Guidance on Engaging Communities in Decisions Relating to Land

There should be clearer reference in the Guidance to how it relates to these principles, other than the list of relevant National Outcomes in section 2. For example there is no direct link in the guidance to the consideration of promoting respect for and observance of human rights.

The scope is fine in principle. The aim to avoid being too prescriptive is sensible, but this means that the Guidance will still need to clearly define where engagement is expected to be carried out. Some illustrations of what might constitute a proportionate demonstration of community engagement will help illustrate the expectation.

The statutory requirements are already well set out and understood (which is not to say they could not be improved) but any softer and supplementary consultation, where there is clear community interest, may add value to the local outcomes sought.

This is an obvious approach to follow. There should be better cross-referencing with the National Standards in section 3 to explain how these relate to the principles set out in the draft Guidance.

This section could be clearer, as it refers to decisions made by land owners and managers that could have any impact on a local community (1st paragraph), or a significant impact on a local community (2nd paragraph). More explanation is needed to show what is meant by a significant impact, as this is a key trigger for the need for engagement. It would also be helpful to provide some more explanation on what constitutes a decision to continue with existing practices in relation to land. While we appreciate on-going dialogue is helpful, in reality a trigger to kick-start or progress the conversation is probably easier to implement.

It would help to cross-reference these with the National Standards for Community Engagement to explain how these are related.

More explanation of what is meant by a significant impact should be added to the guidance, as this is a key trigger for engaging with the community.

It is useful to set out situations where engagement is not needed. However the examples given are either very specific (‘most deliveries’), or too wide (‘farming, forestry and land management’). This section should be re-worded to avoid misunderstanding.

There are no examples given of when engagement should be carried out. Whilst it is appropriate for the guidance not to be too prescriptive, some broad indication of when this should be done and perhaps at what scale, is needed to complete this section.

As community engagement should be part of the decision-making process, the guidance should make it clear that sufficient time is given for appropriate engagement before the relevant decision is made.

It must be borne in mind there will be different views on what type of farming, forestry, estate management and building works are considered significantly disruptive.

This section contains clearer information on when to engage than section 4, as well as useful information on the appropriate scale of engagement.

It would be helpful if the draft Guidance could continue to better illustrate the circumstances where community engagement is recommended or required, in particular by explaining what is meant by significant impact on the local community. Without this there could be varying degrees of engagement by different land managers. The other issue which is not highlighted here is one of scale – in the sense that it may also be possible/preferable and potentially more efficient and effective for land managers to collaborate in consulting with local communities.

Other than these comments though, it is helpful that the guidance confirms that a proportionate approach to engagement depending on the specific circumstances should be followed.

There is nothing in the guidance about the expectations of communities. It would help to include information on how land managers might deal with responses from any engagement with a community, particularly where there is a range of views expressed. This has been covered in paragraph 20 of the consultation document, but not carried forward into the draft Guidance.

There is not enough clarity on when a land owner or manager should engage with a local community on the management of the land, in particular in relation to ongoing management. There is also no reference to the link with Part 5 of the 2016 Act

SNH owns and manages over 40 nature reserves across Scotland. On some of these we have set up local liaison groups that include members of local communities, as well as representatives of wider stakeholder and user groups, NGOs and local authorities. We are happy to provide specific examples of these groups for the Guidance if necessary.

No

None

None

None

None