61%), the short time period for completing the process (42%) and difficulty completing the application form (38%). A small number of survey respondents noted that their applications were unsuccesful due to the format of their Memorandum and Articles being unsuitable. This indicates a potential lack of clarity surrounding this part of the process.

4.13 Data collected in the case studies also revealed that registering an interest to purchase land was seen as one of the more difficult parts of the CRtB process. A major challenge identified with the application was the amount of work to be undertaken within a very short space of time. This was particularly true for "late" applications, where the land had already been put up for sale. The timescales for the application were seen to be very tight. This meant that those making the application had to have a sound awareness of what the process entailed. Participants also reflected upon the percieved skills required while making the application, for example knowledge of the legislation and experience in legal matters were seen to be advantageous.

4.14 The timescales involved were particularly challenging for community bodies that had small steering committees, or who lacked individuals with the necessary skills to complete the application process. A number of community bodies in the case studies had individuals on their steering committees with specific skill sets who led the application process. Some community bodies paid members of staff to manage and lead the CRtB process, while others relied on volunteer time. The ease or difficulty of this stage in the process often depended upon the few people who were driving the application process forward and how much time they could dedicate to the application. The following comments highlight the problems faced by individuals in community bodies during this stage:

"Four to five of us did most of the work. People were willing to donate but not many people were willing to come forward to do form filling."
[Case study, successfully registered but failed to purchase asset]

4.15 The application form was also viewed as problematic by some who felt that it could be clearer. For example, in one case study a member of a community body said:

"The CRtB application itself is not user friendly, it's easy to make mistakes or use an incorrect word."
[Case study, failed at registration stage]

4.16 Echoing some of the challenges identified by communtiy bodies, stakeholders felt that the complexity and formality of the process of registering an interest could be challenging for communities, and felt that the process might raise expectations among communities that something would happen as a result of their efforts. This complexity, it was felt, could also affect how accessible the CRtB is and how capable communities were of using and engaging with it. As a result, the CRtB may be perceived, by potential applicants, to be only available to communities that already possess the specialist skills required.

4.17 Not all community bodies experienced challenges registering an interest. Some case studies felt that this part of the process was "smooth and straightforward." The Scottish Government was seen as a reliable source of advice and support during this stage of the application process. The support they offered to community bodies when registering an interest was seen as both positive and necessary.

Land purchase - level of success

4.18 Of the 72 community bodies who successfully registered an interest in land, 19 (26%) made successful purchases (see Table 1.2).

4.19 The small number of respondents in the online survey (7) who had been successful in purchasing an asset under the CRtB had done so for a range of uses, which were:

• Community hydro scheme
• Community shop
• Heritage and education based visitor attraction
• Holiday accommodation
• Business units
• Village hall.

4.20 Some stakeholders stated that the number of purchases made through the CRtB was low compared to what might be expected. They also noted that some groups remain within the process for considerable time periods, before deciding to move through or opt out. It was stressed, however, that this does not signify that the legislation is not effective as its existence drives other acquisitions and provides a focal point for discussions around community acquisitions.

Challenges faced by community bodies when attempting to purchase

4.21 For community bodies who successfully registered an interest in land, there were a number of challenges faced when attempting to make purchases. The data below is derived from the case study interviews and stakeholder interviews.

4.22 A major obstacle to a successful purchase was whether the land or asset in question had a willing seller, a point noted by community bodies and stakeholders. In situations where landowners opposed the registration of an interest in land or refused to sell the asset, community bodies felt there was little action they could take. In instances where the landowner was unwilling to sell, relations between the landowner and the community body could deteriorate. For example, in one instance, the landowner proved difficult to contact and was not receptive to the CRtB process. The landowner sent a letter objecting to the process and threatened legal action (the landowner in this case study was unable to be contacted for the evaluation, therefore theies findings are based on feedback from the community body only). While not all relations were as strained, in circumstances where a landowner did not wish to sell to the community body, community bodies felt that they could go no further in the process.

4.23 The CRtB legislation states that where land has not come up for sale within 5 years of it being registered, the interest should be re-registered. Another challenge was that of maintaining community support throughout the re-registration process. In these cases, as the initial objectives (of purchasing land) had not yet been met, maintaining community interest was difficult. A member of one community body commented:

"People were losing energy anyway, it needed a big success like getting the land for more people to come in and a small number of people were doing it all".
[Case study, successfully registered, registration expired]

4.24 Among some of those who went through the process to re-register their interest in land, the process was described as "overly bureaucratic", especially in circumstances where little had changed since the initial application.

4.25 In cases where the asset was made available for purchase, there were other challenges faced by community bodies. The first was securing the support of the community through the community ballot. For some, the ballot was seen to have been poorly explained in the legislation and overly expensive. For example, one community body had their first ballot deemed invalid due to the wording of the question. The process had to be repeated incurring additional costs.

4.26 Providing the necessary supporting information to the Scottish Government was another challenge at this stage of the process. Developing business plans could be difficult, especially within tight timescales. Where advice on the preparation of business plans had been received from support organisations, this was seen as particularly useful.

4.27 A further challenge faced by community bodies at this stage was securing funding to make the land purchase at the set valuation. Some community bodies questioned the valuation set on the asset, describing it as a "closed door process" which lacked openness and transparency as it was not made clear what the valuation was based on. Among those that were unable to secure funding, reasons given for this included a lack of awareness of funding sources and a lack of time and resources to make funding applications.

4.28 Stakeholders stated that timescales for securing funding to purchase assets were very tight and placed community bodies under considerable pressure. The risk of not meeting these timescales was viewed as a potential barrier to achieving the outcome of purchasing land/assets.