Guidance on Engaging Communities in Decisions Relating to Land

The draft Guidance responds appropriately to the considerations of Section 44 (2) of the Act and appears to be underpinned by these five points. Giving additional thought to how these considerations should be delivered in engagement activities on the ground is welcomed (as suggested in point 14 of the draft Guidance).

Additional detail about Section 44 (5) (c) of the Act – ‘the ways in which community engagement should be carried out (for example, by consulting or involving the community)’ would also be welcomed. The current suggestion in point 15 that “The Guidance does not specify a particular method of consultation…” is understandable due to the wide variety of existing approaches but more directed support and associated training is likely to be needed for land owners and land managers (and the communities they engage with) to have effective and positive conversations.

It is encouraging that the Guidance will be applied to all land in Scotland and that the aim of engagement is to find ‘mutually beneficial solutions’ to any tensions surrounding land use decisions. The expectation that land owners and land managers should respond positively to engagement requests from a community is welcome, although additional thought is required about how land owners and land managers will be equipped/trained to respond positively and effectively to these requests. Engagement activities can be time-consuming with associated financial costs. Dealing with any tensions or conflict that may arise because of the engagement is also an issue that requires consideration.

Point 17 of the draft Guidance states that “The Guidance will apply when a decision is to be made on land use or land management, where this has the potential to significantly impact on a community”. Additional thought could be given to the point at which a community should be engaged – for example, should this be prior to plans for a development/land use change with ‘significant impact’ being made (i.e. engaging communities in the formulation of ideas/selection of plans), or at the point at which the land owner/land manager has already selected a preferred course of action? I would suggest that the former would allow communities to be involved in more long-term, holistic planning, rather than responding regularly to engagement about individual/piecemeal developments.

Case studies of engagement will serve to inform land owners, land managers and communities of what can work on the ground but some more detail about the engagement initiation process and the expectations of the engaging parties in the case studies would be useful.

Point 18 states that not all decisions relating to land management will require engagement. I would expect that a more definitive list of the types of decisions this includes would be welcomed by land owners, land managers and communities alike. Nonetheless, where engagement is not required, the benefits of regular and effective communication should be emphasised more within the Guidance. In its present form, the implication is that ‘no engagement’ is acceptable – research has found that good communications, an open-door policy and visible land owners/land management representatives leads to better relationships with communities (see the ‘Working Together for Sustainable Estate Communities’ booklet cited in the draft Guidance).

Where there are a range of views in the community (as suggested in Point 20), the Guidance could go further to include support on how to deal with existing tensions and/or those that arise during engagement processes. A concern here is that engaging parties will not be equipped/trained to carry out effective engagement, which may lead to the engagement having negative effects for relationships between communities, land owners and land managers.

Point 22 suggests that advice will be needed for those involved in engagement. While it is not possible to provide exhaustive advice within the Guidance, it would be useful to consider what practical support could be offered by public bodies and/or other individuals and organisations to provide timely advice to those who need it.

The terms ‘consultation’ and ‘engagement’ are used interchangeably in this section, which may confuse users. Some additional definitions of these terms may be useful.

Consultation as part of statutory requirements is a one-way process whereby information is gathered from a community about a proposed development. A two-way dialogue or engagement process is not presupposed. This could be made clearer in this section and additional thought given to the level of expectation that additional engagement should supplement statutory processes. I would suggest that additional engagement be encouraged, prior to the statutory process to allow concerns to be raised and addressed beforehand.

It would be useful to provide more detail about the NSCE in the Guidance, rather than requiring users of the Guidance to refer to other documentation. The National Standards list five outcomes of good community engagement, as well as a list of steps for good practice. Both lists could be included and, where necessary, tailored to apply more specifically to the land context.

Good practice principles for land owners and communities were also developed in recent research for the Scottish Government about barriers to community land-based activities, carried out by The James Hutton Institute (see http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/09/5827). These could also be included and/or adapted for the purposes of the Guidance.

Additional detail could be provided on what is meant by economic, social or cultural ‘opportunities’ – some case study examples will be helpful here. It would also be useful to emphasise that ‘opportunities’ may be different for the land owner, land manager or community, depending on the decision in question.

Linkages could be made more explicitly in this section with the guidance given in the NSCE. While this may lengthen the section, it will show clearly the range of different reasons for engaging communities in land use decisions, as well as the potential outcomes. This would also highlight negative engagement outcomes as well as positive ones.

The section regarding ‘Proportionate’ as a best practice principles raises some concerns regarding the balance of power in engagement. The suggestion here seems to be that the decision to engage lies solely with the land owner and/or land manager, who may not have a good understanding of the potential impacts of a decision on a community. Again, this is where sufficient training for land owners and support for community engagement (in particular, skilled facilitation) will be needed.

The flow chart in Section 4 is helpful and provides a useful starting point for thinking about when engagement should take place. While the Guidance focuses on decisions with ‘significant impact’ on local communities, what is perhaps missing is a sense of ongoing engagement/good relations between land owners, land managers and communities, and how this can take place alongside more distinct engagement processes that focus on a land use decision per se. This would encourage good communication and engagement to be the norm, rather than an activity reserved only for significant decisions or as a tick-box exercise.

The implication from the flow chart is that engagement need not occur for routine land management activities – while this is sensible, more emphasis could be given to the statement that “regular communication and engagement can still provide benefits to both the community and the land owner, even when no significant decisions are being taken”. It is this ‘open door policy’ and communicative manner that has been found in my research to found to lay good foundations for positive relationships between land owners and communities, rather than communication happening only at times when significant change might occur. Ongoing engagement and communication leads to higher levels of trust between the parties (again, this was emphasised in the ‘Working Together for Sustainable Estate Communities’ referenced in the draft Guidance). I would suggest that the phrase “no need to engage” be removed from the table and the importance of ongoing communication and creating opportunities for communities to feedback comments to the land owner be included here.

In the ‘informal engagement’ column, the methods of engagement are all ‘one-way’, i.e. an action or communication on the part of the land owner or land manager, which requires no feedback/comment from communities. I think this type of engagement is not that dissimilar to being a ‘good neighbour’ and more could be done under this heading to encourage ‘two-way’ dialogue.

Continuing from my response to Question 8, this table could be strengthened by adding more methods of engagement suited to each row, ranging from methods of communication for being a ‘Good Neighbour’ (websites, social media, newsletters, videos, lectures, publications etc) to consultation (meetings, forums, interviews, questionnaires, etc.) and more interactive participation (workshops, focus groups, steering committees, advisory panels, etc.).

The table in Section 5 also lacks consideration about when to carry out engagement. Time needs to be built into any process to allow communities to offer feedback before a decision is made. When engagement happens too late, communities can perceive engagement as a ‘Decide, Announce, Defend’ strategy whereby the decision has already been made and the engagement process is not genuine or a tick-box exercise.

Representativeness is a challenge in any engagement process. The focus on the community council as a main contact point is a concern as community councils do not necessarily represent the community view. The Guidance could include more detail and advice about the need to spend time ‘getting to know’ a community before drafting engagement plans. Again, regular communication and time spent networking within the community will reveal groups, association, individuals, etc. who land owners and land managers may be able to approach when considering land use decisions. This is not an easy task, however, and is time-consuming. Provision of training/external support for such activities also requires more consideration.

I expect that case studies will help to illustrate the expectations of the different groups and video interviews with different people involved in processes may help to share experiences more widely and in an accessible format.

Training and support will be vital for ensuring that the expectations placed on land owners, land managers and communities are met.

One question here would be whether the Guidance should include any advice with regards to record keeping related to engagement activities. As set out in Point 9, “if a land owner has not shown regard to the Guidance, Scottish Ministers could consider this as part of the evidence provided by a community body to support an application for the right to buy land to further sustainable development”. Land owners, land managers and communities may welcome a checklist or guidance on what sort of documentation of engagement processes should be kept, to ensure that such ‘evidence’ is available and of a sufficient standard for auditing purposes.

There are some specific examples in the ‘Working Together for Sustainable Estate Communities’ booklet referenced in the guidance. I would be happy to discuss any of the examples in more detail, if required.

I am currently on maternity leave so I have not had as much time as I would have hoped to respond to this consultation. I am more than happy to discuss the content of my response if any more detail on the points I have made is required.

I am pleased to see that the ‘Working Together for Sustainable Estate Communities’ booklet was used to develop the Guidance and I am also happy to discuss this publication and its findings in more detail.

A minor administrative point – if a short URL to the Working Together booklet (e.g. https://www.perth.uhi.ac.uk/working-together) would be a useful link for the final version, please let me know and I can arrange this. The current hyperlink is very long and hard to copy from a written document.

-

-

-

-