Next steps for community ownership in Scotland

6. Advice

The advice builds on the evidence base and is informed by the insights gathered from interviews. This informs four key outcomes and actions that would better enable different actors to support community ownership in Scotland.

Increased Scottish Land Fund to deliver maximum benefit and impact

The SLF is the only fund of its kind in Scotland and has supported hundreds of communities to purchase land and buildings to meet community needs. These communities are delivering a vital range of activities and services in their area using land and buildings, enhancing and often being the main mechanism and lifeline in a place.

There has been clear and strong support throughout our research for the role and operation of the SLF. Community bodies and other stakeholders value the relationship-based approach to support that is provided and value the knowledge and experience of HIE and the National Lottery Community Fund who deliver the fund. Participants told us:

“If Scottish Land Fund had not been in a position to support us then we are not sure we could have succeeded.” – Community body

“Scottish Land Fund were brilliant. We got two stages of funding with support for consultants and engagement work at Stage 1. It helped us to think through how to make the project work. We received really good information and advice from SLF staff.” – Community Body

We strongly support the continuation of the SLF and the current delivery model and recommend that the SLF be retained and continue to provide dedicated advisor support to communities across Scotland.

In the 2021-22 Programme for Government, the Scottish Government committed to double the SLF from £10 million to £20 million per year by 2026 to provide support for community ownership projects in urban and rural areas, responding to the increasing popularity of the fund. However, this increase in funding has not materialised, with the fund being cut in 2024. There is greater demand for funding than there is funding available and this has put the SLF Committee in the position of being unable to support applications from projects that would otherwise have been considered fundable. Most communities do not have paid staff and rely on volunteer time to develop their applications. A lower chance of being successful in securing funding could put communities off pursuing acquisition projects thereby indicating a portion of ‘hidden’ demand which could be unlocked through the provision of a larger SLF budget. We strongly recommend that the SLF budget is increased.

The fund has been oversubscribed for several years, leading to the SLF Committee having to make difficult decisions about which projects to support and turning down fundable projects due to a lack of available budget. In addition to the overall budget of the fund, having an annualised budget is a barrier to community land acquisitions. If acquisitions are not completed before the end of the financial year, then there is an impact on the following year’s available budget. At the end of funding cycles, acquisitions must be complete before financial year-end regardless of when a grant is made. This can be challenging, especially so for largescale acquisitions which often face complex title checks due to issues such as unclear boundaries, third party access and multiple title searches. In these situations, the SLF Committee must consider the likelihood of an acquisition completing that year when assessing projects and this can put larger and more complex projects at a disadvantage. There should be a move to multi year funding for the SLF to create more flexibility and better enable and support community land acquisitions.

Action 1

Support and increase the Scottish Land Fund budget to support more communities and give more communities the greatest chance of overcoming significant funding challenges by moving to multi-year funding.

Research has shown that largescale community land acquisitions are an exception rather than a rule, they are nonetheless important, giving communities the chance to become anchor organisations and build sustainable futures, and there is a need to consider the support mechanisms, processes and funding in place to support them.

The SEFARI research project showed that there is still demand for large acquisitions but there has been an increase in barriers, including a perceived difficulty in accessing funding. The SLF has a normal maximum award limit of £1million, although it is suggested that in exceptional circumstances, larger grants may be available with Ministerial approval. While the normal process works well for the majority of applications to the fund, large landholdings often sell for much higher sums and the idea of a cap on funding can be off putting with the perceived gap in funding seen as a barrier to communities pursuing large and high-value acquisitions. Limited funding also means that the SLF Committee must decide whether to support one large project or many small projects from the available budget.

There are several ways in which the SLF could be modified to make it easier for communities pursuing acquisitions of largescale landholdings to navigate the process and timescales. There have been several suggestions through our research for a separate process or funding for communities who wish to pursue a largescale acquisition to ensure the challenges and complexities can be adequately addressed. These include a suggestion that there be an interim stage where communities could receive approval in principle for an application to put them in a stronger negotiating position before proceeding. This would sit between stages 1 and 2 of the SLF process so communities would have sufficient detail about the project to inform an in-principle decision and then following negotiations the community would apply to Stage 2 for full approval. One interviewee told us:

“Having to negotiate a buy-out without funding secured weakens the negotiating position of the community” – Community Body

There were also suggestions for a separate application form and for ring fenced funding specifically for larger land assets. Given that demand for large buyouts varies over time, there could be a risk of ring-fenced funding not being used so we believe that offering the SLF the opportunity to draw down additional funds, in addition to the allocated annual budget, where the committee wishes to support a largescale or high value acquisition would be a better option. This has already happened in the case of the community buyout of Ulva. Putting in place a facility for this to take place on an ongoing basis could give communities greater confidence to purse ambitious and strategic acquisitions and strengthen and simplify the process for communities and the SLF.

Action 2

Create a facility for the Scottish Land Fund to draw down funds (beyond the current maximum grant) for largescale acquisition and consider grant funding-in-principle for between stage 1 and stage 2 of the application process.

Coordinated funding and finance deliver community wealth and value for money

Overall, opinions expressed about the SLF through our research have been positive, however we are aware that there has been some criticism in recent years that the fund is not just focused on land but includes buildings. There were 197 approvals made in SLF4 and most of them were buildings, but the UHI research on largescale land acquisitions show that these kinds of acquisitions are the exception and always have been, with some concentrated periods of largescale acquisitions driven by factors including but not limited to opportunity, funding availability, and inspiration from seeing other communities do it.

Acquisitions of buildings and small sites deliver benefits across urban and rural areas, empowering communities and enabling them to meet their needs. The projects fit the criteria for successful SLF projects: the projects support economic, environmental or social development through land and asset ownership; they give the community more control over its future, and communities own land and buildings that are well managed and financially sustainable. We believe these kinds of projects should continue to be supported.

“Success is not just the amount of land owned, true success is viability and sustainability.” – Stakeholder (public body)

However, there are broader questions to answer about the types of projects that SLF supports. For example, should the SLF fund acquisition of housing (rather than land for housing) when there are other funds available for housing projects from organisations like SNIB and More Homes Scotland? Is SLF an appropriate fund for the acquisition of historic assets? There is an opportunity to consider these questions and the role of SLF in the national funding landscape in the design of the next SLF to maximise impact and value for money.

A huge amount of SLF funding goes back to the public sector. Public bodies may offer a community group a discount on the market value of a property in the Community Asset Transfer process in order to reflect the social, environmental or economic benefits that these assets will deliver to the local community, and to reflect that assets being sold are often in need of investment and selling them can relieve public bodies of social delivery liabilities. However, this is not the case for all public bodies and we advise that market value should not be paid for assets that do or will deliver on social purpose. Public bodies should consider best value, which reflects the benefits that will be delivered by community ownership. By doing so, the Community Asset Transfer process and SLF can work together to deliver best value for public money and at the same time also deliver positive outcomes for communities.

Action 3

Community Wealth Building plans should set out how local and national finance will be coordinated in a place-based way to support community acquisition and management of local assets.

Action 4

Where communities are delivering on wider social purposes in line with local strategic priorities or public services, assets should not be transferred at market value. Instead, discounts or reliefs should be applied to reflect the benefits that community ownership will deliver.

There have been suggestions that a long-term funding payback model – a ‘patient capital community ownership loan fund’ – could be helpful in supporting communities who are acquiring large assets or high value purchases to fund acquisition. This may be suitable when communities are buying larger estates or high value assets with secure long-term income streams and are in a position to pay back lending. A no or low interest loan would enable communities to acquire, and they could pay off the loan over a longer period with repaid money going into a recyclable fund to support other communities. We recommend that Scottish Government take a lead role in exploring this opportunity.

Action 5

Explore opportunities for a patient capital funding model to complement Scottish Land Fund.

A clear message through our research has been that while there is funding available for acquisition of assets, that the landscape for funding for maintaining, developing and improving those assets is very challenging. We recommend a review of current and potential post-acquisition funding with a view to mapping and presenting opportunities for further support, this should include a role for the Scottish National Investment Bank.

Action 6

Review the landscape for post-acquisition funding and identify opportunities to support development and management of community assets.

Public bodies make it easier for communities to access land and assets through effective governance, coordination and knowledge sharing

The Scottish Government has passed the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Act 2026, which sets out commitments to further community wealth building in Scotland. The Act requires local authorities to work with relevant public bodies to prepare a community wealth building action plan for the local area. One of the pillars of Community Wealth Building is ‘Land and Property’ which means growing the social, ecological, financial and economic value that communities gain from land and property assets. Support for community ownership strongly contributes to this pillar and we know that communities already play an important role as anchor organisations in some areas.

“We are seeing some of the more mature Development Trusts becoming significant asset owners and deliverers of local service and infrastructure. Further recognition and investment by Scottish Government and local authorities might see these community anchor organisations take a more strategic (and commercial) approach to the best use and delivery from assets at a community level as opposed to a sometimes firefighting approach.” – Stakeholder (Public body)

Action 7

Public bodies should use Community Wealth Building plans to identify priorities across departments and provide strategic support for community ownership in different areas.

Community Asset Transfer legislation was designed with a presumption in favour of transfers to community bodies. In practice, this does not always happen and there is a need for all relevant authorities to act in line with the spirit and letter of the legislation. This is particularly needed when it comes to issues around assessment of best value and use of conditions of sale and clawback conditions. The review of Community Asset Transfer found that there are mixed interpretation and application of guidance on these issues. This aligned with our research, where we heard about situations that did not align with the intention of the legislation and made things difficult for communities.

“The appeal was a very difficult process which was asking a lot of volunteers. The community did not have any resources to help them. The public body had a lawyer, but the community did not so there was a power imbalance.” – Community Body

“The main thing that public bodies could do to support community organisations is reduce processes and bureaucracy which would give groups more time to deal with business” – Stakeholder (Membership organisation)

There needs to better knowledge of processes and different routes to ownership across public bodies – from frontline officers to senior managers to elected officials. Processes are often handled by one or two individuals who may be informed and supportive but can face barriers when dealing with other departments or decision-makers in the organisation. There also needs to be some flexibility and proportionality of processes to ensure that authorities are not placing undue pressure on community organisations, which are often led by volunteers, and who can face arduous requirement regardless of the presumption in favour of transfers.

“There is still work to be done in reminding authorities of their duties; occasionally, they outright refuse requests despite what is written in the law.” – Stakeholder (public body)

However, there are examples of public bodies who do a good job of supporting communities to acquire, lease or manage assets, and there is an opportunity for greater sharing of good practice. There are examples of good practice in relation to decision-making around Community Asset Transfer applications, which include clear communication and engagement, transparency around processes, and decision-making, and application of conditions and clawback, and good governance in relation to decision making.

Action 8

Relevant authorities, including Scottish Government, should review their processes and practices to ensure they meet the requirements of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and to identify opportunities for improvement and for sharing good practice. There should be a dedicated forum for public bodies to share good practice and experiences.

Good governance when dealing with applications from communities who want to purchase land or buildings includes separation of duties, strong management of conflicts of interest, accountability, and transparency around decision-making processes and conditions of transfer. Different departments should be involved in discussions about applications from the beginning so that any potential issues can be raised with communities at an early stage. Having an independent evaluation panel to support the process can be considered best practice as panels provide a level of independence, along with key knowledge and experience that helps relevant authorities to make well-informed decisions.

Action 9

All relevant authorities, including Scottish Government, should consider their governance and decision-making process in relation to Community Asset Transfer applications should ensure they are sufficiently independent, transparent and fair. To do this, Scottish Government should consider appointing an independent evaluation panel for that is available for all public bodies to utilise.

The Commission and Crown Estate Scotland (CES) explored a Community Land Accelerator project where CES would become the interim owner of an asset to give aspiring community landowners a chance to develop their business plans and pursue funding applications. This was intended to support communities where it was not possible for them to acquire assets using other existing mechanisms, such as the Community Right to Buy process, Community Asset Transfer or through securing the required grant funding in the short-term. CES could then transfer the asset to the community after a defined timeframe. While it was not possible for this to continue to pilot stage, the project identified some important lessons, which could be considered by other major public landowners such as Forestry and Land Scotland and NatureScot, and there is potential through public service reform to use public land and the capital held in it in a more active way to deliver this interim ownership support.

Action 10

Public bodies should identify and pursue new opportunities to support and enable community ownership, including the interim ownership of assets to support communities who want to acquire land but need time to develop proposals.

Ownership of land and buildings may not always the best option for every community. There should be support and funding available to make alternatives to ownership such as leasing, informal and meanwhile uses feasible where and when this fits best with the community’s needs.

“There are different routes to community use and ownership, including concessionary leases. There’s also the option of undeveloped sites for community gardening projects but there’s no intuitive process to use land informally.” – Stakeholder (Local authority)

Community-led land use can be key in stewarding and managing land in the longer-term public interest. Public bodies should ensure that communities are treated fairly in relation to these measures including offering fair and transparent lease terms and making support available to lease. There is evidence and good practice around this that can be shared to create a consistent approach across Scotland.

Action 11

A review of support and funding for alternatives to ownership, such as leasing, management, buying a stake in a project, or meanwhile use, should be carried out and opportunities to strengthen and add to these should be identified.

Simplified project delivery through clearer process and access to support

Following the 2025 review of the community rights to buy the Scottish Government has made proposals for the consideration of Scottish Ministers, including options for legislative change. We support the proposals that have been put forward. These should be implemented as a priority action in order to simplify the rights to buy and raise awareness in communities of the option to register a right to buy.

Action 12

The proposals put forward following the review of community rights to buy should be taken forward.

There are several intermediaries such as the Development Trust Association Scotland, Community Land Scotland, and Community Woodland Association that play an important role in supporting and enabling community ownership and management of land and buildings regardless of route to ownership.

Communities depend on these services for accessing support and professional advice. For example, legal, planning and architectural advice will inform the feasibility of projects. We also heard that consultants are providing important services for communities in developing their plans, although this may not always be the best or most affordable option for a community.

Action 13

Intermediary organisations must be adequately resourced to ensure that they continue to be impactful and help communities navigate the increasing complexities of managing and owning buildings and land.

Action 14

Invest in a dedicated resource to help communities accessing professional legal and planning advice in an affordable and timely way to ensure that projects are feasible and deadlines are met.