The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE COMMUNITY PLANNING

Introduction

5.1 The objectives of this chapter are to review the process of community planning (as defined under Local Government in Scotland 2003 Act ( LGSA)) in terms of its contribution to: diversity in land ownership and land use; and community involvement in land ownership and land management.

5.2 Insights from the Land Reform Policy Group indicate that land reform policies aim to remove land-based barriers to sustainable development of rural communities. The focus of this chapter is on how land is owned and used, with a focus on community involvement. The LRPG vision has aspects that could be tackled in a Community Planning Partnership ( CPP):

• More local involvement, greater commitment and accountability by private landowners in Scotland
• More scope for community ownership and management
• More local involvement, accountability and employment in publicly owned land
• More local involvement and accountability and local employment in NGO owned land
• More integrated planning of rural land use at the local level
• More community involvement about decisions in rural use
• A wider range of land based activity than agriculture

And the legislation within the suite of land reform policies also includes measures that secure public interest and increase community involvement.

5.3 Therefore, the focus for this exercise was to consider the extent to which community planning partnerships demonstrate, encourage or prevent:

• Liaison between private, public and NGO land owners and the local communities
• Opportunities for community management and ownership of local land
• Integrated land use planning
• Land use/ownership/management that takes account of local community views
• Local community views on diversification of the land use
• General policies to engage and involve the public and the community

5.1 However, there was no specific intention that CPPs would have a formal role in land use planning. And, from a reverse perspective it is worth considering the extent to which land reform (across the whole project) contributes to community wellbeing, which is the desired outcome of the CPPs.

5.2 This chapter outlines the concept of community planning as it relates to land reform, the methodology used, a summary of findings, and some potential indicators for assessing impacts in relation to community planning.

The land reform measures

5.3 Community planning as defined in the LGSA (2003) refers to the process by which public services are provided after consultation with all responsible public bodies and other appropriate community bodies. Community planning as defined in the SPP1 (The planning system) is the process through which "greater collective engagement of the public sector with communities can be secured," to assess the need of communities and to develop policies and deliver services which best meet these needs" (Scottish Executive 2002:23). Community planning can be considered as a strategic framework for public service delivery at the local level, reconnecting the public agencies to their local and regional basis ( SIP Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, 1999; Audit Scotland, 2006).

Relationship of community planning to land reform

5.4 The CPPs focus on delivery of public services; community well being; effective joint working; synthesising local and national priorities; and flexible, community focussed solutions. The most recent review of community planning by Audit Scotland (2006) emphasises implementation issues around partnership working and community involvement.

5.5 There is no formal link between CPPs and land use or land ownership or land use planning in the LGSA. Initial views on the relationship between land use planning and community planning were published in 2004 (Grant, 2004), but there is no detailed statutory guidance on this relationship. The lack of a formal link to land use planning may explain why the central concerns of land reform - ownership, land and land use planning - are not mentioned in the Audit Scotland report, and only feature as an aside in the statutory guidance on community planning.

5.6 However, the Land Reform Policy Group recognised that integrated planning of rural land use could be taken forward in the context of community planning, as they share a common interest in community involvement and wellbeing. The English approach to community planning as a means by which local people get involved in managing their environment through the land use planning system (Northern Ireland Environment Link, 2006) shows that there could be a stronger relationship between CPPs and the land use planning system.

5.7 The academic literature on community planning also focuses on implementation of the policy, rather than its impacts; and, unsurprisingly, is silent on the issues of land ownership and land use. The key findings are that the more stakeholders and interests are involved in a CPP, the harder it becomes to integrate the issues and coordinate delivery. This raises questions about trade-offs regarding participation, accountability, transparency and risks (see Abram and Cowell, 2004; Maguire and Truscott, 2006).

Defining the Community and CPP Stakeholders

5.8 A stakeholder is anyone who can affect, or is affected by, the issue. Within the context of land reform, a stakeholder will be anyone who:

• implements a policy or practice affecting the land reform objectives;
• uses, owns or manages rural land (including recreational use and passive use - landscape qualities);
• might be affected by a change in use, ownership or management of rural land (can include non-human actors, future generations, those who like to know rural land exists even though they do not directly use it themselves).

5.9 In Scotland, there are 32 Community Plans created by CPPs (Audit Scotland, 2006). Beyond the duty to involve the statutory partners, each CPP may determine a structure that best suits them. Often, strategic CPPs are supported by local community planning groups ( e.g. there are six local community planning groups in Aberdeenshire feeding into one CPP).

5.10 There is considerable diversity in who is formally involved in these partnerships. Most importantly for this study, it was difficult to see how traditional land-based stakeholders are represented in CPPs, although local rural partnerships and the enterprise networks should include land users, managers and owners. Rural partnerships may be one way of ensuring rural, land-related issues are considered within the CPPs, but only three CPPs formally involve rural partnerships. The SRPBA clearly highlights the need for a role for land owners (including non-resident owners) in community planning, suggesting that their members have not been adequately engaged in the past (2006). Many other private interests, and community members appear to be un(der) represented at the strategic CPP level, although they may be active in supporting structures. This reflects concerns raised by Nicholson (2005) about the representation of rural interests in participatory policy making processes.

5.11 One of the most problematic stakeholder groups for any analysis of land reform arena is the 'community'. Indeed, given the importance of community involvement to the land reform objectives, it is important that it is made clear who 'counts' as representing the community. The LGSA is clear that community planning should include communities of place and communities of interest who use or have an interest in the place. Community Councils are formal partners in ten of the strategic CPPs assessed in the Annex and many communities of interest are not directly represented at all at this level. It is important not to simply assume that a local community is the 'right' level of intervention without fully exploring the inherent tensions about who could and should represent 'community'. For example, Goodland, Burton and Croft (2004) highlight how social capital can divide communities and exclude groups as well as bind communities and include different voices. These issues have to be considered to ensure meaningful community involvement in land ownership and use.

5.12 Two further issues could prove challenging in an attempt to link community planning with the land reform objectives. Firstly, CPPs are strategic partnerships coordinating activities of many organisations with national and regional remits over relatively large areas of land. The CPPs deliver regional development rather than the development of individual places yet many of the land reform policies are specific to local places. Certainly, our findings suggested that it can be difficult to work on these multiple levels, with some stakeholders advocating greater devolution to communities of place and others working towards a more strategic regional perspective.

5.13 Secondly, it can be difficult to involve the 'community' in a strategic process that is designed to promote joined up working between public agencies. Local resident groups have very different remits, objectives, resources and cultures to public agencies making relationship building a long term and difficult endeavour (Braco & Flint, 2001: Bryden & Geisler, 2007). This has been recognised - for example, there is now a statutory duty to involve young people in the CPP (see Scottish Executive Guidance, 2006).

Methods

5.14 A literature and policy review for community planning was undertaken, including content analysis of the LGSA, associated guidance and reports by Improvement Scotland and Audit Scotland. A case study approach was then adopted to focus the analysis. We collected data for three areas - Sutherland, East Renfrewshire and Fife, where there was a cross-over with other parts of this study (such as nature conservation, access and recreation, community right to buy and crofting). Content and discourse analysis of the case study community plans was undertaken, an applied methodology that could be expanded to all predominantly rural areas. We define local authority areas that are more than 50% urban and/or have a population density of above 5 persons per km ² as urban, leaving 22 Community Planning Partnerships. The plans were analysed for:

• Associated strategies and policies connected to them
• Membership of the strategic community planning partnership
• References to land ownership, land management, land use planning regimes and policies; community involvement/engagement/participation in land management; community right to buy; crofting; access/recreation and nature conservation
• Results of any performance monitoring

5.15 Thirdly, telephone interviews with eight community planning and rural planning representatives were used to establish the context for community planning and its relationship to land use and reform, relevant criteria and possible approaches to impact assessment. The interview outline and information about the interviewees is attached in the Annexes 5.1 and 5.2. Finally, the project-wide stakeholder workshop was used to test the findings with other stakeholders and allow for further development of our approach.

Findings

5.16 Eglinton (2002) highlighted that there was a 'knowing-doing' gap between being aware of the issues involved in CPP and the ability to actually implement CPPs. Although this research is several years old, the issue of timescale is still important. Both the Audit Scotland (2006) report and the data from interviewees suggest that the shifts required as part of CPP are long term cultural changes and there will be few short term changes assessable.

Content analysis

5.17 There is no explicit reference to land reform in the literature or guidance on community planning. Even references to land use planning more generally are sparse. This may be due to the focus on delivery of services, particularly given the emphasis on achieving 'regeneration outcome agreements' that focus community planning on service delivery targets by statutory partners. As Martin et al (2004:7) argue, the key policy objective of LGSA was "to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of local public services".

5.18 All local authorities have community plans, and many are being updated for the second or third time. In the three reviewed case studies, there is some recognition of the need to link land use planning (structure and local plans) to community planning but this remains an aspiration rather than reality. Having said this, the general theme of community engagement in planning and managing their local area is central to both local land use plans and community plans, illustrating a desire to enact the land reform agenda, even if it is not yet formalised into delivery through community planning partnerships. There is some evidence to suggest that Community Planning Partnerships are setting up new structures to devolve planning to a more local level and to create more effective mechanisms for public involvement.

5.19 Community Plans generally have milestones or targets that they seek to achieve although very few have actually collated and published data on their achievements, reflecting the relatively short periods they have been in operation. As discussed below, these indicators tend to reflect existing data sets held by the local authority and their partners, on access to and satisfaction with services as well as outcomes related to environmental quality, social inclusion, economic development, health, education and community safety. It appears that land use, management and ownership are not currently monitored. Equally, despite a stress on community participation and the promotion of Audit Scotland's National Standards for Community Engagement, there are few indicators of whether such standards are being met.

Interview findings

5.20 When arranging interviews it became clear that most of those contacted initially struggled to see a direct connection between the Land Reform agenda, which they equated with access, and the community right to buy process. This is despite the centrality of community involvement and well being in both policy agendas. The actual practices of land ownership and management were seen as too specific and too local to be addressed by CPPs, which were perceived as providing a strategic framework for integrated service delivery rather than local land use practices. Therefore, there may be an opportunity to better communicate the breadth of the land reform agenda, and the links it has to policies such as CPP, within delivery agencies and local government.

5.21 The interviewees stressed that CPPs were still 'bedding in' and were constantly evolving and learning from experiences. The interviews suggest that themes likely to be important aspects to consider in light of the impact of land reform on community wellbeing include: the cultural changes required to work in partnership; issues of scale; and issues of accountability, risk and transparency.

5.22 One of the main achievements of CPP - the shift to integrated delivery whereby the partners work together to achieve community wellbeing rather than pursuing their own individual objectives - was consistently described in terms of a cultural change. This integration used resources more efficiently and allowed services to be adapted to changing circumstances. Land reform also wishes to maximise opportunity for all to benefit from land based development and to ensure land use is responsive to changing demands. However, some interviewees cautioned that a strategic focus may displace locally focussed community initiatives, disenfranchising local communities and increasing the voices of already powerful interest groups.

5.23 When asked about the link between land use planning and CPPs, most interviewees provided intelligent and thoughtful answers. The Community Planners recognised the need to understand the spatial constraints on service delivery and the challenges thrown up by integrating the two planning approaches. To date, there has been limited interaction between Community Planning Officers and Development Control Planning Officers. There were some clear messages provided that CPPs have tended to be urban focussed and dominated by the regeneration agenda. Equally, land reform was associated with sparsely populated areas of the Highlands and Islands, rather than seen an issue for the whole of Scotland. However, the opportunity to deliver sustainable rural development by better coordinating CPPs with land use planning was recognised.

5.24 Interviewees indicated the evolving relationship between access provision (particularly the Core Path Planning process) and CPPs. There were also clear links to nature conservation, although this was interpreted more broadly than managing SSSIs. Interviewees brought our attention to the LBAP activities and local, national and European designations in the area that were recognised by CPPs. There were also examples of community right to buy in every case study but there was little formal linkage between the CPP and CRtB practices - this was identified as a potential gap to address. The interviewees did not feel that there was any relationship between tenancy reform and CPP or land use planning.

5.25 When asked how land reform delivered community wellbeing, there was an emphasis on culture and capacity building. Interviewees argued that the ability to alter property rights and to participate in decisions regarding managing local land were empowering and demonstrated possibilities to other local communities. It was suggested that in rural areas, this increased confidence and sense of having options for the future might help to maintain a viable working population. The process of going through a 'right to buy' taught new skills and increased individual and collective confidence. Only a couple of interviewees identified land reform as removing barriers to development, but these felt that increased opportunities for economic development could have important effects on community wellbeing.

5.26 In terms of assessing change since implementing CPPs, each of the three case study plans was in the process of implementing monitoring and evaluation processes but very few results were available. Even where performance indicators exist, these tend to be restricted to easily collected data rather than measuring the issues at the heart of CPPs - i.e. whether communities feel better serviced and feel as if their voices are being heard. Most recognised the need to continue to develop SMART action plans and to properly evaluate both their implementation and the outcomes achieved. However, interviewees recognised the opportunity cost of resourcing monitoring of delivery rather than delivery itself; and the difficulty of attribution. There is potential to link CPP indicators to the National Framework for Performance Measurement for Local Government (forthcoming) and indicators in the revised Sustainable Scotland Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2005d). Interviewees also recognised that smaller CPPs would have less resource to collect, collate and analyse these data.

Workshop findings

5.27 Although there were no stakeholders explicitly representing CPPs present, the findings from the stakeholder workshop reflect similar themes. A number of comments concerned the implementation of CPPs and the need for cultural changes, adequate resources and appropriate capacity building. The difficulty of partnership working linking public and private interests was highlighted in this context. One comment related to access to information on environmental matters in particular, although 'knowledge and process' was a concern that emerged during the workshop discussion and was thought to be at the centre of the discussion of achieving land reform ( HIE are developing a community capacity index that might help with this).

5.28 Only one attendee raised the need for CPPs to link more effectively with the land use planning system and to pay greater attention to the rural setting. They felt CPPs tended to be seen and to be implemented in an urban-centric way. There was a plea for CPP to better reflect the expressed needs of local communities in service delivery, which would be assessable by looking at whether those needs were responded to. A couple of attendees were unsure if communities were being adequately involved at present. There were two comments raised regarding representation in community involvement processes. Related to this issue were questions about to what extent community inclusion has to be balanced against a desire to deliver development.

5.29 There were some issues regarding better integration of issues into CPPs in order to deliver community wellbeing ( e.g. biodiversity duties and providing opportunities for responsible access), and the aim of CPP to deliver more joined up government was highlighted by one attendee. The need to deliver housing development was also flagged.

5.30 Criteria and their potential indicators are presented in Appendix Four. An initial view from the literature review (including Community Planning Task Force and Implementation Group papers) and analysis of existing plans/partnerships suggests the following criteria are important for assessing community planning outcomes in terms of the contribution to the land reform agenda using the sustainable livelihoods framework:

• Understanding the context and drivers of change
• Understanding processes used (inputs and outputs)
• Understanding the changes to the state of the system measured by assets
• Understanding process outcomes
• Understanding if desired policy objectives are met

5.31 The unit of analysis for the topic of this chapter is the local authority level, and/or the local planning areas as devolved within the CPP structure (unlike the household as in SRL or the 'community' as in community right to buy). As community planning is enacted at local government level, it is relatively easy to find data at this level on some aspects relating to the five capitals and rural development. All councils have statutory performance indicators and most community plans include key performance indicators that are currently, or will be, monitored. Large national data sets, such as the British Household Survey Panel, often will disaggregate down to local authority level and the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics are also a good source of socio-economic data. Many councils conduct household surveys and the Scottish Government holds data on outcome agreements. These sources would provide descriptive statistical snapshots of changes over time. A fuller methodology, should data permit, might involve multivariate analysis to identify the key drivers of change.

5.32 Two problems remain: baseline and attribution. Although community planning became a statutory requirement under the LGSA in 2003, many plans evolved from Local Agenda 21 plans or other such plans, making it difficult to say when community planning really began. A 2003 baseline would be straightforward, but may be misleading. Furthermore, many data sets are only available at annual or even larger time steps, so it may be too early to discern any real trend over time. Where data exist, it is impossible to establish to what extent any trend is directly due to the introduction of community planning, let alone the influence of community planning in the context of land reform.

5.33 This is where the mixed methods and SRL approach can assist. Using a suite of indicators in a holistic framework that links context, assets, process/structure to outcomes makes it easier to interpret indicator results. Analysis of qualitative data from stakeholders about their perceptions of why changes may have occurred and how different indicators interact with one another will also help to establish perceptions of attribution and strength of the change. Finally, with any set of indicators, the real value is in the process of implementation and interpretation - which is not a straightforward, value-free routine event, but something to be negotiated and reflected upon.

Summary and conclusions

5.34 Most CPPs are focussing on measuring outputs such as developing partnerships and delivering strategies as most outcomes ( e.g. community capacity and confidence, organisational culture change) are long term variables. Some intermediate outcomes can be assessed in the short term, such as increased involvement, mechanisms for coordination which are anticipated to contribute to long-term impacts on sustainable rural development. The relatively accessible data for the suggested indicators tell us very little about the outcomes of community planning deemed important to assess by the stakeholders in this study.

5.35 This chapter has explained community planning as a mechanism to deliver land reform. Community planning delivered by CPPs currently has very little direct relationship with the objectives of land reform (broad and equitable participation in ownership, use and management of land). Indeed, there may be a weaker relationship between community planning and land use planning in practice than one might expect. There is material on community participation in rural land use planning but this is not directly related to CPPs as defined by LGSA (and therefore outside the focus for the project). Furthermore, community planning is viewed by some as urban-centric due to its integration with SIPS and regeneration strategies. We suggest there are opportunities to influence the development of CP indicators to ensure they better capture the land reform agenda.

5.36 Guidance materials on evaluating CPPs and performance indicators for CPPs are generally silent on land reform objectives. Despite a focus on adopting the National Standards for Community Engagement, existing CPP indicators often do not assess the process or outcomes of that engagement. There are indicators for assessing community engagement more generally but these have not been linked to assessing the impacts of CPPs or land reform objectives. Furthermore, although many potential indicators exist to measure context, institutional change and the six assets, it is very difficult to separate the impact of land reform from other simultaneous changes in the rural environment.

References

Abram S. and Cowell R. (2001), Comparative Research on Community Planning. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.http://www.shef.ac.uk/communityplanning/

Audit Scotland (2006), Community Planning: an initial review. Edinburgh: Audit Scotland.

Abram S and Cowell R (2004), Dilemmas of Implementation: 'integration' and 'participation' in Norwegian and Scottish Local Government. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 22: 701 - 719.

Brocklesby MA and Fisher E (2003) Community Development in sustainable livelihood approaches - an introduction. Community Development Journal 38 (3): 185 - 198

Bryden J. and Geisler C (2007), Community-based land reform: Lessons from Scotland. Land Use Policy 24: 24 - 34.

Communities Scotland (2003), Guidance on Integrating Community Planning and Social Inclusion Partnerships. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Eglinton (2006), Capacity Building for Community Planning. A report to the Scottish Executive Social Research Unit. Scottish Executive: Edinburgh.

EKOS (2007), Community Wellbeing Activity Mapping Services Final Report for Highland Wellbeing Alliance Partners. Inverness: EKOS (unpublished report).

Grant R (2004), Community Planning and the Interface with Land Use Planning Core Script. Letter. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/planning/cpilup-00.asp

Goodlad R, Burton P and Croft J (2004), Effectiveness at what? The process and impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Research on Social Justice.

Hinshelwood E (2003) Making friends with the sustainable livelihoods framework. Community Development Journal 38 (3): 243 - 254.

Liepins R (2000) New Energies for an old idea: reworking approaches to 'community' in contemporary rural studies, Journal of Rural Studies 16: 23-35

Maguire K and Truscott F (2006), Active Governance: The value added by community involvement in governance through local strategic partnerships. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Martin S, Bovaird T and Stern E (2004), Approaches to the evaluation of local government improvement programmes and initiatives. Cardiff: Centre for Local and Regional Government Research.

Nicholson L (2005), Civic Participation in Public Policy Making: A literature Review. Research Findings No.14. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

Northern Ireland Environment Link (2006), Introducing Community Planning to Northern Ireland. Environmental Fact Sheet Vol 5 Issue1.

Raco M and Flint J (2001), Communities, places and institutional relations: assessing the role of area-based community representation in local governance. Political Geography 20: 585- 612.

Satsangi M (2007), Land Tenure Change and Rural Housing in Scotland, Scottish Geographical Journal Vol. 123, No. 1, 33 - 47

Scottish Executive (2002), Scotland Planning Policy No.1: The Planning System. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2004), The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 Community Planning: Statutory Guidance. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive (2005a), Rural Scotland Key Facts. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive (2005b), Rural Planning Typologies Research Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2005c), Scottish Planning Policy SPP15: Planning for Rural Development. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2005d), Choosing our Future: Scotland's Sustainable Development Strategy. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive (2006), Engaging Children and Young People in Community Planning: Community Planning Advice Note. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive (2007a), Community Engagement: Planning with People. Planning Advice Note 81. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

Scottish Rural Property and Business Association (2006), 100 Steps towards a vibrant rural Scotland. Musselburgh: SRPBA.

SIP Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (1999), Community Planning and Social Inclusion Initiatives in Scotland. Dundee: SIP Monitoring and Evaluation Unit

Data sources

Audit Scotland (2005), East Renfrewshire Council: The Audit of Best Value and Community Planning. Published for the Accounts Commission October 2005.

Audit Scotland (2006), The Highland Council: The Audit of Best Value and Community Planning. Published for the Accounts Commission April 2006.

East Renfrewshire Council (2006), Statutory Performance Indicators Report 2004/5. Paisley: East Renfrewshire Council.

East Renfrewshire Council (2003), East Renfrewshire Local Plan. Paisley: East Renfrewshire Council.

East Renfrewshire Community Planning Partnership (2007), East Renfrewshire Community Planning Update Consultation Draft. Paisley: East Renfrewshire Council.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee (2007), Alteration 2: The Structure Plan 2000.http://www.gcvcore.gov.uk/

Fife Council (2006), Statutory Performance Indicators Report 2005/6. Dunfermline: Fife Council.

Fife Council (2002), Fife Structure Plan Written Statement. Dunfermline: Fife Council.

Fife Council (2007), Advice on revision and content of Local Planshttp://www.fifedirect.org.uk/topics/index.cfm?fuseaction=advicetopic.display&subjectid=F0F739ED-508B-DE79-47D3A6D0F83A12CD&objectid=2D41ACD7-C1D6-4F27-8A6497DC81D0E658

Fife Partnership (2007), Progress against Community Planning Milestones as at 2007. Paper tabled at Fife Partnership Meeting in March 2007.

Fife Partnership (2004), A Stronger Future for Fife: Fife's Community Plan. Dunfermline: Fife Council.

Highland Council (2007), Statutory Performance Indicators Report 2005/6. Inverness: Highland Council

Highland Council (2007), Sutherland Futures: Draft for Consultation. Inverness: Highland Council http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourenvironment/planning/developmentplans/localplans/sutherlandfutures.htm

Highland Council (2004), Community Plan for Highland 2004/7. Inverness: Highland council.

Highland Council (2001), The Highland Structure Plan Written Statement. Inverness: Highland council.

Sutherland Partnership (2006), Sutherland: Soaring to Success. A Community Plan for Sutherland.http://www.sutherlandpartnership.org.uk/Partnership-g.asp

Annex 5.1 Interviewees

Eight key informants were interviewed. They represent a range of perspectives on community planning and land use issues, from different types of rural Scotland, from remote to very accessible:

• Community Planning rep (National)
• Community Planning rep (Fife)
• Community Planning rep (Renfrewshire)
• Community Planning rep (Sutherland)
• Land use planning rep (Fife)
• Land use planning rep (Renfrewshire)
• Land use planning rep (Sutherland)
• Rural partnership rep (Fife)
• Community partnership rep (Renfrewshire)
• Rural Partnership rep (Sutherland)

Annex 5.2 Interview Questions

Q1. Briefly describe the current status of the Community Plan and the Community Planning Partnership?

(As part of this we may need to ensure that I understand how you use the terms community planning and partnership, as well as community).

Q2. Explain, in your own words, your sense of what community planning has achieved to date, and what achievements you hope to see in the future.

• Any specific trends and/or shocks that Community Planning has helped overcome? National v local interests

Q3a. Do you have any specific mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate these achievements? Or any plans to do so in the future?

Q3b. [depending on response to Q3a] What would you see as the most salient issues to measure in terms of assessing the impact of Community Planning?

Q4. Is there a relationship between Community Planning and Land Use planning? Please explain how this works now, or might work in the future.

Q5. Is there a relationship between Community Planning and community involvement in the way rural land is owned, managed and used on a day to day basis? Please explain how this works now, or might work in the future.

Q6.[time permitting]Other aspects of our research are looking at different components of the land reform agenda. Briefly, what, if any, part does Community Planning play in shaping or implementing practices concerning:

• Crofting right to buy legislation (may not be applicable to your area!)
• Community right to buy legislation
• Nature conservation
• Agricultural and feudal tenure reform
• Access & Recreation

Q7. To what extent, if any, would you say that the Land Reform agenda has contributed to improving community wellbeing in your area?

Q8. Going back to the issue of measuring the effect of community planning, focussed specifically on the objectives of our project, what aspects do you think should be measured?

[It would be useful to get your initial reactions to this first before you look at our ideas, but I have provided some ideas as prompts over the page to help with the discussion]

Q9. How would you advise that we measure these aspects? Do current data sets exist? Would you like to see new data sets collected - by whom? When?

Q10. Do you any other questions or comments to add?

Commitment by senior management, commitment by partners, resources.

Annex 5.3 Possible indicators to assess effect of community planning

Specific relationship between Land Reform and Community Planning:

Changes in Values & attitudes to land management by those involved in CPP

Changes in values and attitudes to land ownership by those involved in CPP

Measures to promote changes in land management in Plan

Measures to promote changes in land ownership in Plan

Measures regarding any of the other WP issues in the Plan

Conflict resolution on land management, access or ownership achieved through CPP

Changes to community power structures due to land reform demonstrated in CPP

Changes in community level and local authority level politics/representation due to land reform reflected in CPP

Changes to the culture of the CPP due to land reform

Context:

Changes to the local area as a result of the CPP

Changes in socio-demographic structure

Social Capital:

Satisfaction with services

Percentage of people who like living in their local community

Percentage of people who can get help from friends, family or neighbours when needed

Percentage of people who feel they can trust people who live in their area

Percentage of people taking part in voluntary activities

Percentage of people who feel valued by society

Percentage of people who agree that sense of community spirit exists in the neighbourhood

Number of residents people feel they can talk to regularly in their street or block

Percentage of parents with school age children that attend activities at their school

Participation in sporting and recreation activities;

Membership of a group or organisation facilitated through CPP

Public attitudes to community cohesion

Natural Capital

Changes to natural resource stocks

Financial Capital

Changes to savings, income, credit

Various economic indicators ( e.g. Business confidence; New business start up; Employment rate (by specific groups); Local employment (local jobs to resident pop)

Distribution of income, average, top 25% and bottom 25%; housing affordability)

Built Capital

Changes to transport, shelter, water, energy, communications

Area of public open space (as a percentage of total space in the municipality); use of public space)

Maintenance or protection of heritage buildings & local place of significance

Human Capital

Changes to skills, knowledge

Changes in individual wellbeing

Health indicators etc

Various learning indicators

Institutions, Policies and Practices:

What new institutions have been created (partnerships, forums, regulations, guidance etc)?

How many individuals involved in CPPs?

Degree of uptake of CPP delivery strategies etc?

Voting/turnout in council elections

Trust in government & other formal institutions

Rating of Council Performance

Women in senior positions

Participation in petitions/protests

Percentage of people who think they have an opportunity to have a real say on issues important to them

Percentage of people who feel encouraged to participate in decisions that affect them and their community

Percentage who feel informed about local affairs

National Standards on Community Engagement indicators

« Previous | Contents | Next »