Impact Evaluation of the Community Right to Buy

7. Conclusions

Inputs to CRtB

7.1 The analysis of inputs (Section 3) distinguished drivers or triggers of the CRtB process (i.e. fey factors that drive community concern) and necessary inputs (key mechanisms and wider contextual factors required to facilitate the process). Local context and concern about decline and/or potential improvement (of key assets or the community generally) represents the critical trigger in case study examples. This reflects the emphasis in stakeholder interviews on the importance of the core drive for acquisitions coming from within the community, to ensure long term motivation and community involvement (i.e. capacity). However, the role of other inputs such as advice, guidance and funding provided by key agencies and organisations was viewed as fundamental to enabling the process to occur, most particularly in relation to asset acquisition.

7.2 The case studies evidence a range of specific triggers for the CRtB (within the broad frame of local context), with a wide variety of related community ambitions (e.g. creating new greenspace) evident across case studies. This finding evidences the relevance and applicability of the CRtB to a very broad range of scales (in terms of the scale of the asset, community size and capacity etc.) and the highly specific nature of local contexts and community concerns. Local leadership is critical, with some communities benefitting from the involvement of key individuals with direct experience of community development/CRtB processes; community capacity across Scotland may vary considerably in this respect, necessitating a case-specific approach on the part of support agencies.

Activities and challenges of CRtB

7.3 CRtB activities presented in Section 4 evidence the critical underlying importance of community capacity in relation to successfully engaging with the CRtB processes and managing related challenges. The levels of activity and degree of success of community bodies is not necessarily a clear indicator of wider community involvement, awareness and capacity, with a small core group of volunteers often responsible for the application process and the activities of the community body more generally over long periods. Involvement of people with direct experience of the CRtB or similar processes can have significant impacts on the degree of challenge community bodies face in relation to timescales, fundraising and completing key stages of the process (e.g. setting up a community company, completing an application to register, carrying out a ballot etc.). This is further evidenced by a high number of successful second CRtB applications from the same community bodies, with the process easing with direct experience. In contrast, smaller, less experienced groups often find the process highly challenging. Furthermore, maintaining the interest and motivation of volunteers in the community body post-application (where purchase has not occurred) is often difficult, due to a drop off in energy and a lack of clear focus for the community body.

7.4 Uptake of the CRtB and the number of land/asset purchases occurring through the process remains relatively low, given the profile of the legislation, a view supported by stakeholder interviews. The numbers completing a purchase are also much lower than the number completing the earlier stages of the process. There are multiple reasons for this 'drop off' across stages, including (among others) community bodies taking other avenues to acquiring assets, break up of community bodies and (most fundamentally) the land not coming up for sale. Critically, timeous applications to register an interest in land are more likely to be successful, indicating the importance of encouraging communities to pursue a strategic approach to development and consider the CRtB at an early stage. Concerns about community-landowner relations can represent a barrier in this regard and although examples of positive community-landowner relations existed, both survey and case study results evidence landowner objections (and accessibility of landowners) as a key barrier to registering an interest through the CRtB. This factor supports the case for the development of a Community Land Agency (as recommended by the LRRG), in part to act as an independent facilitator of negotiations between land owners and communities.

7.5 Notably, at least some of the challenges (e.g. timescales and costs/funding) presented here are likely to be at least partly addressed through proposed measures in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 (see Section Annex C).

Outcomes

7.6 In general, the outcomes specified in the logic model are being delivered to varying extents and in relation to various stages of the CRtB process (Section 5). Outcomes differed across case studies in relation to a number of factors, including community capacity, stage of the process reached, and (where assets had been acquired) the scale and income generating potential of the asset. The development of relationships and partnerships with stakeholders which can occur from working through the CRtB process was particularly critical. Both case studies and stakeholder interviews concur that a long-term approach to partnership building and agency involvement is required to ensure continued delivery of outcomes, with investment targeted at supporting community bodies key to these groups developing their own income streams and becoming more self-sustaining over time.

7.7 A fuller range of outcomes was evident in cases where assets had been acquired; however, outcomes also clearly occur from earlier stages of the process. The scale of the asset also does not necessarily dictate the range of outcomes delivered, with a wide range of outcomes (including more difficult to quantify outcomes such as cohesion and empowerment) occurring in cases where the asset concerned is (comparatively) small in scale and limited in terms of income generating potential. In cases where assets had not been acquired, a decline is evident in outcomes in certain cases after an interest in land has been registered. If asset acquisition is assumed as the core goal of the CRtB (as opposed to general empowerment and community development) it is realistic to assume that this is likely to occur in at least some cases.

7.8 A disjuncture can exist in relation to who benefits from outcomes, with many clearly linked to community bodies. Wider community benefits are also evident, although in some cases these are more difficult to define and/or identify. This raises the question of who exactly benefits and who is empowered through the CRtB within communities, with some specific outcomes more restricted to community bodies, which can consist of a relatively small segment of the local community. This suggests continued emphasis is required on wider community engagement, governance processes (e.g. representative governance) and identifying and monitoring indicators which specifically assess and differentiate community-wide benefits.

7.9 In general, the outcomes identified concur with many of the wider outcomes of community asset acquisition identified in previous studies (see Sections 2.2-2.6). Additionally, the case studies in Section 6 include examples of outcomes resulting from community bodies (formed to pursue the CRtB but unsuccessful in acquiring the land) delivering other outcomes as a result of having gone through the structured CRtB process and setting specific community objectives. The case study findings also support the view that the CRtB is being used strategically in certain cases, including in relation to attempts to control, or gain community benefit from, local development and to provide some security over key land or land assets during specific periods. Examples also exist of the process being used (in part) as a negotiating tool in discussions with existing landowners reflecting the indirect outcomes of the legislation discussed in Section 2.2. These elements arguably indicate a degree of linked empowerment, even in cases where no asset transfer occurs, as they provide communities with a window, during which time new opportunities can emerge and communities can organise themselves effectively.

Logic Model Review

7.10 A number of specific conclusions can be made in relation to the structure and layout of the existing logic module based on key findings. These include:

• In relation to inputs, based on findings, the existing input of "time given by members of the community" should be expanded to incorporate local leadership and volunteer skill-sets/knowledge and experience of community development processes. Inputs which represent "triggers" or 'drivers' could also be distinguished from enabling factors within the inputs column.
• A number of the existing activities within the current logic model could be expanded and in other cases merged to reflect the different emphases evident in the report's findings. Specifically the "community body established" and 'memorandum and articles of association created can be merged. The community ballot emerged as a key work area for communities and could be distinguished as a separate activity in the logic model.
• The existing outcomes in the logic model are well represented in the findings presented in this report. However, there is scope for a degree of emphasis to be placed on outcomes, as well as on inputs and activities (e.g. to indicate key inputs/activities/outcomes at different stages).

7.11 A revised logic model is included in Annex A (additions are highlighted in yellow).