CLAN Feed

Background

What follows is a condensed version of a dissertation which I undertook as part an MSc in Sustainable Rural Development with the University of Highlands and Islands (UHI) in 2023.

Using qualitative social research, I sought to find out to what extent involvement in developing Local Place Plans, introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, built capacity for community ownership, focussing on the case study area of Berwickshire. In practice this involved interviewing people at the “coal-face” of community-led planning, such as those actively involved in community councils or development trusts. The research was completely independent and not commissioned by any of the organisations mentioned in the paper.

I have chosen this blog-style reflection to introduce key sections of the dissertation, from the perspective of my role as a community development practitioner covering the same area where I was carrying out the research. This has enabled me to weave in some insights from my work role to the findings.

I work for a “Third Sector Interface” or TSI. We are a link between the state and 3rd sector, a voice for local community groups to the local authority, and part of our role is to improve collaboration between the two. The TSI supported me in this research as part of my continuous professional development, but had no influence over the findings.

The research found low trust in the local authority and a general sense that their approach to interaction with communities was top-down and bureaucratic. Yet I am also aware, from attending Community Planning Partnership meetings and working closely with local authority officers and elected members, that there is an acknowledgement of the need for culture change within the local authority, to be more present in the community and to move away from ineffective consultations to meaningful community engagement, led by local groups.

While I know the following research summary may not be comfortable reading for those in the local authority, I hope that this willingness to change culture and to take a coproduced approach with communities will mean that the research conclusions can be digested with openness.

One tip I picked up as a mature student, juggling family life and work as well as studies, was to read abstracts, introductions and conclusions of papers, and only dig into the research techniques, literature reviews and presentation of results when time allowed or a deeper understanding was required. These sections give a good overview of the research without any potential for local recognition of any of the anonymised participants and so are set out below.

I recommend that the findings detailed in the conclusion section should be used to constructively shape the approach we are taking to support community-led planning in Berwickshire and hope that the research will also inspire a co-produced approach to resourcing and supporting community-led planning further afield.

Abstract

This research explores the experiences of community bodies at the forefront of developing Local Place Plans (LPPs), to gain insights into the potential for this process to build capacity for community ownership of land and assets. The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, through which LPPs were introduced, is intended to complement Land Reform and Community Empowerment legislation to achieve this aim. However, there is uncertainty over whether this will be the case in practice, due to the increased burden which development of LPPs places on volunteers, low trust in the planning system and the potential for state co-option of the community sector.

Focusing on a case study in Berwickshire, Scottish Borders, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with seven representatives of community bodies involved in LPPs, or considering involvement. The interviews give deep insights into the barriers and obstacles faced by groups, the most appropriate support and resources they require and the extent to which involvement is building capacity and aspiration for community ownership.

The research reveals considerable preexisting involvement in community-led planning and aspiration for or involvement in community ownership. It also finds potential for development of LPPs to lead to further community ownership through increased social capital due to greater connectedness; through a stronger mechanism for the designation of land and assets of community value; and through enabling a more robust funding case. However, the findings reveal the existence of substantial barriers of pressure on volunteers and the groups’ experiences of the Local Authority as culturally bureaucratic and centralised, which could negatively impact on social capital by stifling the self-organisation of communities.

The findings give key insights into the form a co-produced supportive framework might take, to facilitate a genuinely community-led approach to the development of LPPs. Such a framework could enable barriers to be overcome and has the potential to rebuild the trust that will be essential for a working relationship between the community sector and the local state if LPPs are to lead to increased community ownership of land and assets.

Introduction

In a world facing the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, where rural land is in the spotlight for solutions ranging from carbon offsetting, to large scale wind farms, it is critical that we do not lose sight of the well-established understanding of sustainable development as a “three-legged stool”, combining environmental, economic and social development and placing local communities at the heart of development.

In Scotland, where rural land has been the scene of historic clearances of communities to meet the economic and leisure needs of a relatively small number of wealthy landowners, this remains a live issue. The concentrated pattern of landownership in Scotland persists, and now the purchase of large areas of rural land by “green lairds” for tree planting for carbon credits is posing a new challenge to rural communities.

Community ownership of land and assets is arguably the most empowering means for local communities to make all forms of rural landuse work for local. In Scotland the Land Reform and Community Empowerment policy agendas have facilitated a change in this direction, complemented by a raft of other legislation, guidance and funding.

Alongside this shift, the understanding of complex adaptive systems in the natural world has been shown to apply far more widely, including to the way in which communities thrive at their best, in harmony with the environment, when they are able to self-organise. Delegation of power to local communities is therefore vital for sustainable development.

Two connected and important enablers of this delegation of power are for local people to have a meaningful stake in planning for their local areas and community ownership of land and assets. This research explores the link between community-led planning and community ownership, focusing on a case study in rural Berwickshire in the Scottish Borders.

The planning system in Scotland provides a statutory framework for decisions relating to land and assets. The Planning Act (Scotland) 2019 brought in various changes, notably the opportunity for communities to register Local Place Plans (LPPs) with the Local Authority (LA). Community Land Scotland (2022) have expressed the potential for this new legislation to lead to increased community ownership.

Research undertaken by Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC) and Nick Wright Planning was commissioned by the Scottish Government to inform the publication of a draft “how to” guide for community bodies leading on LPPs. This research explored the “challenges and opportunities” of LPPs and highlighted the potential for them to present a burden of responsibility on local communities, which, without attention to capacity building and support, could exacerbate inequalities.

Community-led planning is not a new concept to many communities in Scotland which have some form of Community Action Plan (CAP). It is possible that the introduction of LPPs could present a mechanism for state control over the self-organisation of local communities. Alternatively, this new legislation could facilitate capacity building which would enable communities previously not engaged with community-led planning to be in a position to take on community ownership.

LPPs bring with them the potential to increase collaboration between the community (“third”) sector and the state and thus to facilitate community ownership. However, doubt remains about whether the legislation goes far enough to rebuild broken trust in the planning system. Others have expressed concern about an over-dependence on volunteers, relating this to the withdrawal of the state.

Secondary legislation relating to the development of LPPs was adopted in January 2022, presenting the opportunity for community-led plans to be registered with LAs. One year on, this research set out to gain early insights into the relationship between LPPs and community ownership in the case study area. It is hoped that the findings will contribute to a body of work exploring community ownership in relation to planning more widely, a research gap recently identified by Doyle (2023: 9-10), and provide insights into the form a supportive framework could take which is co-produced with community groups.

Qualitative research, utilising semi-structured interviews with members of community bodies leading on LPPs, or considering doing so, was undertaken to meet the following aim and objectives and to answer the subsequent research questions:

Aim

The aim of this research is to gain insight into the experiences of members of community bodies at the forefront of the development of LPPs, through a case-study in Berwickshire, in order to explore the potential for this process to build community capacity for ownership of land and assets.

Objectives:

• To understand the pressures which involvement in development of LPPs places on community bodies and the obstacles being faced.
• To explore what support measures and resources are needed to ensure such community bodies are sufficiently equipped to develop LPPs.
• To gain insight into whether the experience of involvement in development of LPPs is encouraging aspiration towards, and building capacity for, community ownership.

Research questions

• To what extent does the process of developing LPPs contribute to building the capacity of community bodies for community ownership?
• To what extent does the process of developing LPPs lead to increased aspiration of community bodies to become community land and / or asset owners?

Conclusions and Recommendations

Research question 1: To what extent does the process of developing LPPs contribute to building the capacity of community bodies for community ownership?

The findings support the assertation that for communities to thrive they need to have the power and resources necessary to self-organise. This process of self-organisation involves developing trusted connections within and beyond the local community, facilitating a level of collaborative working and opening up channels of resource, support and information, thus building the social capital necessary to prepare the community for successful community ownership.

Where barriers to this process are present, the ability of community bodies to successfully develop and implement LPPs is hindered, and the lack of progress has the potential to lead to disengagement, damaged trust, and reduced capacity for community ownership.

Several barriers to developing LPPs were found, notably the perceived “top-down” culture of the LA, characterised by poor communication, a distant approach, overly restricted access to funding, a lack of understanding of local communities and a lack of trust. In addition, the burden which the development of LPPs places on volunteers presented a substantial barrier.

If involvement in the process of developing LPPs can lead to such barriers being overcome, then LPPs could present an opportunity to increase social capital and take steps towards the thriving “well connected community” which would be best positioned for community ownership. To facilitate this LAs must be willing to allow the process of accessing support and resources itself to be co-produced by community bodies in a position to develop LPPs.

This research provided an in-depth insight into what forms such support might take and highlighted the importance of local communities leading on the design and implementation of support frameworks in other LA areas.

Key suggestions for a supportive framework for the case study area, Berwickshire, were:

• Delegation of power through reduced bureaucracy for access to funding.
• Clear and jargon free communication and presentation of the invitation to develop LPPs.
• A clear structure to operate within, including a registration process and LPP templates.
• Access to support through a designated point of contact, preferably within the TSI.
• Receptivity and responsivity of the LA to ongoing feedback from community bodies to enable support offerings to be flexible and locally relevant.
• Funded training and upskilling.
• Core funding for staff, not just project funding.
• For the LA to become more aware of community bodies other than CCs, such as DTs.
• Mediation between groups which do not have a good working relationship, upon request.
• For the LA to improve their relationship with community groups, by becoming more present in the community and by acting on community priorities identified within LPP which are within statutory duties.

Research question 2: To what extent does the process of developing LPPs lead to increased aspiration of community bodies to become community land and / or asset owners?

There was some evidence that involvement in LPPs leads to aspiration for community ownership. However, there was wider evidence of a link between aspiration for community ownership and involvement in previous forms of community-led planning, such as CAPs, although this could have been due to the state of progress of LPPs at the time of the research.

There was evidence that community groups were aware of the potential for LPPs to present a stronger case for community ownership than CAPs. Despite the barriers and obstacles faced in developing LPPs, community groups were choosing to get to grips with them, primarily because they deemed it important to take up this opportunity to strengthen the community voice in decisions on land and asset use, and to enable access to funding and resources available for community-led projects, such as community ownership of land and assets.

Limitations of the research

These findings give a good depth of insight into the interactions of different communities with a single LA with regard to LPPs. While that builds a consistent picture of the approach of this LA and the impact that may have on community capacity, the findings might not be reflective of other LAs in Scotland. However, it is fair to say that the findings can contribute to this body of knowledge.

Those who agreed to be interviewed were in the main those who had decided to be involved in leading on an LPP. They may typify the “louder voices” or those with the greatest capacity for involvement, although this was not universally the case. It would have been useful if more of those who had decided not to get involved had been willing to be interviewed, to gain insights into what had led to this decision.

The choice to not pursue a mixed methods approach, primarily due to the time limitations for the research, limited the sample size and scope of information it was possible to gather. Quantitative data could have been collected from participants who were sceptical about developing an LPP and were not willing to be interviewed.

The state of progress of development of LPPs was not as advanced as was anticipated when embarking on the research, therefore insights were limited into what impact this would have on capacity once plans were developed or registered. However, the research did provide valuable insights into the potential impact on community capacity, the ambition for community ownership and into what was stalling progress.

Recommendations for further research

It is recommended that this research is repeated in other areas, to ascertain whether the perceived culture in the LA was typical or unusual and to inform co-produced supportive frameworks appropriate in other areas.

A longitudinal study in one- and five-years’ time would also be useful to explore progress in Berwickshire.

Pilot studies could be undertaken in areas without a group developing an LPP, with funded posts provided for local people to lead on an LPP and receive training, in order to discover whether this might have a positive impact in reducing inequalities.

Complementary quantitative research is recommended to gather data on the background of individuals involved in leadership roles within groups leading on LPPs, to gauge the pre-existing level of capacity and analyse whether there is a positive correlation between this and success in developing and implementing an LPP.

In the 5-year ‘Scotland’s Land Reform Futures’ project, the first research I carried out explored how alternative models of land tenure and governance in other countries addressed land reform goals such as ownership diversity, community empowerment, and public benefit, what factors contribute to or impede their success, and can be learned from them for Scottish land reform.

Continuing this research into alternative models, we looked at four case studies of innovative community-led land-based initiatives in rural Scotland. We chose cases that are examples of bottom-up initiatives supported by relationships across multiple governance levels and geographies: Tarras Valley Nature Reserve, Comrie Croft, Glengarry Community Development Trust and NorthWest 2045.

While analysis is ongoing, there are early findings about contributions/barriers to success - success generally, according to participants, meaning community development and the sustainability of the initiative). Success is also summed up in this quote from a participant from Langholm: “When people stop saying, ‘it’s yours’ and start saying, ‘it’s ours’.’’

Contributors to success include:

social capital (the value that is created by social connections and relationships in society):

formal partnerships and support peer-to-peer learning and capacity building
“we don’t all have to keep reinventing the wheel” (Glengarry Community Development Trust)

community engagement:

focus on local needs, good local relationships, economic contributions talking to people, leafleting, drop-in sessions; visibility, accessibility in the area, clear messaging feedback to community on actions and decisions taken

intangible/personal qualities:

“It takes a special kind of person that is willing to come into the office every week and be like ‘Right. I’m going to tell you about this thing that we’re going to be doing and it’s going to take forever. It’ll be really exciting.’ And to stay excited.” (Glengarry Community Development Trust) confidence to “think big and not be scared” (Tarras Valley)

Barriers or challenges faced include:

Financial:

high cost of land, costs of permissions, feasibility studies, etc. reliance on volunteers; capital funding easier to get than operational funding staff spend too much time ‘grant farming’ for their own positions government budget restraints

Capacity:

reliance on a small pool of busy volunteers geographical community may have lack of knowledge and experience with governance, ownership and management access to land – in a land-based initiative – is not necessarily the biggest hurdle “you can't empower communities without giving them the resources to actually carry out their activities… because it's meaningless.” (NorthWest 2045)

Significantly, innovative community initiatives are hindered by one-size-fits-all policies or processes that may not be joined up within and between levels and across geographies. Some brief examples include:

• Local authorities implementing the recent short-term lets licensing policy differently from each other in similar situations
• A Government agency treating a community group like a housing developer with road access requirements
• The Forestry Commission insisting on a right of pre-emption for the land a community wanted to purchase but the Scottish Land Fund not wanting to give money with that condition on it
• A general sense that government departments are siloed and this creates barriers

Greater efforts towards policy coherence, supporting capacity building and providing reliable operational funding would assist with the sustainability of these initiatives and their transferability to other localities.

The full report will come in April, 2026, to be published on the Scotland’s Land Reform Futures project website.

Contact: Naomi Beingessner, naomi.beingessner@hutton.ac.uk

Project team: Naomi Beingessner, Lorna Pate, James Glendinning, Carey Doyle, Fiona Bender, Bryony Nelson

In the context of green spaces, community asset transfer of ownership is fraught with added complexities. With increased financial pressures on Local Authorities, open land and green spaces are commercially sold or developed to generate capital receipts. This is unlike the case with built assets wherein public sector austerity leads to transfer of ownership or management to communities.

None of the four urban Local Authorities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen have transferred ownership of green spaces to community bodies under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. In Glasgow, which is the most populated city in Scotland and is reeling under an acute housing emergency, the national goal of increasing community landownership clashes with the city-level need to supply land for housing. So how should urban communities seeking to own natural green spaces practically pursue their aspirations in the face of urban governance that needs to embed community participation? Creation of bespoke and contextual knowledge and support to address heightened challenges encountered by urban communities planning ownership of green spaces offers a solution.

In an exploratory feasibility study for The Children’s Wood—a community body in Glasgow—case studies of three other community bodies (situated relatively near Glasgow), which have acquired ownership of natural green spaces, are developed. The Children’s Wood holds lease over a 1.4-hectare green space, called The Children’s Wood and North Kelvin Meadow, under the Community Empowerment Act and is exploring ownership of the space for long-term security.

Given the conflicting policy priorities concerning land use, urban community bodies like The Children’s Wood need to make a stronger case and application for landownership. Experiences of Douglasdale Recreation, Environment, Access, and Leisure (REAL) Group in South Lanarkshire, Inchinnan Development Trust in Renfrewshire, and Crail Community Partnership in Fife bring together key transferable insights.

The case studies bring out crucial considerations and strategies on governance, finance, and community support. These include strengthening the governing document, identifying localised funding, making the Stage 1 application early, and formalising community engagement. Producing replicable knowledge through peer learning benefits urban communities exploring asset transfer of ownership of green spaces.

Further research on aligning community landownership with local planning priorities is also important. Creating a Local Place Plan under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 would provide urban communities exploring ownership of green spaces a way of working with Local Authorities that syncs with national and local planning outcomes. Analyses of local planning documents and how asset transfer requests of ownership by communities can add value to urban planning goals would enhance and sustain community ownership of green spaces.

For the full dissertation, please access the link on the Community Woodlands Association website: https://www.communitywoods.org/research-reports

For more information, please contact Poorvi Kulkarni on poorvikulkarni06@gmail.com

Introduction

The rise of contemporary community landownership in Scotland over the past thirty-five years has far outpaced systematic research into it. Legislation and funding to support its expansion has developed despite numerous and persistent knowledge gaps such as how it affects local people and environments — or indeed the historic precedence of other forms of communal land governance in Scotland and beyond. The absence of a strong and collaborative research base could undermine ongoing land reform policy in Scotland and underlines the role that the research community can and should play.

The Community Landownership Academic Network (CLAN) was established in 2021 to corral existing research, identify knowledge gaps, and work in partnership with a range of stakeholders to plan, conduct, and disseminate relevant applied research in this area. The 2026 CLAN Gathering will represent the first academic conference on this topic, with a format suited to the presentation and discussion of new knowledge and findings in this area. To ensure that such knowledge is useful and practically relevant, we greatly welcome everyone interested or involved in this topic to attend, including those working in policy, practice and funding.

Conference structure and call for abstracts

The in-person conference will specifically consider the history, policy and practice of community land. While much attention may focus on the Scottish context, we welcome submissions relating to community landownership globally. Submissions can be made for either oral or poster presentations here. Due to time constraints, we may not be able to accommodate all oral presentations, in which instance the applicant may be offered a poster presentation instead.

• The discussion of history will comprise a facilitated discussion with an invited panel of speakers, focusing on key historical developments and their impact on contemporary understandings. As such, submissions relating to the history of community landownership are limited to poster presentations.
• We welcome proposals for oral or poster presentations relating to recent research on modern community landownership in Scotland and beyond. Research proposals and ideas in development are also welcomed, with postgraduate and early-career researchers particularly encouraged to present.
• Finally, based on these presentations and other knowledge of the field, conference attendees will be invited to inform a strategic research agenda to guide future work in this area. This will take the form of a facilitated workshop which all are invited to contribute to.

Further details of timings, panel members and guest speakers will be revealed in due course, so keep an eye on CLAN’s social media for updates.

Dates, logistics and accommodation

The first CLAN Gathering will take place at UHI Perth from 16th - 17th June 2026. Perth is easily accessible on train and bus routes. The UHI Perth campus is a short bus/taxi from the bus/train stations, or around a 30-minute walk.

Affordable accommodation is available at the Perth Youth Hostel which is situated on the UHI Perth campus. In addition, there are a wide range of hotels and other accommodation options in Perth City Centre.

Lunches and refreshments will be provided for attendees, while the conference dinner will be available at an additional cost.

Costs

Costs for attendees will be kept to an absolute minimum. Funding is yet to be confirmed so we cannot give an indication of what the Conference fee may be, or indeed whether travel costs may be covered/subsidised. However, we do not anticipate the cost to be in excess of £50 per person.

Timeline

• 31st January 2026: Deadline for abstract/presentation applications (EXTENDED to 15th February 2026)
• 1st March - 30th April 2026: Registration open
• 16th-17th June 2026: CLAN Gathering

Local Place Plans were introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 to enable local communities to influence Local Development Plans. By the end of 2024 there were 88 registered Local Place Plans located largely in rural planning authorities in Scotland. How can this be explained? What are the drivers, processes and outcomes? By interviewing different actors involved in local place planning, the dissertation examined the extent to which Local Place Plans build capacity and coordinate place-based activity in rural communities and support a just transition.

Collaborative planning refers to wide involvement and engagement of local interests in plan-making to help progress change in a place. Patsy Healey’s interpretation of collaborative planning theory offers principles and ideas focused on governance, communication and relationship-building in planning processes that can be helpful when undergoing significant land use change. The dissertation argues that if just transition is based on fair and transparent stakeholder participation (also referred to in the literature as procedural justice) then collaborative planning offers useful principles for a just transition.

It's still early days but the findings suggest that the process of preparing Local Place Plans has an important deliberative role in build consensus and capacity which is important for a just transition. However, there are disparities regarding the uptake of Local Place Plans and their ability to influence planning decisions. Increased capacity and skills are needed at planning authority and community level to enable Local Place Plans to be developed evenly and equitably. The (technical) requirement to spatially map and align with National Planning Framework 4 has the potential to make communities dependent on external support and expertise. Other findings include that Local Place Plans are being used for more than ‘planning’, for example, to help access funding and to deliver local improvements linked to transport, health, and sustainability. There are early indications that the Local Place Plans register is a resource for other local interests, beyond planning.

There are range of factors are associated with the Local Place Plans process including the rural geography of communities and community benefit funds linked to renewable energy projects. The Covid-19 pandemic also was also poignant in highlighting local needs and priorities around the time of Local Place Plan development. While more research is needed to assess the practices and outcomes of Local Place Plans, the dissertation suggests that Local Plan Plans have potential to facilitate greater participation in local issues. From an academic perspective, bringing together just transition concepts and planning theory offers a valuable contribution to both theory and practice which should be further explored.