FUTURE MANAGEMENT AND OWNERSHIP OF EASTER CRAIGLOCKHART HILL LOCAL NATURE RESERVE (LNR) AND ASSOCIATED LAND Frequently

asked Questions

Background
The City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) is seeking views on the principle of transferring land within or adjacent to Easter Craiglockhart Local Nature Reserve to some form of community ownership and management. Views are sought on 5 broad options. CEC is keen to assess public opinion on these. The mapping provided is indicative of the areas of land that might be considered. The exact areas and the final detail of any form of community ownership are yet to be determined. Views expressed during this consultation will be used to inform how CEC proceeds, but not to make a binding decision on any particular option at this stage. The following answers are provided in response to typical questions raised during the consultation to date. The answers serve to clarify what is understood by each option at this stage.

Option 1
Take no action. The consequence would be that a new residents association (of the potential new housing development) would become the owners and managers of the Criaghouse Partnership owned section of the Local Nature Reserve as well as the lawn area known as the Orchard. Q1 Would full public access be returned to areas 2-5 including access among the buildings as at present? A1 Access rights under Part 1 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 would apply. This provides a right of responsible access to most land. The right does not extend to zones of privacy. The extent of zones of privacy depends on the location and circumstances. Edinburghs Outdoor Access Forum can advise where there is disagreement. It is likely however, that access rights would apply to most of the land. It is unlawful for a land manager to take, or fail to take any action for the purpose of deterring or preventing people from exercising these rights. The local authority has powers to intervene where access rights are interfered with in this way. There would be a right of vehicular and pedestrian access within the site on any adopted roads or footways.

Q2 Are there guarantees that residents could not close these areas to the community? A2 Q3 Please refer to A1 above. What is the current legal basis for public access across the site?

A3 Access rights for non-motorised activities such as walking and cycling arise under Part 1 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Access rights do not extend to zones of privacy adjacent to residential buildings and enclosed areas around working buildings. The extent of these areas depend on the circumstances and characteristics of the individual location. There is a Core Path leading along the Northern edge of area 3. This status would be unchanged. Core paths provide assured access. Q4 Worry that access to land areas 2-5 would be reduced or area left to deteriorate? What control City of Edinburgh council have over this? A4 The condition of the land would be a matter for the owners. CEC would have no influence other than through any voluntary working arrangements that can be reached for the locality as a whole. CEC would not contribute financially to the upkeep of land for which it is not responsible. Q5 Would this be too big a responsibility for a new residents group?

A5 Resonsibility for the management of the land would automatically fall to the title holder regardless of capability. Q6 What land is being made available to Council/ Community?

A6 The areas shown on the consultation mapping are indicative only. It will be a matter for the current site owner to decide on the final extent of the area offered.

Option 2
The Council could take ownership of the entire reserve from the Craighouse Partnership and manage it on behalf of the City, community and residents. Q8 A8 Q9 Will the owner provide starter funding to bring land to standards? This would be a matter of negotiation as part of any exchange. If the developer becomes bankrupt who manages site?

A9 The site would remain the responsibility of the developer or any appointed receiver until any exchange has taken place. Q10 Could the Council sell land in future?

A10 Any owner could sell land in the future. Any future decision made by CEC would however be made by elected members and under full public scrutiny. Q11 How will the land be managed and what is the cost?

A11 It is likely that land would be managed by the Parks & Greenspace Service in partnership with SW Neighbourhood. There would be a significant cost associated with management. This would need further detailed assessment and inform any negotiations with the current owners. No decision have been made about the allocation of future funding for the site should this option proceed. Q12 Could sections 3 & 4 be brought within Council ownership & management but not to LNR standard? A12 Yes, this is possible. The option to extend the existing Local Nature Reserve boundary is discretionary. Q13 What is the actual land area considered?

A13 The area of the land shown in parcels 2-5 is approximately 10 hectares. The areas shown are indicative only and would be subject to change following further discussion and negotiation.

Option 3
Joint Ownership with the community taking ownership and management responsibility for the Craighouse Partnership owned land and the Council retaining the part of the LNR it already owns. Q14 Is the Council willing to hand land over to the community?

A14 Under option 3, it would be likely that subject to agreement between a Community Group and the Craighouse Partnership, ownership of land currently owned by the Partnership (areas 2-5) would transfer directly to a community group without any transition phase involving the Council. This would result in the City of Edinburgh Council and a community group being adjoining landowners and separately responsible for how land is managed in their own areas. Q15 What happens if the community group fails? Does the council have the right to take all over again? A15 If full ownership and title transfers to a Community Group then CEC would not have an automatic right to take over. Sale or transfer of land would be a matter for the legal owners. Q16 What are the risks of insufficient or transient expertise within the community group? A16 This would depend on the circumstances and abilities of the group. However, the primary risks would relate to ability to manage the site effectively and to meet associated legal responsibilities. Q17 What is meant by community or community group?

A17 This is taken to mean any formally constituted organisation with an interest in owning and managing the site for the benefit of the community. The community is taken to mean those living, working and recreating in both the immediate locality and the wider City of Edinburgh area. Such a group would have a formal constitution and have accountable office bearers responsible for owning and managing assets.

Q18 What is the advantage to the members of the "community" compared with the rest of Edinburgh? Is there not a risk that a few people would end up paying for public access enjoyed by many? A18 One advantage of a communitiy ownership and management may be giving those with an interest in the site greater influence over its management. This interest might be from the immediate locality or wider Edinburgh area. Any constituted community group taking on responsibility for the site would need to accept that access and amenities are provided for all visitors. Q19 Do organisations such as the Woodland Trust count as community groups? A19 It is understood that a community group would be any properly constituted organisation run by local people to manage the land for public benefit. It may have membership which includes specialist skills and partnerships with other organisations to assist with management. Q20 What would be the main difficulties with Joint Ownership?

A20 With the ownership boundary sitting between areas 1 and 2, integrated management of the entire area would depend on effective communication and co-operation between CEC and the new land-owning community group. This may or may not be achievable. Retention of the existing LNR designation covering areas 1 and 2 would require formal agreement between CEC and the new owners. However, CEC would wish to see the existing LNR designation retained or extended and would actively seek to reach agreement. Q21 What is meant by ownership?

A 21 At this stage, ownership is taken to mean full title to the land and associated responsibilities. Q22 How would community get to manage Craighouse Partnership parcels of land? A22 Under this option, any negotiation to purchase land would be between the Craighouse Partnership and an interested Community Group. CEC would not have any influence over these discussions.

Q23 Would the Craighouse Partnership still own land and lease it to the community? A23 This would be a matter for discussion and agreement between the parties. CEC would not have any influence over these discussions. Q24 Will land transferred from the Partnership come with a bond to pay for future upkeep/management? A24 This would be a matter for discussion and agreement between the parties. CEC would not have any influence over these discussions. Q25 Would the agreement be fixed term? A25 Q26 As above Can the land be sold off at a later date?

A26 A community group with title to the land could sell the land at a future stage. The decision would be a matter for the group operating under the terms of its constitution. Any development of such land would be subject to planning permission. Q27 Will there still be access for the public?

A27 Yes, access rights under Part 1 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 would still apply.

Q28

What benefits are there for this option over the others?

A28 CEC would not need to meet the long term costs of managing additional land. The community would have immediate and direct control and management of areas 2-5. Q29 What benefits does option 3 have compared to existing ownership arrangements?

A29 Community based ownership gives a community group the opportunity to directly decide how management of the area is best delivered. Q30 Who would mediate any disputes? A30 A land owning community group would be responsible for managing and resolving any disputes arising from management of their land. CEC has powers to intervene where there are disputes arising from the right of responsible access. Q31 Who will be the neutral broker if there is conflict of interest between the community management team and the new residents of Craighouse? A31 Resolution of conflict or dispute would be a matter for both parties to resolve between themselves unless a third party is invited in to mediate.

Option 4
Community ownership and management of all areas. Q32 Option 4 seems onerous for the community. This is a large undertaking with the danger that a lot of work might fall on just a few. Can the community do this and how sustainable is it? A32 The sustainability is directly linked to the success of the community group in this endeavour and relates to the groups own level of expertise and management abilities. The level of risk is therefore difficult to assess at this stage. Q33 If we don't know who the community is how do we know they are competent to manage? A33 Under this option, the Craighouse Partnership would be responsible for the sale or transfer of their land to a community group. It would be a matter for the current owners to decide on who they wish to sell the land to. Transfer of land currently owned by CEC would only take place if a properly constituted group can demonstrate its competence to manage the site in the longer term.

Q34 Where will money come from? A34 Funds for any purchase and future maintenance of land would need to be raised by the community group. Q35 Would the Council help pay for maintenance of woodland? A35 All costs arising from maintenance of woodland and the wider estate would need to be met by the community group. Some community grant may be available from CEC for smaller projects, but not for ongoing repairs and maintenance. A community group may be able to secure additional funding from a range of grant awarding bodies. Some of this funding is available to community groups but not local authorities. CEC has access to revenue budgets for ongoing maintenance and capital budgets for future investment in the site. A community group would need to meet all costs from their own revenue budget. Q36 Can the developer make a financial contribution towards the cost of running woodland managed by a community group? Q36 This would be a matter for negotiation between the current owners and any community group purchasing the land. Q37 Who will manage the location and deal with liabilities?

A37 The community group would be responsible for all aspects of site management and carry all liabilities that come with ownership. CEC would no longer own or manage land within the Easter Craiglockhart LNR. Q38 Would the Local Nature Reserve designation remain?

A38 Under the provisions of the National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Council has the powers to declare Local Nature Reserves on its own land, or on other land through a management agreement. There would be no LNR unless a management agreement with the Council is agreed.

Option 4 a
Transition period of joint ownership and management between the Council and the community moving towards full community ownership and management over a period of time (5 years suggested as an example). As the community was able to raise funds and show their ability to manage land, ownership would be transferred. CEC would need to be satisfied that a community based group was able to take over responsibility for the site and manage it in the public interest over the longer term. There would be a transparent process by which any community groups could express interest and be invited to demonstrate their capabilities. The process and the requirements would be established in due course. Q39 How much would it cost to run the area?

A39 Costs would arise from: paths and access infrastructure maintenance; woodland management; grass cutting; walls and structures; storm damage and erosion; and public safety management. Detailed costs are still to be determined, but would be substantial. As an indication, the approximate average annual cost of managing the CEC owned part of the LNR is 20,000. This cost relates to Area 1 only. Costs for areas 2-5 would be additional and are likely to be of a similar order depending on the features present. Q40 What about the costs for services provided by the Natural Heritage Service? A40 Managing a larger area in the interim would require input from CEC staff. While the land is owned and managed by CEC, staff costs would be met from existing budgets. If the land transfers to full community ownership and management, it would be a matter for the new owners to provide and fund all resources necessary to manage the area. The Natural Heritage Service would not be expected to provide staff input following transfer to full community ownership. However, there may be a case for purchasing these services should both parties be in agreement. Q41 How can a decision be made in May without having an idea of cost and work involved in community ownership? A41 This consultation aims to seek views about the general principles of community ownership and management at Easter Craiglockhart. No decision can be made until there is a formal offer of land transfer and a draft agreement acceptable to all parites. This would require further work including a detailed assessment of future costs.

Other Questions
Q42 Would community owned land revert back to the council if it didn't work? A42 Transfer of title would not be temporary. However it might be possible to negotiate a form of a lease which would give the community a fixed term of control and management with options for review. Q43 Why has the land in the middle been missed out? That area in the middle has grass and space? A43 The areas shown are indicative only. The precise detail of any land offered for transfer will be matter for the current owners to agree with interested parties. Q44 If you didn't find a group that agreed with the LNR would the Council keep the land? A44 The Local Nature Reserve (LNR) designation currently applies to areas 1 and 2. The LNR designation depends on an agreement being in place between CEC and the owners. CEC would wish to see the LNR designation continue and would seek to reach agreement to this effect.
.

Q45 Why is option 4a not called option 5? What is the difference between this and option 3? A45 Option 3 means that the community would own one area of land, and CEC another. This would mean the Council and the community being neighbouring land owners. Option 4 and 4a both have the same end result full community ownership and management of all areas. Option 4 refers to immediate transfer while option 4a provides a transition towards full community ownership. Q46 Can land be sold off in the future? A46 Some of the existing CEC owned land in area 1 is classified as common good meaning that it cannot be disposed of easily. In 2012, the entire area of CEC owned land (Area 1) was dedicated under the Fields in Trust Queen Elizabeth 11 scheme. This dedication provides assured protection in perpetuity as a place for recreational enjoyment. This is achieved via a deed of dedication linked to the title.

Transfer of title of Area 1 would be difficult and would come with the burden associated with the dedication. Other areas could be sold without this consideration unless the dedication is extended to these areas. Q47 Can we be assured that if the Council takes over areas 2-5 the land won't ever be built on? A47 If CEC becomes the owner, the intention would be to manage the additional land as public open space and in a fashion that is consistent with the existing Local Nature Reserve. Any future decision about sale or development of land would be made by elected members under full public scrutiny and with reference to prevailing planning policy. Additionally, it is likely that CEC would consider extending the existing Fields in Trust dedication to provide long term protection for these areas. Q48 A48 Is option 4a only covering area 1? Option 4a refers to all areas

Q49

Are areas 3,4, and 5 up for sale?

A49 Areas 2-5 are currently owned by the Craighouse Partnership. Some preliminary discussions have taken place between the Partnership, CEC and other parties about the possible transfer of land. These discussions have been exploratory and the land is not currently being marketed for sale. Q50 What would happen if a community group only wanted to take it on with an existing conservation group, trust or other professional body? A50 The current owners are free to transfer land to any third party, or partnership of parties it wishes. For land owned by CEC, the Council would require evidence and assurances that any partnership is capable of managing the land effectively. There is no reason in principle why a community group could not enter into a partnership with an established organisation to manage the site.

Q51 If the community ownership option goes forward would there be a tendering process? A51 The Craighouse Partnership could transfer ownership to any party it wishes without any tendering process. For transfer of any CEC owned land however, there would be a formal process through which any community based organisation could express interest and apply to take ownership and responsibility for the site. This would be similar to a tendering process through which CEC would seek to be satisfied that the successful party has the capacity to manage the land effectively in the long term. Q52 Would the group have to agree the approved management plan? Could they then discard it after 2016? A52 A management plan is not binding. It is a tool to guide the management of the site. A management plan is required for the Local Nature Reserve designation (areas 1 and 2). Management planning is a matter for the land owners and managers. A community group would be free to develop and implement its own management plan for land it controls. Management plans for CEC owned sites require public consultation and approval by elected members. Q53 How strong would the safeguarding for the LNR be? A53 Local Nature Reserve designation is made by the local authority. Where the land is not owned by the local authority, designation requires a formal agreement with the land owners. Q54 Does this consultation have anything to do with the Craighouse Partnership and the planning permission for the development? A54 The consultation about future ownership and management of land is separate from the planning application for development of the Craighouse Campus. Q55 Shouldn't this be decided after the planning decision? A55 The planning application and this consultation are separate. The consultation about the potential for community ownership was initiated by elected members.

Q56

Has the map been drawn up to suit Craighouse Partnership?

A56 The map shows the existing LNR (areas 1 and 2) and an indication of the other parcels of land that might be available. These have been identified following preliminary discussions The areas shown are indicative only any are likely to be subject to change during any further negotiations. Q57 Are the areas 3,4 and 5 the areas that Craighouse Partnership agreed they would give up?

A57 Areas 2-5 are all owned by the Craighouse Partnership and are indicative of the areas that might be considered for transfer to CEC or a community group. The precise areas will need confirmation and no decision has been made about whether or not these areas are to be transferred Q58 What is the likelihood of the community having expertise?

A58 This would depend on the membership, constitution and resources of any interested community based organisation. The question cannot be answered at this stage. Q59 If the community group cannot meet requirements within 5 years to take on ownership - what could happen? A 59 Under Option 4a, it would be unlikely that CEC would transfer ownership and management if there is not a community based group that meets the requirements. In this situation, the land would remain in Council ownership. Q60 It would need a high level of skills base to manage this. Why have existing specialist groups not been approached? A60 At this stage, expressions of interest are not being invited. Rather, the consultation is about the general principles. If community ownership is pursued then there would be process whereby interested parties with existing specialist expertise would be invited to express interest.

Q61 What safety mechanisms would you have? If community people involved leave - problems and no-one to respond - what happens then?

A61 For the options involving full community ownership and management there can be no guarantees about the ability of the organisation to sustain management activity in the longer term. Q62 What are the risks for each option?

A62 All options carry different risks. The most significant risks however are concerned with the ability of any party to effectively manage the site in the longer term. The costs and required management input will be significant whether the land is managed by CEC or the community. Q63 Is there any interest from the community to date?

A63 Expressions of interest have not been actively sought at this stage. However, the primary interest to date in some form of community ownership has been expressed by the Common Ground Association.