In the Spotlight: Elevating the Volume of Seldom-Heard Voices
There are around 200,000 charitable organisations in the UK and millions of volunteers associated with them. Irrespective of what they are called or what cause they are working for, they are willing parties, established by the free will of the citizens who are associated with common interests and/or other interests aiming to achieve shared civil, economic, social and cultural rights and not obtaining profits. From focusing on the welfare and development of a small village to calling out for world peace; from working on preserving culture to fighting for immigrants' rights. Whatever direction they are working towards, they all have one goal and that is to make the world a better places.
Kingfisher Commons is driven to support and raise awareness of these inspiring organisations in every possible way. To showcase the amazing work these organisations are doing, we are launching a Community Spotlight program. The program aims to celebrate the impact of special organisations that are working hard to raise the volume of seldom heard voices. They will be organisations that work with people that are often underrepresented to be heard through creative community engagement techniques.
Organisations in the Spotlight
If an organisation or even business springs to mind when you read the following… or perhaps it's you and the organisation you are a part of…let us know via email, Linkedin, Twitter or Facebook! We want to hear about organisations that:
Raise the volume of seldom heard voices.
Promote fairness, equity and inclusivity.
Provide facilities to vulnerable and underprivileged people.
Anyone can nominate an organisation for the spotlight or nominate themselves.
Why Nominate?
We want to celebrate with you and contribute to you celebrating with all those that make your organisation special.
Those that are selected for the spotlight will be invited to participate in a recorded online interview, where they can share their beautiful work and celebrate their achievements with the world! They will be encouraged to share any tips or wisdom with others who are wanting to improve the way they engage with underrepresented and/or vulnerable groups.
We want to express our gratitude to these organisations by also gifting them a token of thanks in the form of postcards so that they get the love that they deserve and can also share the love with people who are important to the organisation.
We are looking forward to sharing all the amazing work that organisations do to make the world a better place!
Briefing note: Community Right to Bid and public houses
This briefing paper (written in October 2017) acts as a contribution to the debate about reform to the Community Right to Bid (CRtBid) and specifically the protection of public houses. It is based in part on research undertaken by the author that involved the compilation of a national database of Assets of Community Value (ACV) 2015 and a survey of stakeholders (LAs, community groups and landowners) reporting their experiences. Nomination forms for ACV were textually analysed at the beginning of the data collection phase, elements of this analysis are referred to in this paper.
This post describes four different approaches that can be utilised in different circumstances in an attempt to ‘protect’ the future of a community asset. Each has its criteria and limitations. This blog post acts as an overview of four policies to explore the Community Right to Bid (CRtBid) and Asset of Community Value (ACV) Regulations; Community Asset Transfer (CAT); Community Right to Buy (CRtBuy); and Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO).
The Localism Act (2011) and The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 (2012/2421) detail the legislation, which is not only a “community right” to make a bid but is formerly a mechanism for community groups to make a nomination of an ACV. It is the first time a land classification of its kind in England, was based on social value. This policy was introduced as “a legal right to nominate… vital assets in their area” (DCLG, 2011b). In terms of the claimed impact of the policy, it was stated in a guide on community rights that the CRtBid could be used to protect locally important community assets (DCLG, 2013) and a press release from the government suggests that the nomination provides protection and ‘saves’ assets (MHCLG, 2013).
The process involves communities submitting a nomination to their LA, who then validates this according to local and national criteria LA. They are given discretion as to how to define ACV, the processes involved, and the layout of the list (DCLG, 2011a). The LA maintains the list of both successful and unsuccessful nominations, and if successful, the asset features on the list for 5 years. Therefore, in referring to the closure of community assets and recognising that communities are often unaware of assets being sold or given enough time to prepare a bid, they have introduced the CRtBid as a mechanism to pause the sale of an asset and to ultimately “enhance the sustainability and local independence of those communities” (DCLG, 2011b: p4).
During this time, if the landowner wishes to place the asset on to the market then they are required to notify the LA, who then notify the community. The nominating body, and other community groups, have 6 weeks to notify the LA if they intend to bid for the asset, which if they do it gives them a 6-month moratorium period to prepare a bid. Public authorities have a history of transferring community assets to community organisations to own or manage via Community Asset Transfer (CAT, see more information below), but through the CRtBid, LAs can use the CRtBid as a mechanism to transfer assets at market value.
The government, by introducing the CRtBid, recognise the potential and benefits of community ownership, particularly in reference to revitalising failing businesses, “able to use more viable business models unavailable to private or public sector owners or operators” (DCLG, 2011b: p4), and therefore, offering the potential to “make the asset viable again (e.g. through the use of volunteers, access to charitable funding or community share investment, or through a more enterprising pattern of service provision)” (DCLG, 2011a: p14). Furthermore, it is seen as an attempt to change attitudes and behaviours of public and private owners as selling or transferring an “asset to a community group as a viable, positive option” (DCLG, 2011b: p4). It also is worth noting that the government have also adjusted the guidance on using other legislative platforms in support of the CRtBid, such as compulsory purchase orders (see more information on this below).
It was highlighted that giving communities “a fair chance to make a bid” does impact the rights of private property owners (DCLG, 2011c: p5), therefore they have introduced a compensation scheme. However, in reference to private property rights, the policy does not restrict who the asset is sold to the outside of the moratorium period, or at what price, and therefore “they do not confer a right of refusal to community interest groups” (ibid.), unlike the Community Right to Buy (CRtBuy) in Scotland (see more information on this below). There are also no restrictions “on what an owner can do with their property, once listed, if it remains in their ownership. This is because it is planning policy that determines permitted uses for particular sites” (ibid.). Therefore, the impact on landowners’ rights has been the temporary limitation on who they can sell their assets to (only being able to sell to a community organisation within the 6-month moratorium) and in some cases (locally dependent) the ACV may be considered during planning decisions on change of use, and thus have an impact on their liberty rights.
The government's intentions behind introducing the CRtBid are based on:
protecting locally important community assets (DCLG, 2013);
providing more opportunities to take control of assets and services (DCLG, 2012a);
levelling the playing field (due to providing time to prepare a bid) (DCLG, 2011c); and
giving a fair chance to make a bid (DCLG, 2011c).
These intentions have been explored further through the empirical element of Lynn’s (2018) thesis.
After the Community Rights Inquiry, the government report stated that the CRtBid “brings people together and gives them the opportunity to have a say in what happens to valued pubs, shops or community centres if they are put up for sale” (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, 2015: p9). The extent to which these policy intentions and whether it increases opportunities to “have a say” in the way places are governed is considered in greater detail in Lynn (2018). As the policy has two elements, the ACV element, which involves the nomination of assets and the CRtBid element which can be activated if/when the asset is on the market, these are considered in further detail after providing a summary of other policies and legislation that are similar or relevant to the CRtBid (see also Sandford, 2017).
Upon receiving a nomination, of which the process is determined locally, LAs are required to provide a written notice to the parties involved, namely, the owner(s), occupier (if they are not the same as the owner), and the local parish council (if relevant). If the listing is successful, this will be featured on the list for five years. The landowner concerned has a right to appeal, which is first considered as a LA internal review and if not satisfied to the First Tier or Upper Tier Tribunal. If the nomination is unsuccessful it also features on the list too, and the LA are required to state the reasons why. There is no right to appeal to nominating bodies. It is at the relevant planning committee’s discretion as to whether the listing of an ACV is regarded as ‘material consideration’, which is confirmed within the DCLG advice note (2012b). The Government refers to the rights of landowners and the impact of planning decisions on these rights;
“The provisions do not place any restriction on what an owner can do with their property, once listed, so long as it remains in their ownership. This is because it is a planning policy that determines permitted uses for particular sites. However, the fact that the site is listed may affect planning decisions - it is open to the Local Planning Authority to decide whether listing as an asset of community value is a material consideration if an application for change of use is submitted, considering all the circumstances of the case.” (DCLG, 2012b: p6)
Therefore, the effectiveness of the nomination is dependent upon the local recognition of the status of an ACV in planning decisions.
During the five years of being featured on the list of ACV, if the landowner wishes to place the asset on the market then they are required to notify the LA. Consequently, the nominating body and other community groups are notified and have six weeks to notify the LA if they intend to bid for the asset, giving them a 6-month moratorium period to raise funds to prepare for a bid.
The government stated its intentions are to allow the owner to have the option to dispose of the asset to a community interest group making a bid, without having to wait until the end of the moratorium period and “to have a ‘right of first offer’” (DCLG, 2011c: p10). Following this, there is a protected period, of eighteen months from when the notice of relevant disposal was submitted from the landowner, which allows for the landowner to sell the asset to whomever they choose if no intention to bid is received, or the full moratorium is elapsed.
An overview of the process is illustrated in Figure 1. However, it is worth noting that there are numerous exempt disposals, which include transfers of ownership within a family, partnership or between trustees of a trust or within companies in a group; the disposal through the gift of an asset; assets that are being sold as a ‘going concern’ (e.g. a pub still in operation); disposals in the execution of a will or arising from various legal proceedings; statutory compulsory purchase; and finally, for the purpose of ensuring NHS services continue.
The CRtBid has been confused with or considered alongside CAT in LA decision making. Although there is a similarity in the underlying drivers behind the policies, namely localism and decentralisation and community asset ownership, there are many fundamental differences (see Figure 2 for an overview of the similarities and differences). The Open Services White Paper (July 2011) stated that the government shall “continue to encourage local authorities to consider asset transfer to community management or ownership as an important option for service transformation and the rationalisation of local public assets” (HM Government, 2011: p27). In terms of the specific differences, it is suggested that CAT operates “on a discretionary basis rather than forming a ‘community right’” (Sandford, 2017: p7), whereas the CRtBid a “pre-emptive legal right pertaining to communities” (Locality, 2012: p3).
The success of CAT has been debated and there are a number of gaps in the CAT data available, there is no national data on the number of CATs (Wilson, 2017). However, research from Locality (2018) highlights that only 41% of LAs had a CAT strategy even though 95% of local authorities they surveyed had stated that the sale of publicly owned land and buildings was expected to have an increasingly important role in the next five years. Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the motivations of the cost efficiencies behind CAT as it can lead to the disposal of unprofitable assets that require maintenance or modernisation (SQW, 2010; Aiken et al., 2011; Murtagh et al., 2012), particularly within the context of austerity.
Right to Bid
Asset Transfer
Basis
Statutory
National policy
Type of Asset
Any asset (according to criteria)
Any council-owned asset
Ownership
Any owner
Public sector
Process
Defined in Localism Act
Mutual negotiation
Value
Market Value
Under Market Value
Terms
Freehold or lease of 25+ years
Mutual negotiation
Figure 2: Difference between CAT and CRtBid. Source: adapted from Locality (2014a)
Even though there is a drive for these policies, the “government does not appear to publish statistics on initiatives such as community asset transfers and assets of community value” (Wilson, 2017: p16). However, the work of Locality in 2011/12 included responding to a 50% increase in enquiries from members and the general public across England in acquiring assets and were involved in supporting local authorities to explore the transfer of over 200 publicly owned buildings (Locality, 2012b).
Locality (and other previously connected organisations) have been calling for legislation like the CRtBid since the introduction of the CRtBuy in Scotland, which has subtle similarities to the CRtBid by increasing opportunities for communities to purchase land to which they have a connection. The CRtBid was initially debated as a “Community Right to Buy,” but the government stated that
“The impact on property owners would be more restrictive, especially on the sale price. The complexity and cost of implementation would be considerably greater. We consider that these disadvantages outweigh the potential to provide additional benefits to communities” (DCLG, 2011b: p5).
However, examining the details of the CRtBuy, the focus is on the conservation of environmental value as opposed to being community value in the case of CRtBid, but the reason for a push towards a similar mechanism to the CRtBuy is because the community is given the first refusal to the land. Contrarily though, research shows that it “is not a radical piece of land reform legislation” (Pillai, 2010: p904), because it does not force a landowner to sell, nor is it likened to CPO. However, unlike the CRtBid, the CRtBuy; “is radical for imposing a duty on a particular landowning group to manage their land in a sustainable manner… it offers an alternative to the traditional rights-based system of landownership…”(ibid.: p204). Furthermore, the benefits of the CRtBuy are identified as providing
“communities with the opportunity to explore their own economic, social and environmental needs, their development aspirations and to make local decisions, which integrate local environmental knowledge. It encourages the generation of a SD [sustainable development] discourse between communities, landowners, Scottish Ministers and other public bodies, NGOs, and the wider public” (ibid.).
These benefits may be a feature in the outcomes of the CRtBid, particularly with widening the discourse of community value amongst stakeholders.
Policies such as compulsory purchase (enacted through a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), based on a specific Act of Parliament or as an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992) provide a mechanism to public (and some private) bodies, where, if there are enough resources to do so, they can enforce the purchase of land and property, on the justification that it is in the public interest and is the most economically efficient use of the property for taxpayers (Merill, 1986; Posner, 2003). However, little is known about the use of the CPOs and whether the powers are used to acquire ‘community assets.’ It is also documented within the literature that the CPO powers may be used to support the neoliberal agenda, as opposed to the greater good as suggested by the policy, this is highlighted by Harvey;
“The uses of eminent domain, for example, to appropriate spaces for private purposes (as opposed to the "public utility" for which such laws were originally intended) is a classic case of the redefinition of public purpose as state-led sponsorship of private development… From California to Greece, the crisis produced losses in urban asset values, rights, and entitlements for the mass of the population, coupled with the extension of predatory capitalist power over low-income and hitherto marginalised populations” (2012: pp.85-6).
However, even within the context of neoliberalism, the government have, since the introduction of the CRtBid, adjusted the guidance on compulsory purchase and the Crichel Down Rules (see MHCLG, 2018) to enable community or local bodies to put in a request to the LAs to use their compulsory purchase powers to acquire community assets (including ACV). These are to be made with reference to the threat of loss of an ACV where the owner is unwilling to sell and also refers to vacant commercial properties that are detracting from the vitality of an area. However, it is recognised that the extent to which this might have an impact is dependent upon whether the LA can finance the purchase and compensation. In making a decision, it is suggested that LAs should;
“ascertain the value of the asset to the community, or the effect of bringing it back into use; the perceived threat to the asset; the future use of the asset and who would manage it (including a business plan where appropriate); any planning issues; and how the acquisition would be financed” (MHCLG, 2018: para.216).
Although such adjustments in the processes demonstrate progressive potential for revitalising community assets, however, the challenges remain for LAs to raise the funds for doing so.
Please note the MHCLG in May 2020 has published guidance for acquiring authorities on compulsory purchase matters here in response to the COVID-19 situation.
This post is an edited extract from Lynn (2018) doctoral thesis.
References
Aiken, M., Cairns, B., Taylor, M., and Moran, R. (2011). Community organisations controlling assets: a better understanding. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
DCLG (2011a). Proposals to introduce a Community Right to Buy – Assets of Community Value Consultation paper. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
DCLG (2011b). Localism Bill: community right to buy: Impact assessment. London: Department for Communities and Local Government
DCLG (2011c). Assets of Community Value – Policy Statement. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
DCLG (2012a). More than £30 million for communities taking over valued services and assets. Announcement. London: Department for Communities and Local Government
DCLG (2012b). Community Right to Bid: non-statutory advice note for local authorities. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
DCLG (2013). You’ve got the power: A quick and simple guide to community rights. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities. 1st ed. London: Verso.
HM Government (2011). The Localism Act 2011. London: The Stationary Office.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (2018). Guidance on Compulsory purchase process and The Crichel Down Rules. London: Housing, Communities and Local Government.