Community Ownership in Achnamara

Feasibility Study for Achnamara Village Hall Committee

18th April 2019

Draft Final Report

Duncan MacPherson (Community Development Consultant), Calum MacLeod(Sustainable Development Consultant), Gordon Gray Stephens (Woodland Management Consultant), Faye MacLeod(Campbell Stewart MacLennan & Co)

1

ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................5

1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................5

2. Research Methods.....................................................................................................................5

3. Key Findings...............................................................................................................................6

PART ONE: BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT....................................................................8

4. Achnamara’s Assets...................................................................................................................8

Village Hall & Associated Shed.......................................................................................................8

Ashfield Primary School.................................................................................................................9

Achnamara Forest........................................................................................................................10

The Pier........................................................................................................................................14

5. Sustainable Place-making through Community Ownership of Land and Assets......................14

6. Achnamara in Socio-Economic Context...................................................................................15

7. Consultations with Stakeholders.............................................................................................18

Community Consultation Meeting...............................................................................................18

Achnamara Community Survey...................................................................................................21

One to one’ consultations............................................................................................................24

PART TWO: ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS............................................................................27

8. Achnamara Village Hall............................................................................................................27

1. Renovate the existing structure...........................................................................................27

2. Renovate and extend...........................................................................................................28

3. Demolish & Build New.........................................................................................................28

4. Repurpose the building........................................................................................................28

Discussion....................................................................................................................................29

9. Ashfield primary School...........................................................................................................29

Community Use...........................................................................................................................29

Commercial Activity.....................................................................................................................30

Discussion of mixed-use options..................................................................................................34

10. Community Woodland Development..................................................................................38

Forest Crofts................................................................................................................................38

Woodlots.....................................................................................................................................39

Small scale firewood production.................................................................................................40

Large scale forestry enterprises...................................................................................................40

Polytunnels and community growing..........................................................................................41

2

Size Options.................................................................................................................................41

Financial Implications of the Purchase Options...........................................................................43

Potential Forest Management Constraints..................................................................................44

11. Shore & Pier Improvements.................................................................................................47

12. Housing................................................................................................................................48

1. Community-led....................................................................................................................49

2. Argyll Community Housing Association...............................................................................49

3. Highland Small Communities Housing Trust........................................................................49

4. Self-build..............................................................................................................................49

13. Development Opportunities & The Planning System...........................................................50

14. Options Analysis...................................................................................................................52

Option 1 – Hall site only...............................................................................................................52

Option 2 – School only.................................................................................................................53

Option 3 – Hall & School..............................................................................................................54

Option 4A – 16.2ha forest only....................................................................................................55

Option 4B – 16.9ha forest plus school.........................................................................................56

Option 5A – 53.1ha forest............................................................................................................57

Option 5B – 53.1ha forest plus school.........................................................................................58

Option 6A – 116.2ha forest..........................................................................................................59

Option 6B - 116.2ha forest plus school........................................................................................60

Discussion........................................................................................................................................61

PART THREE: BOARD SKILLS, RISK ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING.........................................................64

15. Skills Survey of Achnamara Village Hall Committee.............................................................64

Time Commitment to support the Committee’s Work................................................................64

Profile of Committee Members’ Skills..........................................................................................65

Survey Respondents’ Comments.................................................................................................67

Relevant Skills..............................................................................................................................67

Skills Gaps....................................................................................................................................68

Other Comment...........................................................................................................................68

Summary.....................................................................................................................................68

16. Risk Assessment of Community Ownership.........................................................................69

17. Funding Sources...................................................................................................................71

a. Scottish Land Fund...................................................................................................................71

b. Big Lottery Fund.......................................................................................................................71

c. Scottish Government Regeneration Capital Grant Fund..........................................................72

d. Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund...........................................................................................72

3

e. Highlands & Islands Enterprise................................................................................................72

f. Private Grant Making Trusts....................................................................................................72

18. Conclusions..........................................................................................................................72

APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................74

Appendix 1 – Summary Option Finances.........................................................................................75

Appendix 2 – Forestry Management & Acquisition.........................................................................76

Appendix 3 – Achnamara Village Hall..............................................................................................78

Appendix 4 – Achnamara School.....................................................................................................80

Appendix 5 – Campervan Income & Expenditure............................................................................82

Appendix 6 – Pod/Shepherd Hut Provision......................................................................................84

Appendix 7 – Bunkhouse.................................................................................................................86

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. IntroductionAchnamara Village Hall Committee commissioned the consultancy team to carry out a feasibility study into the options for ownership or lease of assets in Achnamara including the village hall, forestry land, school building and pier.

This study incorporates an options appraisal of the various assets and a consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of owning different combinations of assets.

2. Research MethodsThe research underpinning the analysis contained in this report was conducted using a combination of methods including:

Desk-based analysis of relevant documents including:

Species and stocking data relating to the current forest operation, and comparable CATS examples based on information supplied by FLS,

The Existing Building Condition Report and financial information relating to the village hall Argyll & Bute Council Options Appraisal, title plan, floor plan and estimated repair costs for

Ashfield Primary school building Internet research of comparable business activities Evaluation reports, national and regional policy and regional socio-economic

documentation relating to the focus of the study. For example, the 2016 & 2019 Achnamara Community Surveys, Argyll & Bute Economic Development Plan, 2001 and 2011 census data and ‘Awakening the Giant: the Strategic Framework for Scotland’s Marine Tourism Sector’.

Achanamara PAWS (Plantation on Ancient Woodland Sites) Survey 2018 completed by Angus Bevan, Native Woodland Cooperative.

Primary data analysis of findings from:

A site visit to Achnamara on October 16th 2018 to assess potential development options and locations.

Woodland Visits by Woodland Management Consultant on 13th October and 15th November 2018.

Individual telephone consultations with representatives of community groups that use the community hall and/or the adjacent shed including Café Connect, the table tennis club, Stich Up, Parent and Toddler Group and the skiff club. The local Councillor for the Ward was also consulted, as were local representatives of Scottish Natural Heritage and Forestry Commission Scotland.

A community consultation meeting in Achnamara on November 28th 2018 to get the community’s views on potential development options via community ownership of land and/or other assets.

5

3. Key Findings

Consultations undertaken for the feasibility study indicate widespread community support for developments to increase the population of the area and help ensure its sustainability. A lack of affordable housing in Achnamara is seen as a priority to be addressed although there are mixed views as to what type of provision should be made available under community ownership of land.

A community hall is widely seen as an essential community asset but there is a divergence of opinion as to whether the existing hall should be retained, or the school building be used for that purpose, or whether a new hall should be built.

The school building is also viewed as an essential community asset. While a minority would prefer to see it reopened as a school immediately, most would like to see it mothballed for a further period to see if the community can attract more people to live in the area who might then have a need for the school. Alternative suggested uses – apart from using it as a community hall - included converting it into housing, leasing it for office space/business units, or turning it into a community ‘hub’.

Much of the discussion around woodland issues centred on housing possibilities (woodland crofts and plots to meet housing needs and attract new residents), scale of woodland to take into community ownership (here were mixed views as to whether to take large, medium or small amounts into community ownership), and woodland-related development opportunities (e.g. paths and walks development, camp and campervan site, and expanding marine developments into the forest opposite the pier).

Some support was expressed for buying the pier and land between it and the community hall. Suggested developments included installing visitor moorings, foreshore development including a slipway, camping, shower facilities, a café and pontoons. However, concerns were raised about pubic liability issues and potential running costs under community ownership.

The village hall was built in 1955, has served the community well but is coming to the end of its design life. 4 options were identified for the future of the building:

Renovate the existing structure. This would be the simplest and cheapest option at £30-60,000 for costs at £500-100/m².

Renovate and extend. An extension of 50-100m² at a build cost of £2,500/m² and the cost of renovations to the existing structure would result in a project cost in the region of £180-£320,000.

Demolish & Build New. The removal of the existing buildings would provide the opportunity to design a purpose-built building based around current and projected community needs. Assuming a building footprint of 150-250m² and a build cost of £2500/m² for a quality building, overall costs would be £375-625,000. Similar costs would apply to a greenfield site that had close access to services.

Repurpose the building. The community could relocate its community activities to the former school (see below) or to another site hosting a new-build community centre. The hall could be used for example to provide premises for a local business.

The best options are to either demolish the existing building and build a new one, or to move community activities elsewhere and reuse the existing hall for another purpose.

6

Ashfield Primary SchoolThe school building offers considerable scope for community use in that the 2 classrooms offer 3 spaces that can be used for different activities. Income-generating activities could include the rental of business space, a community café and the creation of a small campsite for 4-5 campervans and several pods. 2 scenarios are modelled envisaging the community using the school as a community centre with some business activity, or using it primarily for business purposes. Leasing the school during an extended mothballing period is a possibility, but it would be difficult to raise funds for redevelopment in these circumstances.

Forestry OptionsAchnamara is embedded within the National Forest Estate, and the community has the right to ask for a transfer of an area of this land under the Community Asset Transfer Scheme (CATS). The consultants were tasked with developing the community’s existing proposals for CATS. These proposals have also been raised with Forestry and Land Scotland, although detailed discussion awaits confirmation of the area involved.

Three possible options have been developed, based on the scale of the acquisition (“small”16ha, “medium” 53ha and “large”116ha). The advantages and disadvantages associated with these options are laid out in the Options Analysis below. However in summary, the smallest option would allow the community to develop many of its aspirations, while the medium scale option extends this to include Forest Crofts and Woodlots, and the large option encompasses the above, but also has the potential to deliver enhanced level of financial contribution to other community projects. All three options will require the community to take on responsibility for an area of forest, although there are a number of practical ways of managing this on a day to day basis.

Shore & PierThe existing pier is a useful, although far from ideal, resource for the local community. Improvements could be made to the pier, and slipway and pontoons with onshore facilities could be installed. The capital costs of a project will vary according to the site conditions, condition of existing structures and the scale of the development proposed. A single site project is likely to cost in the region of £0.5-1.0m and potentially up to £1.5m if significant improvements to the pier and slipway are included. The provision of a standalone facilities building for toilet/showers and laundry could cost in the region of £50-75,000.

HousingThe community consultation process carried out by AVHC clearly identified the lack of new housing opportunities as a key issue for the area. Housing could be provided in a number of ways: community-led; through other bodies such as Argyll Community Housing Association or Highland Small Communities Housing Trust; or through private self-build.A combination of some, or even all, of these options could deliver real benefits in terms of providing new housing opportunities, halting rural depopulation and rebalancing the demographics of the area.

Options Analysis & RecommendationsThe study identified 9 options for the community to consider. These are summarised in the following table:

Option Purchase Cost Annual Income Annual Surplus Community Aspirations Met?

7

1 – Hall £10,000 £4,900 £0 No2 – School £100,000 £27,586 £8,237 No3 – Hall & School £110,000 £29,476 £9843 No4A – Small Forest £55,000 £15,040 £672 No4B – Small Forest + School

£155,000 £39,616 £11,515 No

5A – Medium Forest

£240,000 £56,310 £10,575 Yes

5B – Medium Forest + School

£340,000 £80,886 £21,418 Yes

6A – Large Forest £515,000 £79,710 £28,131 Yes6b – Large Forest + School

£615,000 £104,286 £38,974 Yes

Options 1-4 are not recommended because they would not provide enough assets to meet the aspirations of the community for providing a combination of housing, pier redevelopment, firewood business, woodlots and woodland crofts. Options 5&6 would provide these opportunities, with Option 6 providing greater opportunities than Option 5 and generating greater surpluses for reinvestment. The community could aim to purchase the forest land first and then follow up with a purchase of the school at a later date, if and when it is closed permanently.

PART ONE: BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

4. Achnamara’s AssetsThe tender brief identified a range of assets for consideration by the community comprising the village hall, the mothballed primary school, the forest and the pier. Each of these is considered here. The community is also considering the potential for a micro-hydro scheme as part of a separate study. It is therefore not included here but occasional reference is made to the impact upon a hydro scheme that different levels of community ownership may have.

Village Hall & Associated ShedThe village hall was built in 1955 by the community on the National Forest Estate. It is a timber-framed, metal clad building which is coming to the end of its natural life. It comprises a large single meeting room approximately 19m by 6m with a kitchen extension 4m x 3m and associated toilet facilities which are not up to modern standards. Levels of insulation (possibly asbestos) are low and the heating system is manual electric, resulting in the building taking some time to warm up in colder weather.

The Building Survey report describes it as being at the end of its design life, although in good condition for its age and construction type. It also notes that the building is affected by damp; a problem which will not be possible to solve completely due to the lack of a damp-proof course and a breather membrane in the building.

The hall is used weekly for Table tennis, Café Connect and band practice; monthly for a library lunch; and bi-monthly for yoga, book swap, stitch-up and parent and toddler sessions. In addition, there are

8

a number of occasional community meetings and ad hoc events. Total revenue for the year is approximately £5,000.

There is a small area for parking between the hall and the road which could accommodate approximately 6 vehicles if parking according to regulations but several more using casual methods and blocking in other users of the hall. Immediately to the rear of the hall is a shed/garage which is constructed of similar materials to those of the hall and is being used for the construction of a community skiff.

Ashfield Primary SchoolThe primary school was mothballed in 2015; a situation which is currently being reviewed by Argyll & Bute Council (A&BC). The review could result in a continued period of mothballing or a decision to close permanently. If a decision is taken to close the school it would normally be offered to other council departments first of all, then to other agencies before it was put on the market for sale.

AVHC have asked the consultants to consider future options for use by the community in the event of a proposed closure. Preferably this would include a scenario whereby the community could lease the building to A&BC at some point in the future if the number of primary school children living in the area increases to such an extent as to justify the re-opening of the school.

Building Location & ConditionThe school occupies a relatively secluded position within Achnamara to the rear of the forestry housing scheme. The original feu was for 1.96 acres although this included an area on which a house is located and would not be part of any future sale. The grounds have significant grassed areas to the south and north of the building and also incorporate a strip of woodland immediately to the east. The building is overlooked by the derelict Achnamara House to the north. The site is accessed by a shared access road from the village.

The A&BC ground floor plan drawing of the school indicates a combined internal floor area of just over 240m². The 2 classrooms are measured at 76.5m² and 51.2m² respectively. The larger classroom has a folding sliding partition that enables the room to be divided into 2 spaces of just under 40m² each. Both rooms have large south-facing windows that allow in a lot of natural light and give a pleasant view. In addition to these rooms there is a 22.7m² kitchen and a 10m² room designated “Headmaster” with a corridor connecting all 4 principal rooms. To the rear of the office are toilets and storage spaces and there is a boiler house and plant room to the rear of the kitchen.

The building appears to be in good condition with no obvious signs of deterioration to the roof or water ingress to the interior. The building is being heated and a limited grass-cutting regime is in place. A maintenance survey of the building by A&BC has identified needed maintenance expenditure of £52,600. The key elements it identifies are the replacement of the boiler within the next 5 years (£20,000), external painting (£8,000) and replacement of the girls’ toilet cubicles (£3,500).

Achnamara ForestThis study focuses on 116.2ha around Achnamara, an area which is part of the approximately 6,500ha National Forest Estate holding in Knapdale. The majority of the study area consists of 20 th century conifer plantations which were established either on the site of existing native woodlands,

9

or on previously farmed ground. The area also includes ground in the village of Achnamara, a legacy from the place’s history as a forest village.

Stocking tablesIn the first instance this study will investigate the nature of the tree crop growing in the afforested areas.

This information is developed from data supplied by Forestry and Land Scotland, and is used under the Open Government Licence. Some rounding and small-scale errors that may have occurred in the analysis of over 600 polygons are the author’s own responsibility.

Tree Species and Age ClassesSpecies Planting Year Area (ha)Mixed conifer 1933 4.2Broadleaves After 1980 7.6Broadleaves Before 1980 21.9Sitka Spruce 1969-71 21.4Sitka Spruce 1978-86 10.9Sitka Spruce 85-94 21.3Sitka Spruce 95-96 8Open Ground 22.3Total above 117.6Table 1: Area of various tree species, with age distribution

Age class distributionIndustrial forestry in Scotland has tended to be focussed on large scale even aged monocultures, the result of a relatively intensive period of afforestation largely on poorer soils during the 20 th century. However, a more even age class distribution can help to ensure a more even source of income, and the sector is working to establish this more desirable pattern.

The 20th century history of large-scale afforestation around Achnamara appears to have commenced shortly after the acquisition of ground by Forestry Commission in the early 1930s, with some residue crops from this period. At least one other phase may be conjectured to have occurred when farming at Balure ceased (probably in the late 1960s), and some of the area under consideration probably dates to this period.

At least some of this planting was carried out on ground which was previously native woodland, resulting in the creation of Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS). Some of these areas have been restored to native woodland over the last 30 years, and this has resulted in a younger age class of broadleaf trees.

The result of the 20th century plantations, and subsequent restocking is a block of forestry that has a reasonable age structure, although it is also worth noting that there are no Sitka spruce plantings in the area under the age of 25.

Species CompositionThe Forest area is dominated by Sitka spruce, with just under one third stocked with mixed broadleaves, varying from mature Atlantic oak trees along the watercourses and in isolated stands elsewhere.

10

Species Percentage of wooded areaSitka Spruce 64Broadleaves 32Mixed Conifers 4Table 2: Species composition in the wooded area

Species and age distributionMap 1 shows the distribution of these various types and ages of tree across the potential areas for transfer. The majority of the oldest trees are to be found in the area to the rear of Achnamara House, with established and regenerating broadleaves spread across the site. The youngest conifers are to be found in the easternmost part of the area under consideration.

Map 1 Age and species distribution

Harvestable cropsAlthough there will be scope to produce small volumes of timber from the broadleaves, and some of the older Douglas Fir and Larch have the potential to interest specialist sawmills and markets, the majority of the harvestable crop in the area under consideration is to be found in the Sitka Spruce.

There is a substantial area (21.4ha) of c50 year old Sitka spruce, and it will be desirable to harvest the great majority of this area in the next few years. The whole provides the potential to generate timber revenues into the future.

11

Map 2: showing the main areas of growing conifers and their relationship to the different transfer options

Yield ClassThe rate of growth of a timber crop is measured by Yield Class. Every annual increment of 1m3 to the volume of growing timber per hectare adds one to the Yield Class. Typically, broadleaves perform poorly by this measure, yielding an additional 1-4 m3 per hectare per annum. Conifers, especially Sitka spruce is capable of impressive annual increments. The viability of the conifer crop will depend on the Yield Class and the timber price at the time of felling. Typically, a Yield Class of 14 or more has been regarded a “worthwhile” commercial crop. The figures for Sitka spruce in the area under investigation are good in this regard. The whole of the site is sufficiently low lying and on reasonable soils throughout to allow for high yield classes to apply throughout the site.

Yield Class HectaresYC 20 or more 45.9YC 14-18 11.5YC 8-12 2.6Table 3: Yield Class for Sitka spruce in the area under consideration

Wind Hazard ClassificationForestry and Land Scotland classes the great majority of the area as being of Category 3 and 4, or relatively low risk by Argyll standards. Windthrow risk increases as the top height of the tree crop increases, so there is an ever-increasing risk of windblow, especially in the more mature trees. Windblow both decreases the timber value, and also increases the cost of harvesting operations.

12

Little windblow was observed during visits to the forest, except for one area of c0.5ha of windblown Sitka spruce which lies within the “medium” scale option. However much of the more mature crop will need to be harvested in the near future.

Open GroundOver 22% of the total area is Open Ground, representing a range of land uses other than forestry, including the village hall site, and other communal areas in Achnamara, the solum of the public road through the village, foreshore, fields and open ground within the forest.

Open ground can be an important wildlife habitat, and it is understood that a conservation grazing scheme is in place for at least one of the fields within the area under consideration. Further investigations will be required prior to the development of proposals that involve any change of use of this area.

The Native Woodland Resource

Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS)Large areas of the conifer plantations at Achnamara were created on the site of long-established native woodlands, and the restoration of these areas is a high priority, which is required by, for example, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification, and by the UK government’s forestry standard (UKFS). A specialist report was produced by Angus Bevan on this aspect of the forest at Achnamara.

Riparian HabitatsNative woodlands in the west coast of Scotland can be described as a temperate rainforest: high levels of rainfall, the mild climate and clean air have allowed internationally rare non-flowering plants to thrive. The best examples are frequently found near to watercourses and the gorge section of the Barnagad Burn above the village would appear to be an example of this type of habitat.

Mature ConifersThe 1930 conifers are starting to become substantial trees, and have the potential to continue to grow into a spectacular stand of mature conifers. The Norway spruce stands are particularly valuable as Red squirrel habitat.

Access and RecreationThe area under consideration includes a circular walk from the village (see map 5, p46), which is partly based on forestry roads, and partly on a well-established desire line. Recent Ordnance Survey maps indicate that there was a forestry bicycle route starting from Achnamara, and it is understood that a longer distance footpath to Ardrishaig also started at the village. No trace of either of these routes is evident today. However, there are the remains of other access infrastructure in the area, including a bench and steps and a bridge leading from one of the forest roads.

Heritage AssetsTwo sites are listed on Historic Environment Scotland’s Canmore database

The Clapper BridgeCrossing the Barnagad Burn just before it reaches the sea, this bridge probably dates to the later part of the 17th century, erected by the Laird of Oib Graham as a punishment for “delinquency”. It is the last survivor of a number of “flag bridges” known to have existed in mid Argyll (RCAHMS Argyll 7 1992)

13

Balure SettlementThis is recorded as a settlement of 6 buildings on the first edition Ordnance Survey map.

The PierAchnamara lies at the north-eastern end of Loch Sween, a fjordic sea loch some 10 miles long. The pier at Achnamara lies approximately 700m south of the edge of the current village boundary. It is of traditional stone construction with a basic overlay of concrete. It almost reaches the low tide mark. In the area beyond the end of the pier there are a large number of moorings belonging to members of the Achnamara Moorings Association; evidence of the sheltered nature of the bay. The pier is protected from the open sea by being an arm of Loch Sween and by Eilean Mhartan, a tidal island approximately 300m to the south-west. The sheltered nature of the area is confirmed by a small private pontoon in the water to the south of Eilean Mhartan and to which the owner is able to berth a boat at all times of the year. A representative of the moorings’ association reported wave heights of approximately 0.6m during a severe storm in 2018, with a short wave period causing moored boats to pitch significantly.

The ownership status of the pier is currently unconfirmed. It is not shown on the Forestry and Land Scotland online mapping database as being included in its title. FLS staff have agreed to investigate but at the time of the writing no response had been received. It is possible that the pier may still belong to Poltalloch Estate or it may have been sold by the estate as part of the title to Achnamara House.

5. Sustainable Place-making through Community Ownership of Land and Assets

Community ownership of land and built assets is increasingly viewed by the Scottish Government as a way to empower people to shape their own places in ways which stimulate economic growth and wider social and environmental benefits. Two of the 16 outcomes linked to Scotland’s National Performance Framework (NPF) are particularly relevant in that regard. Namely, that “we have strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect others” and that “we live in well-designed, sustainable places where we are able to access the amenities and services we need”1. Significantly too, increasing the amount of land held in community ownership is now included as an indicator relating to these outcomes in Scotland’s National Performance Framework. Recent legislative developments further underscore the supportive nature of the national policy environment for community land and asset ownership. As well as simplifying and extending the geographical scope of existing community rights to buy, the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 introduced a right for communities to make requests to Scottish Ministers, local authorities and a range of other public bodies to own, lease or otherwise use land or buildings they could make better use of. Similarly, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, amongst other measures, made provision for a Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement to help inform policy and practice around land issues in Scotland and the introduction of a new Community Right to Buy land to further sustainable development without the need for a willing seller. In addition, the Scottish Land Fund will continue to operate until 2021 with an annual budget of £10 million to support community buyouts of land and other assets.

1 https://www.gov.scot/About/Performance/scotPerforms/outcome

14

6. Achnamara in Socio-Economic Context

Increasingly much of the impetus for community land and asset ownership in rural areas is being driven by a pressing need to retain and grow populations in economically fragile areas. The urgency of that challenge is highlighted by research2 published by The James Hutton Institute in 2017 on demographic change in Scotland’s Sparsely Populated Areas (SPAs). These are defined as rural areas and small towns where less than 10,000 people (the minimum population of an urban area) can be reached within 30 minutes of travel using roads and ferries.

The SPA covers 48.7% of the area of Scotland but contains only 2.6% of its population. The James Hutton Institute research divides the SPA into six sub-regions: the Northern Isles, Western Isles, the North and West Highlands, the South and East Highlands, Argyll and Bute and the Southern Uplands. According to the Institute’s projections the SPA as a whole will lose more than a quarter of its population by 2046 with the worst affected sub-regions likely to be the Western Isles, Argyll and Bute and the Southern Uplands. Of particular concern is that the working age population of the overall SPA is likely to be most affected, with the researchers forecasting its reduction by 33% by 2046.

Negative population trends have been well documented in relation to Argyll and Bute as a whole over the last two decades. As of June 2017 the total population in Argyll and Bute was 86,810 (the 27th highest population of Scotland’s 32 Local Authority areas). Between 1997 and 2017 the overall population decreased by 5.4% (in comparison, the population of Scotland as a whole grew by 6.7% during the same period). The challenging demographic changes highlighted in the James Hutton Institute’s forecasts for the SPA as a whole are also evident in that trend in decreasing population in the region. Between 1997 and 2017 the 25 to 44 age group experienced the largest decrease (-32.8%) while the 65 to 74 age group experienced the largest increase (+40.4%).

Neither are the more immediate population projections for Argyll and Bute encouraging. Between 2016 and 2026 the region’s overall population is projected to decrease from 87,130 to 84,170, a reduction of 3.4% (in contrast, Scotland’s overall population is forecast to increase by 3.2% during the same period). The projections indicate that while the 45 to 64 age group will remain the largest in the region, the 16-24 age group is forecast to be reduced by 24.2% and the 75+ age group is forecast to increase by 30% between 2016 and 2026.

Census data from 2001 and 2011 for the Output Areas3 which include Achnamara show similar patterns to those discussed above as illustrated in table 4 below.

Table 4: Output Area Census Population Data including Achnamara – 2001 & 20112001 2011

Population (N) 160 119U-16 24.38% 10.1%16-64 58.75% 65.5%65+ 16.88% 24.4%

The overall population declined significantly over the decade between 2001 and 2011 with a decrease in the percentage of the population under 16 from 24.38% to 10.1%. The working age population has increased from 58.75% to 65.5% but so too has the over 65 segment of the

2 https://www.hutton.ac.uk/research/projects/demographic-change-remote-areas3 Output Areas are the most geographically specific units of measurement contained in Scotland’s census. For the 2001 census the Output Area area containing Achnamara was 60QD000059 and for the 2011 census it was S00094050.

15

population from 16.88% to 24.4%. More recently, the population of the peninsula in 2018 has been estimated locally to total 114 people. Of these 10 are aged between 0-20; 19 are aged between 21 and 40; 43 are aged between 41 and 60; and 42 are aged 61+. That estimate further amplifies the demographic challenge faced by the area in terms of its longer-term sustainability.

The most recently available census data indicates that 68% of the population aged 16-74 were in employment in 2011 in the Output Area which includes Achnamara. Table 5 below shows the occupational profile of the labour market in both 2011 and 2001.

Table 5: Labour Market Occupational Profile for 2011 and 2001

2011 (%) 2001 (%)All population aged 16 to 74 in employment 68 68

OCCUPATIONAL PROFILEManagers, directors and senior officials 22.1 19.2Professionals 13.2 8.82Associate professionals and technicians 8.8 13.24Administration and secretarial 11.8 5.88Skilled traders 17.6 16.18Caring, leisure and other services 4.4 1.47Sales and customer services 5.9 1.47Process, plant and machine operatives 5.9 17.65Elementary occupations 10.3 16.8

The data regarding occupational profiles are broadly consistent for both 2011 and 2001 and the relatively larger % changes for particular occupations must be seen within the context of relatively small numbers within the population samples for each census year. That said, the data for both 2011 and 2001 show a relatively large degree of clustering around professional and skilled occupations.

Categories for industry profile are not directly comparable for the 2011 and 2001 censuses. However, the profile from the 2011 census for Achnamara’s Output Area is shown in Table 6.

16

Table 6: 2011 Industry profile

CATEGORY %Agriculture, forestry and fishing 11.8Mining and quarrying -Manufacturing 2.9Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 4.4Water supply, sewage management etc 1.5Construction 5.9Wholesale and retail trade, vehicle repair 8.8Transport and storage 1.5Accommodation and food services activities 20.6Information and communication -Financial and insurance activities -Real estate activities 5.9Professional scientific and technical activities 1.5Public administration etc. 14.7Education 11.8Human health and social work 7.4Other 1.5

Notable categories in terms of their % share of the overall industry profile include accommodation and food services activities (20.6%), public administration etc (14.7%), agriculture, forestry and fishing (11.8%), and education (11.8%).

Development Policy Context

Argyll and Bute Council identifies its guiding vision for economic development of the region as follows:

“Argyll and Bute’s economic success is built on a growing population and through the creation and retention of sustainable job opportunities to encourage people to move to the area.”

The Council does not explicitly identify community land and asset ownership as an objective of its economic development strategy. However, the Argyll and Bute Economic Development Action Plan 2016-21 indicates that support will be given to communities and third sector organisations to access funding information. The Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands Economic Development Action Plan 2016-21 identifies a number of long-term Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) long term objectives to be realised by 2023. The most relevant of these is covered in the Action Plan under the theme of Investment in Communities with an SOA long term objective that “[a]reas within Argyll and Bute realise their unique potential through partnership working” leading to the outcome of “[t]hriving, sustainable and successful Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands communities in and the Third Sector”. The description of related activity is limited to assisting with the redevelopment of Inveraray Community Hall.

17

There are also sectoral policy developments at the national level which provide context for potentially developing assets in Achnamara under community ownership. Of particular interest given the potential to develop the pier and waterfront is the marine tourism sector. ‘Awakening the Giant’, the Strategic Framework for Scotland’s Marine Tourism Sector outlines a vision for Scotland to be a marine tourism destination of first choice for high quality, value for money and memorable customer experience delivered by skilled and passionate people” by 2020. The intention is “to develop and lead the growth of sailing tourism in Scotland from £101m of visitor expenditure to £145m by 2020, and to increase the overall economic value of the marine tourism sector from £360m to over £450m by 2020”. The vision and mission will be delivered by focusing on the themes of ‘providing authentic experiences’; ‘improving the customer journey’; and ‘building our capabilities’.

‘Awakening the Giant’ has a national strategic focus. Nevertheless, it is possible to envisage developing the pier and associated assets in Achnamara under community ownership in ways which are aligned with the three themes identified in the Framework.

7. Consultations with Stakeholders Community Consultation Meeting A community consultation meeting was held on November 28th 2018 to discuss potential development of assets on the estate under community ownership. The meeting was chaired by Councillor Dougie Philand, member for Mid Argyll (Ward 3 of Argyll and Bute Council). It began with presentations from the consultants on community land and asset ownership in Scotland, a case-study of developments by the West Harris Trust, the community woodland experience and development options for Achnamara under community ownership. The presentations were followed by small group discussions focused on potential developments regarding the community hall, the school, the pier, housing and woodland and a general question and answer session. The following subsections outline participants’ views concerning each of these topics.

Housing There was a widely shared view amongst participants that a lack of affordable housing in the village is a priority that requires to be addressed. Such provision is seen as central to increasing the population of the village and, especially, to changing its demography by attracting young people back to live in the area. There was also support expressed for attracting older people as well as younger families to live in the village. Some concern was expressed for providing ‘social’ housing. Rather, a link was made between the relationship between affordable housing and employment opportunities to attract and retain a growing population. That was viewed by some participants as something of a ‘chicken and egg’ situation; i.e. is it necessary to have available housing in place before people come to take up employment opportunities or does housing follow on from jobs being available in the area?

There were mixed views expressed regarding the type of housing provision that might be made available under community ownership of land on the estate. There was some interest in developing woodland crofts and the scope for making house plots available as part of that process with an emphasis on self-build developments. Some participants also favoured including rural burdens to safeguard any community-led housing developments from speculation and adding to holiday-home provision already in the area.

18

There was no strong consensus about where any new housing should be located, although there was a view that it should be on the areas identified in the local plan. One suggestion was that the loch-side at the southern edge of the forest would be a suitable site for high value house plots, although that was not a unanimous view by any means. Other suggested potential new housing locations included the other side of the forest road from the village hall and between the hydro turbine site and the forest road. There were also suggestions that housing might be located in the woods, in particular at Balure. A further idea put forward was to buy Inverlussa church and convert it into flats. There was also a view that no housing should be built on the village green.

Community HallThere was clear affection for the community hall expressed by some participants in the community meeting. It tends to be used very regularly and is valued by some for its location at the centre of the village. However, there was no overall consensus about its future development or status.

Some participants viewed the hall’s size to be appropriate for the types of community activities that it hosts and could host in future. That size was considered by some have an important social community benefit by adding to the atmosphere of such events. However, others considered that the hall was too small and unadaptable to fulfil an appropriate range of community activities in the space. There was also a view that the hall is not ‘fit for purpose’ in its current state and some doubts were expressed about its future lifespan, given its condition. However, some participants held that there is an important community role for the building as a refurbished hall.

Alternative uses of the hall were also discussed, including it being repurposed into a bunkhouse, small business units and/or a shop. It was also suggested that a further alternative could be to build a new hall in the forest near the pier.

There was some cross-over in the ‘community hall’ discussion regarding the relationship between the hall and the school. Some felt that the school would be a useful community asset (perhaps leased in the first instance rather than owned by the community outright) but that the village should press for it to be reopened as a school as the number one priority for its future use. The argument being that having a school in the area would act as an incentive for people to come and live there.

There seemed to be a clear distinction between the roles that the school building and the hall might play for the community in future. The school building was not viewed by some participants as a potential replacement for the hall building, mainly due to the location and structure of the former. However, that was not a unanimous perspective as discussed in more detail below. There was a view expressed that the community hall is too small and too old but that ownership of the school is a big step for the community to take on. However, a variety of alternative ideas for the school’s future use were also raised, as discussed in the next subsection.

School building As noted above, the school building is viewed as a significant community asset. A preferred option expressed at the meeting amongst many participants was to have it reopen as a school. There was also a view that the building should not be allowed to deteriorate in case it may be used as a school again. One suggestion was to buy the building and lease it to the Council as a school in the future. Notwithstanding a preference to retain the building as a school if it has its ‘mothballed” status removed by the Council, a number of alternative development options for the building were also highlighted during the meeting.

19

Although, as noted in the preceding section, there was some concern about starting “too big” through community ownership of the school, there was also some concern expressed about what might happen if the community did not engage with the building, summed up with the statement that to “do nothing is a bad idea”. One area of concern related to potential challenges associated with meeting the running costs and any associated liabilities of the school building under community ownership. However, there was a view that the building could act as a significant income generator depending on what business and/or other activities might be facilitated within the building on a leasing or other basis. It was also suggested that an income stream for a hydro development could help meet the running costs of the building under community ownership. Concerns were also raised about staffing costs associated with any developments within the building and there was a view that volunteer input would be required to help in that regard.

Suggestions for alternative uses for the school building included turning it into a community hub where several activities could occur at the same time. It was also suggested that the hall could be rebuilt, and the school building and/or site used for affordable or sheltered housing. In turn, that might make some existing local housing available for families to move into. Other identified possible uses included leasing the building for office space and/or business units. with a suggestion that it would be good to persuade Council staff based in Lochgilphead to relocate to the school building, thereby providing some inward work commuting. A further suggested use was for hosting corporate meetings for organisations such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise. There were also suggestions that the building and surrounding grounds might have scope for developing tourism facilities. For example, as a campervan site with hook-ups and/or campsite, or as a bunkhouse or hostel. It was also suggested that the building could be used as a base for forest tours.

As noted in the preceding section, there was a view that the community hall should be retained as a separate building, albeit in a refurbished state. However, some support was also expressed for using the school building as a community hall and converting the existing hall into either “shed-like” storage or business space.

PierPoints raised regarding the pier included the need to determine ownership of the asset and associated land on both sides of the road. There was also some support expressed for buying the pier as well as land between it and the community hall. Suggested development ideas included installing visitor moorings, foreshore development including a slipway, camping, shower facilities and a café nearby and the installation of pontoons. As mentioned earlier, the idea of building a new community hall opposite the pier was also suggested. Some concerns were raised by participants about potential public liability issues and running costs which would be the community’s responsibility if it owned the pier.

WoodlandMuch of the discussion around woodland issues centred on housing possibilities, scale of woodland to take into community ownership and potential development opportunities associated with the woodland. There was interest in the idea of establishing woodland crofts and plots as a way of meeting housing provision and attracting new residents into the village. Some interest was also expressed in establishing woodlots in the forest between the village and the pier. There were contrasting views about whether to manage the any woodland under community ownership as a conventional forest.

20

Participants had mixed views in relation to the most appropriate scale of forest to take into community ownership. Eight respondents indicated a preference for a ‘large’ amount; nine for a ‘medium’ amount; seven for a ‘small’ amount and five indicated that they were not certain as to the amount that should come under community ownership. One participant asked whether it might be possible to “take 2 bites at the forestry cake: small to start with, then go back for more?”. Participants also asked what type of training or other help is available for community woods and whether there would be any conservation areas in them.

A number of suggestions were made in relation to developments directly or indirectly linked to the woodland, many of which were tourism-related. They included developing mountain bike trails, paths and walks for locals and tourists, including a Pilgrim Route. There was also a suggestion to make the place more cycle-friendly as part of a long-distance route up the west coast of Scotland. Other suggested developments included a camp and camper-van site south of the existing community hall and in the beechwood above the proposed hydro turbine shed. Wigwams in the forest were also highlighted as an option in that regard. There was also a suggestion that marine developments could expand into the forest opposite the pier.

General comments Participants also made some general comments about the motivations and other aspects for taking land and/or other assets in the estate into community ownership. There was a recognition that focusing on jobs and housing would help increase the population in the village, as well as an appreciation of the need to maintain the visual beauty of the surrounding area. On a practical level, there were questions about where the funding to support purchase and development of assets would come from, as well as concern regarding building running and administration costs. It was also noted that the community needs far more financial information before a decision can be made about what assets to consider purchasing and developing. It was also suggested that nearby residents need re-assurance about noise levels from the hydro-turbine. There was also an expressed view that village residents were not engaged in the idea of a community buyout and that some people felt threatened by it. This was made in the context of a meeting with 17 village residents and 13 from the wider area, so may reflect the position prior to the meeting. More generally, there was an appreciation amongst participants that potential development ideas were interlinked and a recognition for an integrated approach to be taken for whatever ideas were taken forward.

Achnamara Community Survey

In early 2019 the Community Hall Committee conducted a community survey encompassing the Achnamara peninsula, as a follow-up to a previous community survey conducted in 2016. Electronic versions of the 2019 survey were distributed to 75 email addresses, generating 55 responses (a response rate of 73%) and 50 hard copies were distributed, generating 8 responses (a response rate of 16%).

Topics covered in the survey included hydro, housing, forestry, access to Loch Sween, Ashfield Primary School, the Community Hall and any other facilities that respondents thought should be developed in future.

21

Community HydroThe idea of community hydro received a very high level of support among the 64 respondents who provided a view. In total 90.6% were in favour of such provision. Of the 22 respondents from the village, 81.8% were in favour while 94.7% of the 38 respondents from the Peninsula were in favour of community hydro. Written comments from respondents indicates that such an initiative would have a positive environmental benefit and act an income generator for the community which could potentially help in the development of other community initiatives. The main concerns expressed related to potential noise pollution, visual disturbance and the need to ensure that any such development was financially viable.

New Housing Community development and ownership of new housing was also generally favourably viewed by survey respondents. Overall, 78.8% of the 66 respondents who expressed a view were in favour of such development. 68.2% of the 22 respondents from the village were in favour while 83.3% of the 44 respondents from the peninsula were also in favour. There was an identical overall pattern of 78.8% support for the community buying land to create self-build plots. 86.4% of the 22 village respondents favoured such an approach, as did 73.8% of the peninsula respondents. There was less overall support for ACHA developing affordable housing in Achnamara, with 70.3% of all 64 respondents who answered the question being supportive in that regard. 78% of the 41 respondents from the peninsula were supportive. However, that figure reduced significantly to 52.4% of the 21 respondents from the village. Written comments in favour of housing development tended to focus on the need for such provision to help sustain the community by increasing the resident population and providing housing suited to an ageing population. Concerns were expressed about ensuring that any new housing provision is not diverted into the holiday home market and regarding the possible impacts on existing infrastructure, as well as potential impacts on the perceived current peacefulness of the village in particular.

Forestry There was a very high level of support for buying some of the forest around Achnamara with 85.9% of 66 respondents being in favour of that idea. 86.4% of the 22 village respondents were supportive, as were 85.4% of the 41 peninsula respondents. There were high levels of support expressed amongst the total survey respondent sample for forest crofts (37 of 57 respondents in favour) and woodlots (43 respondents in favour) and for buying (45 respondents in favour) and letting (46 respondents in favour) land to enable people to start woodland based businesses. In contrast, only 24 of all 57 respondents support the development of lodges or huts in the woodland that could be used by visitors. Written comments varied with some concerns being expressed about ensuring that any initiatives would be financially viable. Several respondents also indicated that any woodland based businesses should be privately operated, indicating more of an enabling role for community ownership in that context.

Facilities at Loch SweenSurvey respondents were very favourably disposed to buying land to help create better facilities for users of Loch Sween. 82.8% of all 64 survey respondents were supportive in that regard. That overall figure disaggregates to 81% of 21 village respondents being favourable and 83.3% of 42 peninsula respondents. There was a high level of support for parking improvements pier side and on the land opposite (supported by 49 of the 57 respondents; a new slip (supported by 50 respondents); and installation of pontoons (supported by 46 respondents). 36 respondents

22

favoured toilets in a new building opposite the pier, 28 respondents favoured showers in a new building and 26 favoured laundry facilities in such a building. The pattern of support for specific options is broadly similar when the data is disaggregated to village level. 17 of 19 respondents support a new slip and installation of pontoons. 15 respondents favour toilets in a new building opposite the pier and parking improvements pier side on the land opposite. 14 respondents favour showers in a new building and 13 support having laundry facilities in such a building. Many of the written comments expressed reservations about developing facilities adjacent to the pier and the financial and aesthetic implications of doing so.

Ashfield Primary SchoolThe survey asked for respondents’ views as to what should happen to Ashfield School in relation to specific options. 6 of the overall total of 63 respondents thought that the school should reopen now. 38 respondents thought that the school should be mothballed for a further period to see if more people could be attracted to the community who might use the school. 19 respondents though that the school should close. Disaggregating the data to village respondents indicates a divergence of views from the overall survey. Only 2 of 21 respondents thought that the school should reopen. However, the ‘mothballing’ and ‘closure’ options were supported by 9 and 10 respondents respectively.

Written comments as to what should happen to the school if it does close were mixed. A large number of respondents favour using the building as a village hall. Several suggested that it should be used as housing and there was also some support for converting it into a ‘community hub’, business units or a bunkhouse. In answer to a specific question, 59.7% of all 57 respondents indicated that they would support the development of new housing on the school site. The percentage in favour was marginally higher for the peninsula (60% of 35 respondents) than for the village (57.1% of 21 respondents).

Village HallThere was near unanimity amongst respondents that there was a need for a hall with 97% of the 66 survey respondents indicating that to be the case. All 22 village respondents agreed as did 97.7% of peninsula respondents. First preferences regarding three of the different hall options were relatively evenly split in the overall sample of survey respondents. 16 of the 63 respondents selected ‘keeping all activities in the current hall and undertaking whatever improvements are necessary to ensure its ongoing use’ as their first preference. 17 respondents selected ‘relocating hall activities to the primary school building if it is closed or mothballed for an extended period’; and 21 selected ‘building a new hall incorporating the waterside facilities opposite the pier’ as their first preference. In contrast, only 7 respondents in the overall sample selected ‘building a new hall somewhere else’ as their first preference.

Disaggregating the data to focus only on village responses indicates that 8 of 21 respondents selected ‘keeping all activities in the current hall and undertaking whatever improvements are necessary to ensure its ongoing use’ as their first preference. 5 respondents selected ‘relocating hall activities to the primary school building if it is closed or mothballed for an extended period’; and 6 selected ‘building a new hall incorporating the waterside facilities opposite the pier’ as their first preference. Only 2 respondents in the village sub-sample selected ‘building a new hall somewhere else’ as their first preference.

23

Data for weighted response rates indicate relocating hall activities to the primary school building to be the favoured option for the sample of total survey respondents. In contrast, keeping all activities in the current hall is the favoured option for village respondents. However, building a new hall, incorporating the waterside facilities on a new site opposite the pier also features strongly in both samples (and is the second most favoured preference in the weighted responses for survey respondents as a whole. Building a new hall somewhere else remains the least favoured preference in relation to both the overall sample and the village sub-sample of respondents. Many of the written comments from respondents reflect the split in opinion as regards the three most favoured options highlighted above.

Other Facilities Respondents were asked if there are any other facilities that the community should be looking to develop for the future. Many of the responses to this ‘open’ question focused on developing walking and cycle paths and forest/woodland walks. Other suggestions included information boards, a playpark and various infrastructure improvements (e.g. “better mobile phone signal and better road”).

One to one’ consultations In addition to the community meetings, ‘one to one’ telephone consultations were conducted with representatives of community groups that use the hall and/or the adjacent shed including Café Connect, the table tennis club, Stich Up, Parent and Toddler Group and the skiff club. The local Councillor for the Ward was also consulted, as were local representatives of other organisations including Scottish Natural Heritage and Forestry & Land Scotland.

The diversity of the groups using the hall is indicative of its value as a community asset. A recurring theme from representatives of these groups was the importance of the social dimension of their activities. Café Connect is a case in point. It meets between 10:30am and 12:30pm every Saturday for participants - most of whom are aged over 60 - to enjoy tea, coffee and home baking. Similarly, the table tennis club – which meets every Monday evening between September and Easter has grown in popularity over the last four years and regularly attracts between 12 to 14 participants every week. Stich Up is a craft group which meets on the first and third Wednesday of every month between 1pm and 3pm. There are up to 14 participants in the group. They get on with their own activities - whether knitting, quilting, sewing or crocheting while having sociable time with neighbours. The Parent Toddler group, which previously met separately in the hall, now has one mother in it and has been combined with Stich Up. The Skiff club is in the process of building a community skiff in the shed next door to the hall. The shed is considered as adequate for its purpose and cheap to rent at £100 annually, although the lack of power and lighting in it is a slight drawback.

The hall is viewed as being of a good size by some consultees for community events and their particular groups’ activities and capable of generating a good atmosphere for the diverse range of groups that use it regularly or for ad hoc events. Others were more circumspect, stating that it is “adequate for what it does”. One of the other attractive aspects of the hall is its nominal cost for groups to use.

However, the hall is said to be very cold and some reservations were also expressed about the quality of lighting in the building, as well as the unsuitability of the kitchen size for larger social events. The lack of storage facilities was also noted. Two group representatives said that it would make little difference to their activities as to whether they were undertaken in the hall or in the school. There was also acknowledgement that the hall is coming the end of its natural lifespan.

24

The consultations also covered other potential land and assets under community ownership. The school building was viewed as an asset which would benefit from being in community ownership if it does not re-open as a school; not least because it would give the community control over how it might be used in future. There was also some discussion about the how it would function as a multi-purpose space in the event of the community hall no longer being in use; specifically, regarding the balance between using it as a community space and leasing parts of the building to third parties; the implication being that reduced space for community ownership might not be viewed favourably by the community. Some consultees also made the point that liabilities in terms of the school’s running costs might be a barrier to sustainable ownership by the community and that it was a big step up in terms of responsibility in comparison to the hall.

Potential liabilities were also mentioned in relation to the pier. It was noted that there had been some discussion previously about turning the school into a bunkhouse, but one consultee suggested that such a facility might be better located by the waterside to take advantage of water-sports and other marine tourism opportunities. Another consultee also supported the idea of a new hall or multi-purpose building near the pier and made the point that it would encourage more of a sense of ownership of the facility throughout the peninsula, rather than only in the village.

Housing need was also discussed, especially for families. There was a view that landowners are unwilling to release land for plots and that the area’s rural setting is a “double-edged sword” in that some people like the sense of ‘remoteness’ while others would prefer to be closer to services and amenities. Woodland crofts were viewed as an attractive prospect. There was also an acknowledgement that there is some unease within the community regarding the issue of developing ‘social’ housing, although it was also stated that there may be some conflating of ‘social’ and ‘affordable’ housing which are not necessarily the same things. It was also noted that there had been similar reservations about the development of ‘social’ housing in Ardfern village. However, these reservations were said to have been allayed by the introduction of a local letting initiative whereby local young people were given preference for new housing provision. There are now 10 new houses in the village which was cited by one consultee as an example of how such initiatives can be made to work.

Woodland management was also discussed. There was support amongst some consultees for developing the amenity value of the woodland, possibly linked to the school as a base for outdoor nursery provision, similar to that provided by Stramash in Oban. Scouts were also identified as a group that would welcome woodland space for camps. However, it was unclear to at least one consultee how woodland management could be financially viable under community ownership. Another said that they could not see the point of the community engaging in commercial woodland management, primarily due to limitations in capacity to do so.

A more general point about the desirability of a phased approach to community ownership was also highlighted by one consultee. Specifically, focusing on the land under hall and boatshed and on the school building in the first instance, along with buying the land between the hall and the pier.

Discussions with the local SNH manager for the area indicated that the organisation would be supportive of initiatives undertaken in support of the natural heritage under community ownership. There does not currently appear to be a great deal of active engagement on SNH’s part with the local community, although that may be due to resource constraints facing the organisation and pressure to fulfil its statutory functions. Nevertheless, the consultee indicated a willingness to discussing potential initiatives as and when such opportunities arise.

25

26

PART TWO: ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

This section of the report looks in detail at the potential development options for the assets in the study, taking note of the development context and the views of the community and stakeholders covered in Part One of the study.

8. Achnamara Village HallThe future provision of appropriate accommodation for community activities and events is a key driver of the current study. In order to consider options, it is important first of all to identify what outcomes an ideal community facility would provide and then consider against these. The following criteria have been identified:

The facility is accessible to all members of the community The environment provided is suitable for all members of the community from those who are

most able and in the best of health to those who are least able and in much poorer health Suitable spaces and resources are available to accommodate different activities The facility is sustainable in the long term

o Running costs are lowo Maintenance costs are lowo Building life is expected to be long (minimum 30 years)

In its current condition the hall performs poorly against these criteria. There is no provision of disabled toilets up to modern standards, and no hearing loop system in the building. It is cold and difficult to heat due to a lack of insulation. Therefore, the elderly, the disabled and those in poorer health will be excluded to a greater or lesser degree from the benefits of community activities; depending upon issues such as weather, time of year and duration of event. This is an important issue in a community which expects to have an increasing proportion of elderly and therefore more frail people in the future. The hall has one space only to accommodate all events no matter how small or large. The building survey has indicated that maintenance costs will rise in the future as major repairs are required. In summary the building is unsuitable (in its current condition) to provide an inclusive, welcoming facility for the community.

Four options have been identified for the future of the hall: Renovating the existing structure; renovating and extending the existing structure; demolishing and building new; and repurposing the site (with community provision to be made elsewhere). Each of these options is considered in turn:

1. Renovate the existing structure. This would involve bringing the building back into good condition while keeping the overall footprint the same. This would be the simplest and cheapest option. If insulation levels were to be improved, it would require incorporating a new stud wall inside the building which would remove 250-400mm from an already narrow building. Damp would still remain a problem due to the lack of a breather membrane in the wall structure.

This approach would not address the issue of limited parking options, would not provide fully accessible toilet provision without reducing internal space and would still provide only 1 large meeting space for activities.

27

Depending on the level of work to be carried out the cost could be somewhere in the region of £500-1000/m² which would equate to £30-60,000. Although this would be the cheapest option to deliver it would likely be very difficult to fund. This is because funders will generally only support major improvements to provision and not maintenance or repair of existing provision which was designed to the standards of a previous era.

2. Renovate and extend. This option would involve retaining the existing structure as much as possible but extending the building to provide new and better facilities. The existing structure would be renovated as in Option 1 and a new extension could provide additional meeting spaces which would allow more than 1 group to use the building at any one time. Fully accessible toilets could be provided without reducing the main hall space.

This would possibly be cheaper than a new-build but would limit options available to a new build and would face challenges. To extend would require the demolition of the FCS shed behind the hall which is currently being used to build the community skiff. As the hall occupies the front of the site which is west facing on the edge of the forest it would limit the opportunity to introduce additional light into the building. Improved car parking would be required externally which could be provided to the rear of the existing buildings. The land there is fairly level and parking could be provided with limited tree removal.

An extension of 50-100m² at a build cost of £2,500/m² would cost £125-250,000. Adding the cost of renovations to the existing structure would result in a project cost in the region of £180-£320,000.

3. Demolish & Build New. The removal of the existing buildings would provide the opportunity to design a purpose-built building based around current and projected community needs. The community could take advantage of the south facing aspect to design a building that allowed greater light to enter and maximise solar gain. There is sufficient space on the current site and to the rear to create a larger building that could have more than 1 user group at a time. Some in the community may find the loss of a building that is part of the fabric of local history disappointing. This sense of loss could be attenuated by specifying in a design brief that the architect should consider how to draw upon aspects of the hall design and materials in the new build. Assuming a building footprint of 150-250m² and a build cost of £2500/m² for a quality building, overall costs would be £375-625,000. Similar costs would apply to a greenfield site that had close access to services.

4. Repurpose the building. The community could relocate its community activities to the former school (see below) or to another site hosting a new-build community centre. This would allow the existing building to be used for another purpose in the short-term and the site to be redeveloped in the longer term. The hall could be used for example to provide premises for a local business. This would help to stimulate local economic activity and provide a modest revenue stream for the community. A conservative rental rate of £30/m² would generate approximately £2000/yr. As a comparison as of March 2019 there was a single 99m² industrial unit available in Kilmory Industrial Estate, Lochgilphead for £5,500 per annum, equivalent to a rate of £56/m².

28

DiscussionIn considering the options against the criteria for a good community facility outlined above, Options 1 & 2 are a poor fit. Option 1 would not provide a facility that is truly fully accessible to all community members, would not provide suitable spaces for different groups and would have higher running costs and maintenance issues than other options. Option 2 would make significant improvements in terms of accessibility and creating new spaces, but the old part of the building would have higher running costs and maintenance requirements than the newer part. It is questionable whether a cost of £320,000 to provide a 150m² building which is part old-part new could be considered good value for money, when compared to a similar sized all new building taking full advantage of site conditions as outlined in Option 3 for £375,000.

Option 3 & 4 have the potential to meet all the criteria with each having some positive and negative factors. Option 3 would provide a bespoke building that could be ideal for the community. However, it would require the demolition of the existing hall and shed. Option 4 would allow the building to be retained and used for a productive purpose. The re-use of the school as a community centre (see 9 below) or a new-build on another site would allow some income generation from the hall building but may not have so visible a location to catch passing trade as the current site.

In summary the best options are to either demolish the existing building and build a new one, or to move community activities elsewhere and reuse the existing hall for another purpose. These are discussed further below.

9. Ashfield primary SchoolThe stated preference of the community is for the school building to re-open as a school. However, its potential permanent closure led to the community feeling duty-bound to consider alternative options. As discussed above in Section 7 a wide range of options were suggested by the community. Potential community use of the building is discussed first, followed by potential commercial use; whether by the community or private businesses.

Community UseThe school building offers considerable scope for community use in that the 2 classrooms offer 3 spaces that can be used for different activities and the kitchen and toilet facilities are adequate to support the numbers of people likely to take in a community of the size of Achnamara.

The larger classroom could hold 80+ people seated theatre style for a concert/public meeting and the smaller one 50-60. Depending on table style 60-80 people could comfortably dine in the larger room and 35-45 in the smaller one. The ability to divide the larger classroom into two offers further flexibility – either to allow for a more intimate setting for a smaller group or to allow 2 activities to take place at the same time.

The kitchen is large enough to cater for a community of this size and even to run a more commercial operation (see below). The current kitchen is in need of a complete refurbishment however due to the age of the existing fittings and the fact that some of the equipment was removed by the council when it mothballed the school. In an age of ever tighter hygiene standards stainless steel equipment and wall cladding are the easiest to maintain and a modern extraction system would need to be fitted. A budget of £10-15,000 would provide a basic kitchen for occasional use but up to £30,000

29

would be required for a high- quality facility used much more regularly, or for commercial use (see below).

There are 4 internal store cupboards for general use in addition to 2 store cupboards in the kitchen. These could be extremely useful for storing equipment and resources linked to a range of community activities, with the potential for some to be allocated to specific groups for safe storage.

As noted above the A&BC report recommends replacement of the girls’ toilet cubicles. A potential purchase of the building by the community would offer an opportunity to upgrade all the toilet facilities (including the disabled toilet) to the best modern standards.

There is an external store adjacent to the boiler room and 1 small wooden garden shed to the rear of the school which would be suited to storing equipment and materials used for outside maintenance work. A second garden shed is no longer fit to use.

The large grassed areas to the front and the rear of the school could be a valuable asset for holding community events. These could include fundraising fetes, outdoor activities for children, barbecues etc. Community ownership would enable a maintenance regime to be put in place to keep the grassed areas in order and to prevent the encroachment of bracken which is evident on the site.

Commercial ActivityThe size of the school building is at the upper end of, or larger than the requirements of a community of the size of Achnamara if it were to be used solely as a community facility. There is the opportunity therefore to consider what commercial activities could complement community use, or indeed occur instead of community use on this site.

26 respondents to the 2016 Achnamara community survey thought that “Increasing Local Jobs” was an important issue. Suggestions on how to do this included opening a café/gallery/restaurant, bunkhouse, etc.

The location and design of the school make it suitable for either a combined facility or for a purely tourism business oriented one. The combination of rooms and indoor and outdoor facilities would enable several different activities to occur at the same time. A number of options are now considered in turn.

Business Space rentalSpace to rent for a new or growing company can be very difficult to find in remote rural areas. Generally speaking, the high costs of construction, the uncertainty over demand and lower rentals than in towns discourage private companies from building space to rent. However, small (often 1- person) businesses in rural areas tend to have limited capital and are unable to afford to build their own accommodation. This often prevents the establishment of new businesses or prevents the growth of businesses that have started in the home and have no room to expand their activities.

Many community trusts have the aim of growing the population through providing new business opportunities in, and attracting new businesses to, their areas. To this end a number of trusts have provided space for rental either in existing buildings, or by building new ones. In a number of cases they have provided space in buildings that also have a community use. The benefits of this approach

30

include gaining a rental income, sharing building running costs and supporting one another’s activities.

The fact that the spaces available in the old school are of a range of sizes means that potentially businesses of different sizes can be accommodated, increasing the likelihood of being able to let at least part of the building. The Head Teacher’s room would be suitable for an office for 1 person. The two halves of the large 76m² classroom could each hold 5-6 people in an office situation or a smaller number involved in practical activities. It would be possible to let out one of these spaces to two or more tenants on a shared basis and this is a common practice elsewhere. Key issues are that it requires tenants to be respectful of one another and demand for pure office space may be lower in an area like Achnamara where there is always the option for single people to work from home. Alternatively, the smaller 51m² classroom could be let for business use. A partition could potentially be installed, with one business accessing its space from the exterior door. This option is likely to be less satisfactory than renting all or part of the larger classroom because access via steps is not ideal and the ability to serve food easily at community events directly from the kitchen would be lost.

In March 2019 office space in the ground and first floors of the same building in Lochgilphead were available for a rent of £113/m² and £85/m² respectively. A 120m² ground floor shop was available for a rent of £145/m². Taking into account the relative isolation of Achnamara a conservative rate of £75/m² would be a reasonable rent for space in the school building.

Community CaféThe availability of a good-sized kitchen would allow not only for occasional community meals to be cooked in the building but also for a café to be operated which would provide for greater social opportunities for local people and a place to eat for visitors while in the area.

The classroom adjacent to the kitchen would work well for community meals and events when 40-50 people might be expected to attend. On a day to day basis during the summer visitor season it is likely to be larger than would be required for passing trade. In that case one half of the larger classroom might be a better option for a café or tables and chairs for up to 20 people could be placed near to the windows, leaving the rest of the room available for another purpose.

A café could be operated in a variety of ways. The community could decide to run the operation as part of the overall community business. This would involve being responsible for the management of the operation and employing the optimal number of staff to deliver a successful service. This is achievable and tends to work best where there is strong leadership oversight by the community trustees who are willing to put a lot of effort into the food operation. It is most likely to succeed where directors have previous catering and/or management experience allied to strong interpersonal skills. Linked with this is the need for committed staff who buy in to the community ethos of service. Due to the level of turnover and the outgoings on wages it is important to note that a poorly run operation can lose large sums of money very quickly. It is therefore vital that the finances of the operation are monitored constantly at board level.

The alternative option to operating a café is to rent out the café area to a private operator. This can produce a guaranteed rental income for the community group and allow it to focus all its energies on its charitable purposes, rather than on running a catering operation. An example of this kind of operation being carried out successfully for a community of a similar nature to that of Achnamara is that run by The Bays of Harris Charitable Trust on the Isle of Harris. Shortly after opening their new

31

community centre for their scattered community of approximately 250 people several local ladies asked the Trust if they could run a café from the building. A lease was agreed and they have been operating successfully for over 15 years. They have also expanded to providing catering for family and community events outside the building. The café generates higher usage of the building, provides valuable rent for the community trust, employment for those involved and a welcome service for locals and visitors.

If a leasing route is followed 2 important factors need to be considered to maintain the community ethos of the overall building operation. First, the community should seek a tenant who fully understands the community and its aspirations and is supportive of these. Secondly, any tenancy agreement needs to include provisions that allow community use of the facility as and when required (see below), whilst also minimising the impact on the tenant and their business. It is likely that primary community use of the facility would be in the winter which would complement the summer period when the principal demand for the café is present.

A rental agreement can be in the form of a flat rate sum for the year (or the season), a percentage of turnover or a combination of the two. An arrangement incorporating at least part of the rental based on share of turnover shares the risk between tenant and landlord and encourages the community to assist the tenant in maximising the success of the operation. While a tenanted arrangement removes much of the management burden from the directors it is still important to monitor the performance of the tenant. If they run their business poorly it will reflect negatively on the reputation of the community and reduce the appeal of visiting.

In the Achnamara context the potential for a private tenant would be a preferable option if the successor to AVHC is asked by the community to purchase and develop other assets in addition to the school. Voluntary boards can find it challenging and demanding to deliver multiple projects at the same time. This would be further complicated by the need to manage a business on a day to day basis which required a high level of competence and strong personal skills.

A seasonal café with 20 covers run by a private operator could produce an income of £80,000, just under the threshold for VAT registration. After allowing for staffing and overhead costs it would provide a reasonable net income for the operator. A rental rate of 5% would produce an income for the community of £4000.

Community Shop Following the submission of the draft report the committee asked whether a café could also include a shop. This is a possibility although adding in a shop adds a layer of complexity to management. There is a simple local example of this operating in Kilmartin Museum. Following the closure of the local shop the museum café agreed to stock milk, bread and butter for sale at the request of local people. This saves locals having to run into Lochgilphead for basics and is an easy fit with a café which uses all of these products in its normal operation.

Establishing a more comprehensive village shop is challenging. People like the convenience of a local shop but carry out most of their purchases in the nearest town. The proximity of Lochgilphead means that this is likely to be the case with Achnamara and the relatively small population would mean that opening hours would have to be restricted to match turnover and limit overheads. A community shop would require an active management committee of its own and would demand significant oversight which would compete for volunteer time with the other activities identified in

32

this study. The best approach is therefore likely to be to only consider the matter further if and when the school is purchased and only if this is identified as a specific community priority.(It was not suggested as an option by community members at the community consultation meeting or in the community survey).

BunkhouseThere is currently no bunkhouse provision in the immediate area, but there are several in the wider area. The nearest bunkhouse the Argyll Backpackers is 14 miles away at Inverneil, south of Lochgilphead, which can house 22 people in 2 double rooms, 2 twin rooms (bunks), 2 rooms of 4 and 1 room of 6. It started operating in 2017. There is also a 32 bed hostel at Torran Bay on the southern edge of Loch Awe. There is a slightly different type of facility in Kilmartin which has 8 beds in 2 rooms, but is for group bookings only.

Estimating demand in an area which is off the principal tourist route can be challenging. Dervaig Village Hall on Mull has 2 bunkrooms with a total of 10 beds. For the years 2013-2017 income has fluctuated from approximately £5000 - £8,500 in revenue, with no discernible trend. Charges are currently £18/nt. The 2017 accounts4 state that the committee are looking at modifying the rooms which will result in fewer beds, but they find that once 2 beds in a room are booked, others do not wish to share. Ravenspoint hostel at Kershader on the Isle of Lewis is run by a community group which also has a shop, filling station and small café. It is in a less-visited area of the island, approximately 5miles from the spinal route running through Lewis & Harris. The road however is largely double track and the area is served by 3-4 buses/day 6 days/week. Originally having 14 beds the hostel now has 9. There is a 5-bed dorm, along with a double room and twin room. Prices are £19/person in the dorm and £45/room for the double and twin rooms. Income for 2017 was just over £20,000, with running costs of just over £11,000. These examples illustrate the fact that the market is moving towards a higher quality provision with a preference for smaller rooms, rather than dorms.

Comparing the price/ night and revenue earned it would appear that Dervaig hosts approximately 400 people/yr whereas Ravenspoint has something in the region of 1000. One difference between the 2 hostels is that Ravenspoint can be booked directly online whereas Dervaig bookings are via email. It is likely that Dervaig is missing out on opportunities for additional bookings as a result.

Creating 3 twin/double rooms which were occupied 44% of the time would generate a gross income of £11,400.

Small CampsiteThe grounds around the school building are sufficient to create a small campsite that would allow for the generation of additional income which would help to maintain the building in the long term. The land to the west of the school building outside the fence and to the north-west of the access road is part of the title. The fence could be removed or moved back to the title boundary and several pitches for camper vans created. A minimum of 6m would be required between pitches which would limit the number to 4-5.

Each pitch could be provided with an electricity supply from the school and an external tap could be provided for a water supply. As with the bunkhouse option the existing toilet provision within the

4 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC287129/filing-history?page=2

33

school building is available but shower provision would need to be provided. A minimum of one and ideally 2 showers would be required.

As an addition to, or as an alternative to, campervan hook-ups, consideration could be given to a small number of wooden pods which are becoming ever more popular across the Highlands & Islands. The pods provide better protection from the weather and greater comfort than tents. Typically, they will have 2 single beds with a little additional interior space and a small open porch. Rates can be £35-£40/nt for basic provision. In recent years “shepherd’s huts” which are on wheels have also started to become popular. Pods/shepherd’s huts could be placed on the grass to the front of the building or equally placed unobtrusively in the trees nearby, which would keep the grassed area available for community uses. Cost of purchase and installation will be in the region of £7,000/unit.

Booking for each of the above activities can be managed through the Freetobook5 website which provides a booking service free of charge unless additional extras are requested. The basic service is adequate for bunk/camper/pod provision, and signage on site could allow for booking on arrival using a mobile phone at quieter times of year. The website Pitchup.com identifies 5 sites in Argyll offering bookable motorhome pitches at rates varying from £20-25/nt. The nearest of these is in Ardfern, a distance of about 18 miles. Taking into account the rapid growth in camper use in recent years and the strain on infrastructure that has been instrumental in the establishment of the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund (see p72), the modest provision of 4 pitches is not likely to cause any issues of displacement. The nearest site offering pods identified by Pitchup.com is in Tarbert which has 6 pods ranging in price from £40-£60/nt. Pods are also a rapidly growing sector of the market and with no sites nearby displacement issues should also be minimal.

The extent to which it would be appropriate to develop a campsite business will depend upon what other community uses eventually occur within the building.

Following the submission of the draft report the committee asked whether there might be opportunities for motor homes in the forest, separate from the school. This is a possibility in that there is suitable road access into the forest. However, there would be a number of practical and financial challenges to address. There are currently no services in the forest and consideration would need to be given to providing these. A new transformer, associated poles and cabling would cost a minimum of £20,000, depending on how far in to the forest the camping area was to be. Supplying water would cost thousands of pounds as well. An area would need to be prepared for pitches and the provision of a wash block incorporating a septic tank would be required. A budget would probably start at a minimum of £100,000 and could be considerably higher depending upon the location. Beyond the practical issues there is no provision in the local plan for commercial development in the wider forest so planning permission is unlikely to be granted in the short term. A fuller discussion of planning issues is found in Section 13

Discussion of mixed-use optionsAll of the options outlined above would provide benefit to the community, either in terms of enhanced social opportunities or employment creation in an area with limited employment. However, space is limited inside the building and the community will require to make choices as to

5 https://en.freetobook.com

34

which combination of uses, and to what extent each use is developed, both within and outside the building.

The fundamental choice to make is whether, or not, to use the school as a future community centre. If community activities are to take place in the school, they will necessarily take precedence over other uses. This will then lead to making appropriate choices with regards to the remaining space that is available. If there is to be little or no community use of the building, but it is to be used primarily as an asset to create employment and economic regeneration opportunities a wider range of non-community uses is likely to be possible.

A second choice to be made is to what extent should tourism activities occur as part of a school-based operation. The above analysis has identified that bunkhouse, campervan and pod/shepherd’s hut provision are all possible and have the potential to generate significant revenues. The external activities can take place without having an undue negative impact on other possible uses. However, bunkhouse provision would compete with business use for the same limited available space within the building. Given that pod provision would provide a substitutable alternative budget provision to bunks within the building, the community could prioritise business space provision without passing up on the tourism opportunities available. This would produce a more balanced portfolio of activities and outcomes.

Two simple scenarios can be considered to flesh out the practical and financial implications of different approaches. Each of these scenarios assumes that the existing configuration of the building will remain substantially intact. In practice, in the medium to longer term it may be possible to improve the layout to match precise community needs.

Scenario 1 – Community CentreIn this scenario the community would no longer use the village hall for community uses but would move community activities to the school.

The smaller classroom could be used for most community events, being able to hold 40+ people and being of a similar size to the current hall. This could also take advantage of its proximity to the kitchen for preparing and serving meals/buffets etc. One half of the larger classroom could also be reserved for community use, giving the option of a smaller space for some events and allowing 2 activities to take place at the same time.

The other half of the large classroom could be let to a private business or businesses. At a rental rate of £75/m²/yr this would generate a rental income of £2850 under full occupation.

The Head teacher’s room would be used as an office for a Development Officer employed by the community to develop and manage its activities

The toilets would be renovated to modern standards and showers installed for tourism activities

Campervan hook-ups would be provided outside, with pods/shepherd’s huts in the trees.

Under this scenario the business would generate total revenues of £27,586 (See Table 11, p54), comprising £9180 from activities within the building, £8075 from campervan hook-ups and £10,331

35

from pods. Total expenditure would be £19,349, (including £4892in notional management charges) leaving a surplus of £8237. In a situation where the community starts operating the building prior to developing any tourism activities, the building would break even financially with income of £9,180 and expenses of £9,171 (including £1,377 in management costs).

Scenario 2 – Community Business CentreIn this scenario the focus would be on providing opportunities for private businesses alongside tourism business development by the community.

The kitchen and smaller classroom would be let to a private business to operate a café. The lease may contain clauses to allow occasional community use for events combining indoor and outdoor use.

The larger classroom would be let to 2 or more businesses. Arts and craft related businesses would be a good complement to a café.

The Head teacher’s room would be used an office for a Development Officer employed by the community to develop and manage its activities

The toilets would be renovated to modern standards and showers installed for tourism activities

Campervan hook-ups would be provided outside, with pods/shepherd’s huts in the trees.

If demand for business space was low there would be a higher risk in the second scenario of having spaces lying empty for significant periods of time. However, business space availability is at a premium in remote rural areas and opportunities in strategic locations can have good occupancy rates.

In this situation total revenues would be higher at £30,737 and surpluses would be greater at £11,388 because more space would be let and less direct community activities would take place. Gross rentals would be £8240 and tenants would be recharged greater sums for heat, light and insurance.

Buy or Lease?Argyll & Bute Council is currently consulting on a proposal to close the school, after a period of mothballing. The community would prefer the building to be re-opened as a school, if and when pupil numbers rise. A decision by ABC to close the school would then need to be approved by Scottish Ministers.

AVHC has proposed an option whereby the school would be mothballed for a further 5 years, with AVHC taking out a lease for this period. AVHC would assume the running costs of the building thereby creating a nil burden on day to day running costs for ABC. AVHC in turn would trial running the building to see if a viability community enterprise can be established there. If, after 5 years, there were still insufficient children to re-open the school it would be closed and sold. If AVHC had established a viable enterprise and shown that it could work well as a community building, it would then seek to purchase it. If not, the building would be sold on the open market.

36

There are precedents elsewhere in Scotland for lease then sale of old school buildings, though these are normally after a decision has been made to close the building as a school permanently. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Western Isles Council) closed a number of rural schools due to declining rolls in the early years of the current decade. The West Harris Trust leased the former Seilebost School for 1 year and then was permitted to purchase the building after developing a business plan to show that it could operate the building at a surplus. In contrast the North Harris Trust decided not to buy the former Scalpay school after leasing it for several years, due to concerns they had over the risk of not being able to fund the high capital costs of redeveloping an old building.

The advantages of leasing are clear: the possibility of a reopening of the school would be kept open and AVHC would be able to walk away from a lease if it did not work out. As with a purchase option AVHC would be able to use part of the building for office space for its own employee to work on developing projects linked to the purchase of the forest assets. It is also likely that it would still be possible to find sub-tenants for the building because it is in generally good condition, although the uncertainty over long-term security of tenure may discourage business investment.

The disadvantages are that capital funding from grant making bodies for improvements or developments would be unlikely during the lease term and that therefore AVHC’s ability to develop a successful enterprise would be limited. As noted above, significant improvements would be needed to the kitchen to make it suitable for community or commercial use. Similarly, the capital costs in providing electricity to sites for campervans and pods would be difficult to fund from grant aided sources, which would reduce revenues.

The main advantage to purchasing is that it would give AVHC the freedom to develop the building for community and revenue-generating use at the earliest possible opportunity. It would much more easily be able to seek grant funding for any improvements, and if grants were insufficient it could use the building itself as security to borrow money to invest. The principal disadvantage over leasing is that if the community was not successful in running the building it could not simply walk away. It could however sell the building and return any surplus to the Scottish Land Fund (or other funder) if the sale was within a specified period in the funding contract.

Operating the school building as a community facility without any revenue from camping activities would produce a break-even budget on a turnover of just over £9,000 (See Appendix 4, p81) while allowing almost £2,500 for repairs and maintenance. Therefore, if the community’s primary goal is to keep the school building in-play for educational purposes, a 5-year lease is a reasonable strategy to follow, despite there being some risks attached and the loss of potential income streams. If, on the other hand, the community’s primary goal is to provide better community facilities and generate economic opportunities it would be more appropriate to seek to purchase the building at the earliest opportunity.

10. Community Woodland Development

The forest at Achnamara is a valuable local asset which has seen little recent active management for local benefit. Public amenity on the site has declined in recent years, as existing access facilities have

37

neither been maintained nor promoted. Further, since the closure of the school the area is no longer used for educational purposes.

Community ownership will facilitate active management, ensuring that the amenity and environmental value of the woodland is maintained and enhanced. It will also allow management of the timber stands, producing an income stream to contribute to the financial sustainability of the site whilst promoting the establishment (by planting and natural regeneration) of future stands.

There is also substantial potential for a variety of local development in selected areas of the forest. This has the scope to provide a long-term source of income for the community, as well as acting as a means of arresting population decline, and bringing young people into the community.

Forest ownership can create a focus for community resilience and cohesion, increasing community capacity and well-being by providing opportunities for volunteers to learn new skills and get involved in management of the woodland.

There is a growing awareness that many, and school children in particular, have limited interaction with nature and thus a constrained understanding and awareness of the natural environment. Sensitive management of the wood, and maintenance or creation of access facilities will foster greater appreciation of the environment amongst locals and visitors, with particular opportunities to link with the beaver population which is establishing in the adjoining forest.

Options for developing the forest include:

Forest CroftsForest Crofts are a relatively recent development in Scotland. Individuals take on the crofting tenancy of an area of open ground and/or woodland. Similar models are common the world over, where it might be more commonly described as ‘family forestry’, typically defined as small scale forestry, based on personal involvement and strong stewardship values. There may also be scope to introduce an individual who has the necessary skills to manage the community forest. Support and advice are available from http://woodlandcrofts.org.cp-27.webhostbox.net/ .

Ideally the forest crofts would be centred around the two open areas within the study area, one (3.2ha) of which is in the medium size proposal, and one of c13ha in the large proposal. Each croft would include an area of forest as well as a portion of open ground. There would be scope to create at least 3 crofts on the medium size area, and if there was sufficient demand another 10 on the large area. It should be noted that neither any agricultural tenancy nor conservation constraints have yet been investigated.

Crofting law is a distinct (and complex) body of law within the Scottish legal system. New croft tenancies can be created under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. This would then bring the land designated under the whole raft of crofting law, including the right to 50% of any development value of the croft going to the tenant on future sales of land resumed from the croft by the landlord for another purpose. Forest crofts are a relatively new phenomenon but a number of groups e.g. North West Mull Community Woodland Company (NWMCWC) now have experience of creating them6.

6 https://www.facebook.com/Woodland-Crofter-695815143816832/ is the Facebook page of one new woodland crofter on Mull.

38

Standard tenancies allow for the right to buy the croft, the right to a statutory house site and the right to assign the croft amongst other provisions. It is therefore important that any community group takes legal advice when creating crofts and takes the opportunity to safeguard community rights in the leases. Leases should exclude the right to buy the croft and could also exclude the right to assign, the right to compensation for resumption or compulsory purchase and the right to a statutory house site if desired. Excluding the right to assign would prevent tenants from selling their lease to another party, usually for a price equal to or greater than the value of a house site. This would prevent profiteering and also allow Achnamara Community Trust to retain the power to approve future tenants. (A policy decision to favour transfer from parent to child where the child was living and working in the area could allow for a normal succession without risking absentee heirs selling the tenancy to the highest bidder). Excluding the right to compensation would secure 100% of any sale price of land to be developed for the community. Excluding the right to a statutory house site would allow the company to provide a house site for tenants with burdens attached requiring residency. It is not possible to attach these to statutory house sites. Consequently, at any point after purchase, the plot/ house can be sold to any individual with no requirement to live locally.

The development of Forest Crofts will require an (uncosted) amount of development time to satisfy the legal requirements, to locate and define the sites, and to advertise for and select tenants. Further, they will not generate much income for the community. Forest Crofts are generally developed because of the social benefits that they can deliver.

WoodlotsWoodlots are also recently introduced to Scotland, but they are common in other countries, such as Canada. A woodlot is a small area of woodland, typically less than 20 hectares, that is managed by a Woodlot Licence Holder using small scale forestry techniques according to an agreed Allowable Annual Cut, with a fee which is based on the quantity to be cut. The Woodlot provides an opportunity for the landowner to get areas of forestry into management and to generate a modest return7.

The scale of ground required for a woodlot rules it out from the small option and makes it best suited to the large option. Additionally, woodlot holders can make the most difference in relatively young crops where there are greater opportunities to thin trees without greatly increasing the risk of windblow. There are approximately 30ha which fit this model, and this might create 2-3 woodlots. As with the forest crofts, a Woodlot holder might also have the skills to manage the community forest, especially as a Woodlot would only be issued to an individual or group of individuals who have the necessary forest management experience.

Woodlots are a new concept in Scotland, and each one is different. It is not therefore possible to produce robust financial information on the impact of woodlots. There will be development costs associated in establishing the woodlots (and the SWA have support available to help with this), and the income generated will depend on the amount of timber that any woodlot holder is allowed to fell. A relatively modest income figure of £300/year is projected.

Small scale firewood productionThere is interest in the community in the idea of producing firewood from a community owned forest. There is at present no market information to allow an informed business model to be developed. However, for the purposes of this paper, two options (small described here and large) are proposed. Under the small-scale model, individuals in the community would be given short term licences to extract small quantities of fuelwood from specified areas primarily for their own use. The

7 https://www.scottishwoodlotassociation.co.uk/ .

39

individuals would need to be appropriately qualified (for example with chainsaw training), but would not necessarily start with knowledge of woodland management.

It is assumed that this exercise would be broadly cost neutral, as the community would seek to provide training and management input for the individuals in question. However, some income might be generated from the licencing arrangement. There is scope to run a version of this model at all three ownership levels

Large scale forestry enterprisesA larger scale forestry business could be run based on the larger purchase areas. Other large scale community woodland groups have developed a number of businesses based on their woodland resource. Examples include firewood, timber milling, and woodchip supply businesses. This paper will briefly consider the large scale firewood option, such as developed by the North West Mull group8 . As stated above, there is no detailed information available on either local demand or supply, however a larger scale firewood business would need to supply premises in the mid Argyll area, and would potentially be in competition with other firewood businesses, so displacement would need to be investigated. There is usually the scope to differentiate a firewood product from other suppliers by focussing on quality: producing dry, more conveniently packaged, and on demand firewood. The enterprise would require capital investment of circa £50,000, and based on an output of 535 m3 per year would generate a positive cash flow of c£14,000 pa.

The raw material for the firewood business can be generated in a number of ways. Appropriate thinning and cleaning operations in the forest can yield volumes of timber without reducing the final volume of timber available to harvest (less competition encourages better growth in the remaining trees). This approach may be possible in the youngest conifer stands, and could yield 50 tonnes of roundwood in the first years. An alternative relying on the differential price between expensive sawlogs and cheaper smaller logs in the standing parcel has also been possible recently in Argyll. Under this scenario the timber merchant pays more per m3 for a standing sale which excludes the firewood business’s requirement of small diameter logs, with the difference providing a very cheap source of raw material. However the price of small diameter logs has been increasing due to the increased demand for biomass, so this arrangement may not work so well in the future. It also highlights the risk associated with any timber business: the raw material price of a low value international commodity is very closely tied to the exchange rate, and is further distorted by government interventions.

The enterprise would generate two part time jobs for individuals who would be required to produce and process the firewood, as well as marketing and delivery of the product.

8 http://islandwoodfuels.com/

40

Item Cost £Shed 10000Firewood processor + hydraulic log lift 80002nd hand Tractor with front loader 16000Tools (bag loading frames, hand tools etc) 1000C/saw & PPE 10002nd hand flatbed truck or trailer with crane 14000Total 50000Table 7: Indicative capital costs for woodfuel business

Polytunnels and community growingCommunity woodland groups such as Kilfinan Community Forest Company9 have successfully established allotments and a community polytunnel on the ground that they acquired. As with many of the development proposals listed this has been based on the enthusiasm of a small group within the community, who have carried through the project with some support from the community forest.

A large scale commercial polytunnel would be required to create sufficient internal space and be sufficiently robust to have a reasonable survival life in Argyll. A 9 by 20m polytunnel would cost c£9000, including groundworks, erection, water supply and raised beds. These costs will vary depending on the nature of the ground and location of the tunnel

An alternative to polytunnels, using more durable acrylic instead of plastic covering has been developed by a Shetland community growing group10 , and this might also be of interest.

Size OptionsAt start-up the development potential and community benefit and management implications for different sizes of forestry purchase was discussed with the committee. It was agreed in broad terms that small, medium and large options would be considered. The consultancy team worked with ideas put forward by AVHC and developed them into three options for presentation and discussion at the community meeting held in the School. Following comments made at the meeting the areas were revised. The primary alterations have been:

1. To attempt to include the hydro intake point and pipeline route in addition to the power house. This potentially increases the community control over the hydro scheme.

2. To include one of the open areas in the medium size option (53.1ha) to increase the flexibility to develop attractive forest croft options at this scale.

The overall impact of the alterations has been to increase the size of all of the possible options, with an increase in the total area to 116.2ha as shown in the map below.

9 http://www.kilfinancommunityforest.co.uk/gogreen-kag.php10 https://www.polycrub.co.uk/

41

Map 3: Possible options for transfer request

Small (16.2ha)This option provides the community with the land that is required to deliver some of the development aspirations that they have expressed. It includes ground around both the school and the village hall (as well as the village hall solum, and some ground within the village), as well as the forest immediately adjacent to the pier. It also includes an area of mature conifer which would need to be felled and sold in the next few years. This small felling would be marginal in economic terms once infrastructure and restocking costs are considered, however the infrastructure created could usefully be incorporated into any facilities being created for parking or development adjacent to the pier. There would be some potential for small scale firewood production, as well as opportunities to enhance an existing circular walk around the village.

Medium (53.1ha)This allows the community to take control of a larger area of forest, which would allow the community to develop a small number of woodland crofts, while also providing sufficient standing timber to allow for timber sales and for consideration of the development of a firewood business or similar income generating activities. It would require the community, or at least the directors, to engage more seriously with the business of forest management, but external help is available to achieve this.

Large (116.2ha)The largest option will deliver similar benefits to those outlined in the medium option but will benefit from a more even distribution of age classes (which will help with timber revenue or log

42

supplies in the future), and also from economies of scale. The larger option also offers greater opportunities for a more entrepreneurial approach to land ownership and land management, and approach that is illustrated in the Forest Policy Group’s case study on North West Mull11

.Financial Implications of the Purchase Options

Table 8: Summary of first 5 years finances, including purchase price

Small Medium LargeIncome £ £ £Scottish Land Fund 59,200 238000 498,000Standing Timber Sales 49,200 114300 231,300Firewood sales 1,500 133750 133,750Forest Croft Rentals - 1500 1,500Woodlots - 7500 7,500Total 109,900 495,050 872,050

ExpenditurePurchase Price 54,860 240,540 514,920Legals 7,500 10,000 10,000infrastructure 25,000 32,000 35,000Management Costs 6,000 15,000 20,000

Restock costs 9,840 37,200 55,920Woodfuel costs 1,500 62,475 62,475Woodfuel capital 50,000 50,000Total 104,700 447,215 748,315

Surplus 5,200 47,835 123,735

Infrastructure Costs are heavily weighted towards the creation of a new road access and associated timber stacking areas to access the timber opposite the pier. It should be noted that this facility might also be of use to any development at the pier. A small allowance is made for other improvements elsewhere. Management and Harvesting Costs reflect the ongoing management costs and marketing costs for the standing sales. Replanting or restocking is normally a legal requirement, and a cost of £2,400/ha including management costs is assumed. Accountancy costs are not specifically included in these figures, as they are dealt with elsewhere in the options appraisal.

Forestry income and expenditure does not normally follow a conventional year by year pattern, with occasional large injections of income, and consequent staggered replanting expenditure. For the purposes of allowing the forestry finances to fit into the cash flow being developed for this study, the above figures have been used to produce an illustrative annual cash flow.

11 http://www.forestpolicygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NorthWestMullCWC-Case-Study.pdf

43

Table 9: Illustrating annual cash flow

Small Medium LargeIncome £ £ £Standing Timber Sales 9,840 22,860 46,260Firewood sales 300 26,750 26,750Forest Croft Rentals - 300 300Woodlots - 1,500 1,500Total 10,140 51,410 74,810

Expenditureinfrastructure 5,000 6,400 7,000Management Costs 1,200 3,000 4,000Restock costs 1,968 7,440 11,184Woodfuel running costs 300 12,495 12,495

Woodfuel cost of capital 10,000 10,000Total 8,468 39,335 44,679

Surplus 1,672 12,075 30,131

The two bigger forestry options, especially the large option, should contribute to a healthy positive cashflow, and these surpluses have the potential to greatly enhance the communities ability to deliver other development aspirations, whether as match funding for grant bids, or by providing seedcorn funding or support for a development officer.

Potential Forest Management Constraints

Management and Governance Capacity

Taking on the management of land will require the community to either buy in or acquire the skills necessary to manage the land resource, and it also will make it desirable to have at least one director with experience in this area.

There are various potential solutions to the management issue. Especially with the larger transfer options there is the scope to contract the work out to one of the mainstream forest management companies in the same way that is usual in the privately-owned woodland sector. Another option might be to encourage an individual with woodland management skills to develop one of the woodland croft sites, and take on the community woodland management tasks as part of the deal. Two local organisations may be able to assist with this issue as well. The Argyll Small Woods Cooperative12 is also developing a funding model for a “shared forester”, who would provide support to community groups and small woodland owners. The Native Woods Cooperative13 is also developing funded proposals to assist community woodland groups with management issues. With

12 https://www.argyllsmallwoods.coop/13 http://www.nativewoods.co.uk/index.asp

44

the larger model there may also be the scope to generate at least a part time forester/project management job, and this would potentially allow more capacity for the community to ensure that appropriate woodland management regimes are put in place.

Roading

The public road through Achnamara is part of the Timber Transport Forum’s Agreed Route Map, with the road to the south of the Barnagad Burn being “Severely Restricted”. Forest and Land Scotland have an in forest road network, which allows them to avoid this constraint. Any acquisition by the community should seek to reach agreement with Forestry and Land Scotland for the use of this network14.

Map 4: Constraints on Timber Haulage at Achnamara

14 https://timbertf.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a23d4910e604b71872956441113c83c

45

Internal Forest Roads

Map 5: Roads, paths and other access infrastructure within the study area

Almost the whole of the area under consideration has been through its first rotation felling programme, and it is therefore well roaded for forestry purposes, although some of these roads have not been used for a considerable period. There are roading constraints along the sea cliffs that reach from c400m south of the village to the southern edge of the forestry adjacent to the road; extraction from this area would have been by winch or skyline.

Deer ManagementSuccessful deer management is an integral part of sustainable forest management. Surprisingly low numbers of deer can have a big impact on the growth and survival of young trees. There are three potential options available to owners, and the solution will vary depending on the individual site (and often a combination of these approaches provides the best answer). An effective supplementary form of deer control (and potentially a useful way of monitoring the impact of deer) is the presence of the community and visitors. Deer do not like to be disturbed, and a much used woodland is less likely to be an attractive home for deer.

1. Deer fencingDeer fencing can be a high cost approach to deer control, and it is also an approach which is rarely completely successful, as deer are very agile creatures who have a lot of time to find ways through fences. Deer fencing the whole area acquired is likely to be prohibitively expensive, so any use of fencing should be limited to felled area where successful restocking with young trees is the priority. Alternatives to traditional deer fencing can represent a cost effective way of protecting small areas of particularly vulnerable trees, particularly the more palatable broadleaves.

46

2. CullingDeer control is to a degree constrained by the public road, with the use of firearms prohibited within 25m of the road. Within limits, the larger the area of ground to be controlled, the easier it is to keep on top of deer numbers. There is scope to provide stalking opportunities for local people, however for successful forest management the emphasis has to be on the impact of the deer on young forest trees, rather than any return from a sporting lease. Venison sales should however cover any costs incurred.

3. Species selectionCertain trees are less attractive to deer than others. At the extremes, sitka spruce can survive in the presence of up to eight times more deer than oak, and even alder will survive in the presence of up to four times as many deer. However limiting species selection will also limit the future diversity of the forest, with potential impacts on its landscape impact, biodiversity and economic viability.

NeighbourlinessThe options chosen for the purpose of this exercise have not been discussed in detail with Forestry and Land Scotland, although the initial draft options were shared with their staff. Discussions around the exact line of any proposed transfer will be required. Forestry and Land Scotland will also need to be drawn into discussions around shared road access, approaches to deer control, the felling of adjacent coupes and public access facilities.

In addition to these issues, Forestry and Land Scotland have made a commitment to remove invasive rhododendron from the National Forest Estate, and they have already put considerable resources into the control of this plant in the area around Achnamara. The community should carefully consider their approach to this unfinished business.

RestockingThere is a legal requirement to carry out restocking or replanting after trees have been felled, unless these trees are felled as part of a successful planning application. In this instance, this might mean that trees felled to create facilities around the existing village hall, or adjacent to the pier will not need to be replanted.

Species choice will be determined by the community’s approach to deer management, to landscape and biodiversity, and by aspirations of the community to continue to produce substantial volumes of marketable timber.

11. Shore & Pier ImprovementsThe existing pier is a useful, although far from ideal, resource for the local community. Improved facilities for members of the moorings association and visitors have the potential to generate revenues and stimulate economic development.

Improvements could be made to the pier, and slipway and pontoons could be installed. Pontoons are, by their nature, less robust than fixed piers and jetties. However, it would appear that the site would be suitable for a pontoon system. If necessary, a floating breakwater (which would be effective in attenuating short-period waves) could be incorporated into the system to provide the required protection to the pontoon. Given that the end of the pier is close to the low water mark it should be possible to moor a pontoon system in the water and link it to the pier via an access bridge.

47

There is also the potential to create a slipway adjacent to the pier that would enable the launching of boats.

The provision of a pontoon does not only facilitate easier access to and from the sea. It can also provide additional services to boats moored alongside. It is now possible to supply water and electricity to each berth in a modern pontoon system – the provision of electricity would be a feature not currently available at Tayvallich. The mains water supply is understood to terminate at the village boundary. Extending it to a pontoon would be expensive but the cost could be reduced if it were linked with other developments in the area (See Section 13)

A number of community pontoon projects have been funded along the west coast and in the islands in recent years, recognising the growing value of marine tourism. Visitor time ashore and associated spend is significantly higher when boats can berth at a pontoon rather than sit on a mooring. Funding is therefore more likely when it can be shown that there is infrastructure in place or being provided to maximise the benefit of the extra visitor numbers. There are currently no services available in Achnamara, so these will either need to be provided in existing buildings or be provided as part of a project to improve maritime access.

Current parking at the head of the pier is informal and the ground uneven. The existing area could be improved by surfacing with aggregate. Alternatively, there is the potential to create a parking area across the road on ground which is reasonably level and currently wooded. As discussed in Section 13 there is the potential to develop on-shore facilities for yachts people. Toilets and showers are a minimum requirement, preferably with a laundry facility and a place to eat.

There is the potential to locate these facilities in a revamped hall, share facilities in the school with other users or provide them across the road from the pier; either as a stand-alone facility or as part of a new village hall complex.

There is a slipway and pontoon system in Tayvallich, approximately 2.5miles by sea and 9 miles by road. This system is fully utilised and considerably short of capacity.

Pontoon systems have continuing maintenance requirements which have a cost but are manageable. The moorings need to be checked annually by a diver and the chains need to be replaced from time to time. It is therefore necessary to set aside part of the income into a fund to pay for this. The capital cost of chain is high but the thicker the chain, the longer it lasts. Therefore, the thickest chain possible should be installed within the available capital budget at installation.

The capital costs of a project will vary according to the site conditions, condition of existing structures and the scale of the development proposed. A recent project to install pontoons providing 50 berths linked to existing pier facilities at 2 sites in East Loch Tarbert, Harris15 had a budget of £1.35m. A single site project is likely to cost in the region of £0.5-1.0m and potentially up to £1.5m if significant improvements to the pier and slipway are included. The provision of a standalone facilities building for toilet/showers and laundry could cost in the region of £50-75,000.

12. HousingThe community consultation process carried out by AVHC clearly identified the lack of new housing opportunities as a key issue for the area. If the community wishes to increase the number of people living in the area (particularly young families) new housing opportunities will need to be created. It is

15 https://www.isleofharrismarina.co.uk/about

48

notable that in the Options Appraisal of Ashfield Primary School presented to the Community Services committee of Argyll & Bute Council on the 11th of December 2018 a key reason for recommending starting a procedure to close the school was that there were “…no ‘housing allocations’ or ‘potential development areas’ identified in the [Local Development] plan” and that there had been no new planning permissions granted in the area in the last 3 years. The purchase of land from Forestry and Land Scotland offers the community the opportunity to develop new housing opportunities to meet local needs and to do this in a way that maximises social and economic benefit to the community.

There are a range of options open for delivering new housing opportunities in Achnamara:

1. Community-led. The Scottish Government’s Rural Housing Fund and Island Housing Funds are open to community groups to apply for grants for conducting feasibility studies and a combination of grants and loans to deliver building projects. These projects can be either new build or bringing vacant property back into use. New houses at Ulva Ferry, Mull were built under this scheme by Mull & Iona Community Trust16, which is now planning to build further houses in the same area using the same funding mechanism. There is considerable practical support available for community groups looking to develop their own housing from bodies such as Rural Housing Scotland17 and the Highland Small Communities Housing Trust (see 3 below)

2. Argyll Community Housing Association18. The local community could work with ACHA to identify a suitable location and work up a project. ACHA would purchase the site from the community and build units for rent. The key advantages of this approach are that the risks and responsibilities of the project and subsequent tenant management lie with ACHA rather than the community. The completed houses would however be under the control of the housing association, rather than the local community.

3. Highland Small Communities Housing Trust19. HSCHT was established to fill in the gaps that housing associations found it difficult to address. HSCHT has come up with a number of innovative housing projects and has delivered shared equity and rent to buy projects which enables those on modest incomes to buy a property over a period of time.

4. Self-build. The community could release plots of land for people to build their own houses. Combined with legal burdens to ensure future residence this option can deliver new housing at no cost to the community and can allow individuals to build houses tailored to their own needs and budgets. If crofts are created it would enable application to be made to the means-tested Croft Housing Grant Scheme which can award up to £38,000 towards the cost of a new-build.

A combination of some, or even all, of these options could deliver real benefits in terms of providing new housing opportunities, halting rural depopulation and rebalancing the demographics of the area. These can be pursued as individual projects on separate sites or as partnership projects which can reduce unit costs and share risk. The community can use the income from the sale of plots to private individuals and to other housing bodies to reinvest in its own projects. Staffin Community 16 http://www.mict.co.uk/projects-services/ulva-ferry-housing-project/ 17 http://ruralhousingscotland.org/ 18 https://www.acha.co.uk/ 19 www.hscht.co.uk/

49

Trust20 is working with Lochalsh & Skye Housing Association and Highland Small Communities Housing Trust to build 6 houses, business units and storage space on land they are purchasing from the Scottish Government. Each of the 3 partners will own 2 of the houses. The project will deliver much-needed housing for the local community, increase numbers in the local school and provide an income stream for the community group.

13. Development Opportunities & The Planning SystemPlanning permission is required for most developments on, over or under the ground. In Argyll & Bute proposals are considered in the context of the 2015 Local Plan. For each settlement areas are zoned for settlement and open countryside.

Map 6: Achnamara Settlement Plan

20 https://staffin-trust.co.uk/housing-in-staffin

50

In the case of Achnamara the plan shows that the village hall and the school are within the settlement zone. Therefore proposed developments for either of these buildings, including extensions or replacements would be dealt with in a standard process. The same would apply to an area at the north end of the village which is defined as part of the settlement zone, and which was previously discussed as a potential site for housing by ACHA.

The pier is in area defined as open countryside, as is the land between it and the edge of the village on the west side of the road, and all the way to the forest access road adjacent to the village hall on the east side of the road. There is a general presumption against extending an existing settlement in to the open countryside zone. However, development is acceptable where it infills and rounds off existing sites. If it wished the community could therefore argue that development on the east side of the through road from the village hall to the edge of the village boundary would constitute appropriate infill. This would provide opportunities for a mixed housing development that could be developed with partners. Appropriate development related to the pier such as a toilet facility may also be allowable in the context of the current plan.

Suggestions were made at the community consultation event that a good option would be to redevelop the hall on a new site adjacent to the pier, and perhaps to incorporate campervan hook-ups at that location. Such a development would be of a significant scale and be contrary to the Local Plan. A new Local Development Plan is currently being prepared for adoption in 2020. A Main Issues consultation on the new plan has already taken place and a draft plan will be issued for public consultation in the near future. AVHC can make representations on that draft when it is produced but it may be considered too radical a change and not be accepted for the 2020 plan.

Local Development Plans normally last for 5 years but new planning legislation means that these will switch to 10 years in the future. However, there are 2 important aspects to this new legislation. The Scottish Government has indicated that it would like to see new plans under the act in place within 3 years, so there will be an earlier than expected chance to shape a revised plan. The new legislation also allows for Local Place Plans (LPPs) to be developed by local communities which would identify their priorities and sit within the local authority’s plan. AVHC could therefore consider developing an LPP post purchase in order to come to a community consensus on what kinds of new development and exactly where it would like them to be placed.

Set against this background it is not likely that a major mixed-use development adjacent to the pier (apart from what is appropriate for improving marine infrastructure) could be successfully delivered within a 5-year period. Therefore, revenue streams in the options analysis which is required for developing a successful 5-year business plan will be restricted to those assets which can be developed within this period.

51

14. Options AnalysisThe study to this point has shown that there are a range of opportunities for development which could bring significant social, economic and environmental benefits to the Achnamara community. There is a wide range of assets that the community could buy, from the hall to over 100ha of woodland. This section of the report considers a number of options to help focus attention on specific alternatives.

Options 1-3 look at the hall and school buildings in isolation from the forest. Options 4-6 consider progressively larger areas of forest as discussed in Section 10. These options automatically include the site of the hall and adjacent shed as this would be purchased as part of the forest land surrounding the village. However, each of Options 4-6 have an A and a B version. Version A in each case excludes the school while version B includes it. This is for three reasons: First, it will show the community the impact of the clear choice to buy, or not to buy, the school linked with other local assets; secondly the school and forest belong to different landowners and a reasoned business case will need to be made to the separate owners for each asset that is desired; and thirdly, keeping the school asset separate will assist an application for purchase to the Scottish Land Fund for the forestry land only in the first instance.

We now consider each option in turn briefly in order to clearly present the differences between them clearly:

Option 1 – Hall site only

AdvantagesThe purchase of the hall site and adjacent ground would be the simplest transaction to carry out and easiest to map and record for title registration purposes. It would require a relatively low level of voluntary effort to deliver and would ensure security of ownership. The current activities could carry on without interruption in a well-managed manner within the known competency of the existing committee. In the longer term it would enable funding to be sought for a major renovation or replacement of the building.

DisadvantagesIt would not address the strongly expressed desire of the community survey for the school and pier to be retained (or owned) for community use and the significant desire for ownership of local forest land. Nor would it address the significant local interest in creating new housing opportunities, improving access to the sea for local use and marine based tourism, and developing a local wood fuel supply business.

In an era of ever-reducing funding sources it is unlikely that the asset base would be sufficient to develop long-term revenue streams that would pay for future maintenance and development needs.

Financial AnalysisAs per the discussion above the hall could be expected to continue on a break-even basis of approximately £4,900 income and expenditure/year.

52

Table 10: Hall income & expenditureHALL & SHEDIncome £Café Connect 1,000Table Tennis 600Hall Hire 1,600Band Practice 350Other 1,000Fundraising 350Total 4,900

ExpenditureUtilities 900Expenses 2,000Repairs 2,000Total 4,900

Surplus -

Option 2 – School only

AdvantagesThe community would become owner of a building that is significantly larger and in significantly better condition than the existing hall. It is likely to be easier to be able to raise funding for renovation works than the existing hall.

The building offers the opportunity for a range of community and business activities that will generate significant revenue streams for long-term maintenance of the building and investment in other community projects. It has the potential to generate some employment locally.

The level of management commitment would be greater than Option 1 but still relatively modest and within available volunteer capacity.

Community hall users would experience a significantly more comfortable environment. Multiple activities could take place at the same time.

DisadvantagesIt would not address the strongly expressed desire of the community survey for the pier to be owned for community use and the significant desire for ownership of local forest land. Nor would it address the significant local interest in creating new housing opportunities, improving access to the sea for local use and marine based tourism and developing a local wood fuel supply business.

Financial AnalysisThe school building could run on a break-even basis without any income from activities outside the building. Making use of the site to add in campervan hook-ups and pods would generate net income of £8,237/yr. If the community activities were to be sited elsewhere a surplus of £3160/yr would be generated from the building alone, rising to £11,388 if tourism facilities are developed.

Table 11: School Income & Expenditure

53

SCHOOL ONLY

Community Hall Facility

Community Business

54

IncomeHall 0 0School Building 9,180 15,240Campervan Hook-ups 8,075 8,075Pods 10,331 10,331Forestry 0 0Total 27,586 33,646

ExpenditureHall 0 0School Building 9,171 12,080Campervan Hook-ups 3,502 3,502Pods 5,676 5,676ForestryAccountancy 1000 1000

Total 19,349 22,258

Surplus 8,237 11,388

Option 3 – Hall & School

AdvantagesThe community would own the 2 most important buildings in the area. Both buildings would generate revenues for the community.

Community activities could be moved to the school. Community hall users would experience a significantly more comfortable environment. Multiple activities could take place at the same time.

Hall maintenance responsibilities would become the responsibility of a tenant.

DisadvantagesIt would not address the strongly expressed desire of the community survey for the pier to be owned for community use and the significant desire for ownership of local forest land. Nor would it address the significant local interest in creating new housing opportunities, improving access to the sea for local use and marine based tourism and developing a local wood fuel supply business.

Financial AnalysisA surplus of £9843 would be generated through operating the school as a community building and letting out the hall to a tenant. This would be greater than through owning the school alone.

Table 12: Hall & School Income & Expenditure HALL & SCHOOL

55

IncomeHall 1,890School Building 9,180Campervan Hook-ups 8,075Pods 10,331Forestry 0Total 29,476

ExpenditureHall 284School Building 9,171Campervan Hook-ups 3,502Pods 5,676ForestryAccountancy 1000

Total 19,633

Surplus 9,843

Option 4A – 16.2ha forest only

AdvantagesThe hall and pier would be purchased as part of a single transaction for the purchase of forest land.

There would be some scope to produce firewood for local supply

The current hall activities could carry on without interruption in a well-managed manner within the known competency of the existing committee.

The community would own land that could be developed over the long term for housing, community, business and tourism purposes.

Community ownership of the pier would enable the development of the pier, slipway and pontoons if desired.

DisadvantagesThe community would not gain economic and social benefits from school ownership. Nor would the community have control over future use of the school which may be sold by Argyll & Bute Council.

The area would not be sufficiently large to create forest crofts or woodlots.

Financial AnalysisThe hall could be expected to continue on a break-even basis of approximately £4,900 income and expenditure/year. Over a 5 year cycle management of the forest would show a modest surplus of

56

£8360, with income of £50,700 and expenditure of £42,340. However after allowing for accountancy costs the surplus is a nominal £672 when the forestry income and expenditure are averaged to annual figures.

Table 13: Small Forest Income & Expenditure 16.2HA FOREST

IncomeHall 4,900School Building 0Campervan Hook-ups 0Pods 0Forestry 10,140Total 15,040

ExpenditureHall 4,900School Building 0Campervan Hook-ups 0Pods 0Forestry 8,468Accountancy 1000

Total 14,368

Surplus 672

Option 4B – 16.9ha forest plus school

AdvantagesThe community would own all the key assets in and around Achnamara village: the hall, school, pier and woodland. All of these assets could be used to develop new housing, business, tourism and marine access opportunities.

There would be some scope to produce firewood for local supply

The suite of assets and plans to develop them would create direct employment for a development officer and indirect employment through other businesses in the community being able to establish and grow.

DisadvantagesThe area would not be sufficiently large to create forest crofts or woodlots.

57

Financial AnalysisUsing the school as a community centre with a small tourism business and letting the hall would generate surpluses of £9,843/year, which would give greater financial stability to the overall operation, producing an annual surplus of £11,515.

Table 14: Small Forest & School Income & Expenditure 16.9HA FOREST & SCHOOL

IncomeHall 1,890School Building 9,180Campervan Hook-ups 8,075Pods 10,331Forestry 10,140Total 39,616

ExpenditureHall 284School Building 9,171Campervan Hook-ups 3,502Pods 5,676Forestry 8,468Accountancy 1000

Total 28,101

Surplus 11,515

Option 5A – 53.1ha forest

AdvantagesAll the benefits of Option 4a plus:

The forest area would be large enough to create a woodlot and a small number of woodland crofts. There would be some scope to create a larger firewood supply and timber business supplying beyond the immediate community.

DisadvantagesThe community would not gain economic and social benefits from school ownership. Nor would the community have control over future use of the school which may be sold by Argyll & Bute Council.

A greater level of management and voluntary input would be required than for Option 4B.

Financial AnalysisThe hall could be expected to continue on a break-even basis of approximately £4,900 income and expenditure/year. Over a 5-year cycle management of the forest would show a surplus of £60,375 on a turnover of £257,050. This would be after allowing for a £50,000 capital investment in wood-

58

processing equipment. After allowing for higher accountancy costs of £1500/yr for a more complex operation an averaged annual surplus of £10,575 can be expected.

Table 15: Medium Forest Income & Expenditure 53.1HA FOREST

IncomeHall 4,900School Building 0Campervan Hook-ups 0Pods 0Forestry 51,410Total 56,310

ExpenditureHall 284School Building 0Campervan Hook-ups 0Pods 0Forestry 39,335Accountancy 1500

Total 44,735

Surplus 10,575

Option 5B – 53.1ha forest plus school

AdvantagesAll the benefits of Option 4b plus:

The forest area would be large enough to create woodlots and a small number of woodland crofts. There would be some scope to create a larger firewood supply and timber business supplying beyond the immediate community.

DisadvantagesA greater level of management and voluntary input would be required than for Option 4B.

Financial AnalysisUsing the school as a community centre would generate surpluses of £9,843/year. Over a 5-year cycle management of the forest would show a surplus of £60,375 on a turnover of £257,050. This would be after allowing for a £50,000 capital investment in wood-processing equipment. An averaged annual surplus of £21,418 would be produced

59

Table 16: Medium Forest & School Income & Expenditure 53.1HA FOREST & SCHOOL

IncomeHall 1,890School Building 9,180Campervan Hook-ups 8,075Pods 10,331Forestry 51,410Total 80,886

ExpenditureHall 284School Building 9,171Campervan Hook-ups 3,502Pods 5,676Forestry 39,335Accountancy 1500

Total 59,468

Surplus 21,418

Option 6A – 116.2ha forest

AdvantagesAll the benefits of option 5a plus:

A greater number of woodland crofts and woodlots could be created

A larger firewood or timber-based business could be operated

The community would own the inlet and pipeline route for any proposed hydro scheme

DisadvantagesThe community would not gain economic and social benefits from school ownership. Nor would the community have control over future use of the school which may be sold by Argyll & Bute Council.

Financial AnalysisThe forest would generate revenues of £374,050 against expenditure of £223,395 leaving a net surplus of £150,655 over a 5-year period. This would provide a significant income stream for investment in other community projects such as community-owned housing and improved marine access provision.

60

Table 17: Large Forest Income & Expenditure 116.2 HA FOREST

IncomeHall 4,900School Building 0Campervan Hook-ups 0Pods 0Forestry 74,810Total 79,710

ExpenditureHall 4,900School Building 0Campervan Hook-ups 0Pods 0Forestry 44,679Accountancy 2,000

Total 51,579

Surplus 28,131

Option 6B - 116.2ha forest plus school

AdvantagesAll the benefits of option 5b plus:

A greater number of woodland crofts and woodlots could be created

A larger firewood or timber-based business could be operated

The community would own the inlet and pipeline route for any proposed hydro scheme

DisadvantagesThis option would require a considerably larger management input and volunteer time than the other options.

Financial AnalysisUsing the school as a community centre would generate surpluses of £8,237/year. Over a 5-year cycle management of the forest would show a surplus of £150,655 on a turnover of £374,050. This would be after allowing for a £50,000 capital investment in wood-processing equipment.

61

Table 18: Large Forest & School Income & Expenditure 116.2 HA FOREST & SCHOOL

IncomeHall 1,890School Building 9,180Campervan Hook-ups 8,075Pods 10,331Forestry 74,810Total 104,286

ExpenditureHall 284School Building 9,171Campervan Hook-ups 3,502Pods 5,676Forestry 44,679Accountancy 2000

Total 65,312

Surplus 38,974

Discussion

In deciding which of the 9 options is the most appropriate to take it is necessary for the community to match the likely outcomes from each option with the level of community aspiration and fundability. As noted in section 7 those present at the public consultation meeting at the start of the study were generally enthusiastic about the prospect of engaging in a range of activities to reinvigorate the community. Subsequent internal community discussion culminating in the survey carried out by AVHC has shown that:

Over 85% of the community support buying some of the forestry around Achnamara. There is strong support for the creation of woodlots, the development of a community woodfuel business and the leasing of land for individuals to set up woodland based businesses. The community as a whole also supports the creations of woodland crofts, although this is supported by slightly less than half of the village respondents.

The community is very strongly supportive of the community developing new housing opportunities.

Over 80% of the community support the buying of land to develop better facilities for loch users.

Over 60% of the community support the continued mothballing of the school, although this is supported by slightly less than half of village residents.

There is a spread of opinions regarding the future of hall provision, with no clear preferred choice. A new hall located adjacent to the pier incorporating facilities for pier users received the largest number of 1e preferences, but keeping activities at the current site received the highest score of weighted responses.

62

The implications of each option and their ability to meet community aspirations are summarised in table 20:

Table 20: Options SummaryOption Purchase Cost Annual Income Annual Surplus Community

Aspirations Met?1 – Hall £10,000 £4,900 £0 No2 – School £100,000 £27,586 £8,237 No3 – Hall & School £110,000 £29,476 £9843 No4A – Small Forest £55,000 £15,040 £672 No4B – Small Forest + School

£155,000 £39,616 £11,515 No

5A – Medium Forest

£240,000 £56,310 £10,575 Yes

5B – Medium Forest + School

£340,000 £80,886 £21,418 Yes

6A – Large Forest £515,000 £79,710 £28,131 Yes6b – Large Forest + School

£615,000 £104,286 £38,974 Yes

The purchase costs are merely indicative at this stage and will only be confirmed when a professional valuation is carried out. All 9 options outlined above will require assistance from the Scottish Land Fund to purchase the land required. It is therefore also useful to consider SLF’s outcomes for a successful project. Under the tab “What are we looking for?”21 the following answer is given:

“Successful applicants will clearly demonstrate that their project will help their local community to:

achieve more sustainable economic, environmental and/or social development through ownership of land and buildings

have a stronger role in and control over their own development own well managed, financially sustainable land and buildings.

We will prioritise applications that can demonstrate significant positive impact for the community as a whole.”

The community’s aspirations meet the first 2 outcomes and by choosing the correct option they can meet the 3rd outcome. We now consider these options in turn:

Option 1 (Hall only) would not achieve the community’s aspirations nor the SLF outcomes if the community only intended to purchase the hall site, but had no plans for a major improvement to, or replacement of the building. Option 4A (small woodland including hall site) would meet these criteria through developing a small forestry business that would be well within the capacity of the community to manage, while also providing the community with opportunities to develop community housing and marine access projects. It is therefore logical to rule out Option 1 as a viable choice.

Option 2 (School only) would meet the SLF outcomes through enabling sustainable economic and social development, the community taking a stronger role in its development, and from owning and managing an asset that was financially sustainable. Managing the school as a community centre

21 https://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/funding/programmes/scottish-land-fund#section-2

63

would keep the building as a community asset, enable a greater level of social activity in a more comfortable environment than is currently possible, and create employment opportunities. Purchasing the school could therefore be the subject of a successful SLF application. The question then arises as to whether Option 2 on its own would be a good choice or whether the school should be combined with other assets. The first point to bear in mind is that Option 2 will only become an option if, and when, Argyll & Bute Council decide to close the building permanently. Secondly, buying the school on its own will produce good, but limited outcomes, with no opportunity to guide long-term community development beyond the confines of the school site. However, it would not meet the community’s aspirations to develop a community woodfuel business, woodlots and woodland crofts.

Seeking to buy the hall site in addition to the school site (Option3) is unlikely to be successful. This is because separate applications would need to be made for the different plots of land and an application to buy the hall site would face the same difficulties as stated for Option 1. It has already been noted that Option 4A (16.9ha forest) delivers the benefits of Option 1 plus considerably more. Combining the purchase of the school with forestry (in which the school is situated) would have similar benefits in terms of maximising local development opportunities.

A key choice therefore for the community would be what amount of forestry to seek to buy. Each of the small, medium and large options is predicted to be surplus-generating but sizes of surplus and opportunities for each area vary markedly. The small area (Option 4) would enable the community to supply some local firewood, replant with native species and release land for future local developments. It would however fall short of community aspirations in that there would be insufficient land available to create woodlots and woodland crofts.

Option 5 would enable a larger commercial business to be developed along with some crofts and woodlots. Option 6 would enable an even larger commercial business to be established along with additional crofts and woodlots. To a limited extent Option 5, and to a greater extent, Option 6 would have the potential to generate surpluses that could be reinvested in other community priorities. Option 5 would be a perfectly satisfactory choice to make to purchase sufficient land with the aim of delivering most of the community’s aspirations. However Option 6 would provide additional surpluses that could help the community to deliver projects that may well need significant local match funding for projects such as the improved facilities in the loch and community owned housing. It is worth noting that while 116.2ha is a large area of woodland in this context, there are other communities managing larger areas of woodland successfully.

In conclusion there is strong logic for the community to buy the medium or large areas of forestry land to maximise local opportunities. There is also a strong logic to buy the school if Argyll & Bute Council decide to sell it and the community decides that it is the best future option for community facilities. Given that the school building is not currently for sale and the community is divided on the best way forward for community facilities it would be appropriate for the community to buy forest land as per Options 5 or 6 in the first instance and to give further consideration to buying the school over the next year while current processes are underway. The decision on how much forestry land to buy will depend upon the level of interest locally in taking on a forest resource, the capacity of the local community to manage the resource and the level of risk which the community is willing to accept. These are explored further in Part Three of the study.

64

PART THREE: BOARD SKILLS, RISK ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING

15. Skills Survey of Achnamara Village Hall Committee

This section presents and discusses findings from the skills survey that was conducted as part of the feasibility study. The purpose of the survey was to analyse what skills exist within the Committee’s membership to undertake the responsibilities of being a community landlord and oversee development options which the community may wish to take forward. The survey was sent to all Committee members electronically. 11 responses were received from Committee members and two responses were included from non-members of the committee. These responses have also been included in the analysis because they are indicative of skills within the community may be useful for the committee’s reconstituted organization to draw upon in the event of a successful purchase of land and/or other assets.

Time Commitment to support the Committee’s Work

An important aspect of taking a community buyout forward is ensuring that the Committee’s members are prepared to put in the necessary time commitment during both the pre-buyout and post-acquisition phases. Table 21 below shows survey responses in that regard.

Table 21: Committee Members’ & non-members’ time commitment over next 6-12 monthsCommittee members Non-members

Attend some meetings 6 (55%) 2 (100%)Attend all meetings 4 (36%)+ less than 1 hour per week 1 (9%) 2 (100%)+ 1-3 hours per week 5 (45%)+ 3-6 hours per week 2 (18%) -+ more than 6 hours per week 1 (9%) -Unable to give any time commitment at all - -

As the table shows, there is a clear willingness on the part of Committee members to make substantial time commitments to assist in taking a buyout forward over the next 6 to 12 months. Four Committee members are prepared to commit to attending all meetings, five are prepared to commit an additional 1-3 hours per week, two are prepared to commit an additional 3-6 hours per week and one Committee member is prepared to commit more than 6 hours per week of their time. The two non-members also indicated that they would be willing to attend some meetings.

Space was also provided in the survey to provide additional comments in relation to time commitments. The following comments were made by Committee members:

“I would be willing to assist in some aspects of the community development plan where I believe my skills lie - the marine development side of things in particular.”

65

“I have ticked box attend all meetings, this means that I ought to be able to attend all meetings unless for some reason there is a conflict or health problem. I have ticked box between 1-3 hours per week, this could alter in either direction due to health issues.”

“I’m spending significant time travelling so for some of the year will contribute remotely. When at home, will contribute as required.”

“When in Achnamara I am able to attend or support in person. I travel a significant amount of time and when I do I am happy to work remotely for the committee. I expect to be travelling for much of 2020.”

“I attend most meetings but do not have much spare time, as I work full time and have other commitments outwith work.”

One of the non-member respondents made the following comment:

“Specific input to support projects / business plan - although very limited in next 6 months due to other commitments”.

The above survey findings are encouraging because they indicate that Committee members are prepared to commit a substantial amount of time to the organisation’s business over the next 6 to 12 months. That commitment will be vital to ensuring that progress can be made in terms of progressing a buyout towards a successful conclusion. It will also be vital to ensuring the realisation of selected development options in the post-acquisition phase.

Profile of Committee Members’ Skills

The main part of the survey focused on identifying respondents’ strengths and weaknesses regarding a range of generic and specific management and development skills of relevance to community ownership of land and other assets. The survey results in that regard are presented in table 22 and discussed below. Responses to particular questions have been divided into Committee members’ responses (denoted by ‘CM’) and non-members’ responses (denoted by ‘NM’).

Table 22 below uses a ‘traffic light’ coding system to illustrate the level of skills regarding each category depending on responses. Categories marked in green have been identified by two or more Committee members as one of their primary skills areas. Categories marked in amber have been identified by two or more Committee members as an area where they have a basic knowledge (in the absence of any Committee members identifying the category as a primary skills area). Categories marked in red have been identified by two or more Committee members as areas where they have no expertise (in the absence of two or more Committee members responding in either the ‘basic knowledge’ or ‘primary skills’ classifications).

These colour-coding classifications are relatively unscientific and the sample size of respondents is small. Nevertheless, they provide a clear indication of where the Committee’s collective strengths and weaknesses lie in terms of relevant skills for managing and developing specific land and/or assets, should the community decide to take favoured initiatives forward. It should also be noted that there will be other skills and experience within the community which may be available for the Committee to draw upon following a successful purchase of land and/or other assets.

66

Table 22: Skills Survey Responses

Skills AreaNo expertise Basic

knowledgeA primary skills area

CM NM CM NM CM NMManaging a Business 2 0 5 1 3 1Project development 5 1 4 0 2 1Project management 4 1 5 0 2 1Organising fund-raising events and activities

3 1 6 1 2 0

Managing consultants 7 1 2 1 2 0Managing staff 2 0 5 1 4 1Running a tourism business 7 2 2Use of computer packages 2 0 4 1 5 1Chairing/Facilitating meetings 2 1 4 1 4 0Representing an organisation to elected Council Members, MSPs etc.

7 2 2 0 2 0

Working with public sector organisations

8 1 1 0 2 1

Preparation of financial accounts 7 1 2 1 2 0Governance issues: roles and responsibilities of a Director

5 1 3 1 3 0

Charities and Companies House returns 6 0 2 2 3 0Preparing business plans and strategies 6 1 2 0 3 1*Conveyancing/legal aspects of Land and/or Asset Purchase

10 2 0 0 1 0

*Preparing and submitting funding applications

9 1 1 0 1 1

*Preparing and submitting grant claims 10 1 0 1 1 0*HR issues (employment law, employment contracts, recruitment etc)

7 1 3 1 1 0

*Designing websites 7 1 3 1 1 0*Using social media 1 1 9 1 1 0*Managing volunteers 4 1 6 0 1 1*Renewable energy development 6 2 4 0 1 0*Renewable energy operation 8 2 2 0 1 0*Using & running IT systems 7 2 3 0 1 0*Housing development 9 1 1 1 1 0*Community consultation and engagement

6 1 4 0 1 1

Book-keeping & financial reporting 5 0 6 2 0 0Access and Interpretation 9 2 2 0 0 0Nature conservation/ecological issues 8 2 3 0 0 0Running a campaign 7 2 4 0 0 0Marketing/Public Relations 6 2 5 0 0 0*Lease/Wayleave contract negotiations 10 2 0 0 1 0Woodland development 11 1 0 1 0 0

The survey results indicate that Committee members have a high level of capacity in relation to a number of core categories of relevance to the management and development of land and assets

67

under community ownership. Three or more committee members identified the following as amongst their primary skills: ‘managing a business’, ‘managing staff’, ‘preparing business plans and strategies’, ‘governance roles’, ‘Charities and Companies House returns’, ‘chairing/facilitating meetings’ and ‘using computer packages’.

Two Committee members identified the following as amongst their primary skills: ‘project development’, ‘project management’, ‘organising fundraising events’, ‘managing consultants’, ‘representing an organisation to elected members etc.’, ‘working with public sector organisations’, ‘preparation of financial accounts’ and ‘running a tourism business’.

A substantial number of Committee members also responded that they have a basic knowledge of a range of skills as indicated in amber in table 22 above. These include ‘HR issues’, ‘designing websites’, ‘using social media’, ‘managing volunteers’, ‘renewable energy development’, ‘using and running IT systems’, ‘community consultation and engagement’, ‘book-keeping and financial reporting’, ‘nature conservation and ecological issues’, ‘running a campaign’, and ‘marketing/PR’. It is also worth noting that in 12 of the 17 ‘amber’ skills categories one Committee member classifies these as amongst their primary skills.

The only two categories in which Committee members self-classify as having a basic knowledge are ‘lease/wayleave contract negotiations’ and ‘woodland management’. The absence of Committee members’ expertise in relation to woodland management is particularly significant given that purchasing some of the forest asset is under consideration, and especially as at least one Respondent reports that local residents with the appropriate skills are not interested in becoming engaged.

On the positive side it should be noted that Achnamara would not be the first community to buy a woodland without having industrial forestry expertise on the board Many of the skills that the committee report are useful in managing woodland, and specific knowledge and skills can be developed. Alternatively non locally resident directors with the necessary skills could be co-opted onto the board. In light of the survey it might be appropriate to increase the management budget to allow for more professional forestry input at board level. It also should be noted that in the private sector there is no requirement for forestry expertise prior to purchase of a woodland (or prior to access to the forestry grant system). Individuals buy forestry to fulfill a number of objectives other than basic forestry, and the same applies to communities.

Survey Respondents’ Comments

Respondents made the following comments on a range of issues.

Relevant Skills

“Director and Chair of other community organisations Former Assets Team Manager at HIE Museum experience Property management and development experience.”

68

Skills Gaps

“Woodland/forestry management. There are people in the village with these skills but they are either working - and don’t want to give time and skills for free- or not interested.”

“Forestry management.”

“Need operational day to day support.”Other Comment

“Generally I believe that Achnamara is very well resourced with relevant skills and knowledge to carry this project forward. We have a good mix of practical, business, management and fundraising experience between us. Keeping the level of commitment required to develop and run the project (s) to a manageable level will be important so that we do not experience volunteer fatigue in the medium to long term.”

Summary

The Committee’s membership is well served in a wide range of critical skills areas of importance in taking a community buyout of land and/or other assets forward. The self-classification of business and staff management, preparing business plans and strategies, and governance roles as being primary skills areas by several Committee members is a positive indication of high levels of capacity within the organisation. As is the finding that there are only two areas in which responding Committee members do not consider themselves to have any expertise at all. The lack of woodland management expertise will require to be addressed if that purchase option is pursued. However, that may be addressed by the recruitment of a development officer with the required levels of expertise.

The following actions should be considered to enable the Committee to address these and other skills gaps as appropriate depending on what community purchase and development options are pursued:

1. Recruiting new Committee members to augment the skills of existing members;

2. Arranging skills training for existing Committee members in relation to identified areas of need;

3. Establishing short-term thematic or topic-specific working groups drawing on wider expertise and capacity within the community;

4. Early recruitment of specialist development staff to manage the organisation’s activities in relation to core development areas after a buyout is successfully concluded.

69

16. Risk Assessment of Community Ownership

Table 23 below provides an assessment of risk factors associated with community ownership of local assets in the Achnamara area, including the likelihood of their impacts being realised and recommended actions to mitigate these impacts.

Table 23: Risk Factors and Mitigation

Risk Factor LikelihoodScale of Impact

Description of Impact Mitigation

Forestry Commission Scotland refuses to sell identified land assets to the community

Low High Unable to proceed with community buyout as planned

Continue discussions with owner to facilitate sale.

Timber prices fail to remain at current high values

Medium Medium Falling timber prices will reduce surplus from forestry operations, with consequent impact on other community activities

Use conservative timber price for projections

Windblow reduces value of standing timber crop

Medium Medium Windblown timber costs more to harvest and is worth less

Ensure that forest design focuses on windfirm forestryDevelop appropriate harvesting programme

Pier owned by private party who declines to sell

Low to High Medium Improvements to marine facilities not possible

Would remove justification for other development near pier

Identify owner and offer to purchase

If offer declined submit a CrtB application using ‘abandoned and neglected’ provisions of Land Reform Act

Unable to secure funding for first 3-5 years.

Low/Medium

High Unable to progress with proposals as currently stand – will require new business planning process.

Early discussions with key potential funders.

Approach more funders than may be necessary to spread risk.

May have to revise initial proposals.

Delay in securing funding for first 3-5 years.

Low/Medium

High Unable to recruit staff within timescale.

Will affect proposed budgets and ability to deliver on original targets.

Submit applications/ proposals at earliest opportunity.

Greater activity undertaken by voluntary directors.

Develop fall back plans in order to meet key deadlines

Low early Trust membership uptake.

Medium Medium Reduced credibility for Trust in community

Co-ordinated communications campaign and recruitment drive

70

Table 23: Risk Factors and Mitigation

Risk Factor LikelihoodScale of Impact

Description of Impact Mitigation

Inability to secure high calibre staff.

Medium High May impact on development initiatives required to meet aims.

Use networks and contacts to encourage applications.

Offer flexibility in contract – employed or self-employed.

Use contracts with existing community landowners with known expertise to pool development staff resources.

Inability to recruit within planned timescale.

Medium Medium Delays in delivering key activities.

Prepare recruitment documentation in advance of securing funding.

Liaise with partner organisations in advance of securing funding.

Ensure high calibre candidates attracted to posts avoiding need for re-advertisements.

Use contracts with existing community landowners with known expertise to pool development staff resources.

Lack of local support for income generating activities

Low High Reduces credibility of Trust as asset manager on behalf of community.

Engage and communicate with local community on activities.

Erosion of support from partner organisations

Low High Inability to deliver identified benefits.

Loss of local credibility and support will impact on fundraising and other activities.

Continue to work closely and ensure benefits accrue to all parties.

Lack of skills/ capacity to deliver

Low High Inability to manage building and developments therein.

Loss of credibility in community

Inability to access development funding

Mentoring Recruitment of new

directors. Training for Directors &

Others Use of Working Groups

to draw in wider talent pool

Use contracts to buy in expertise from existing Community Landlord Organisations

71

Table 23: Risk Factors and Mitigation

Risk Factor LikelihoodScale of Impact

Description of Impact Mitigation

Volunteer fatigue means reduced ability to deliver.

Medium Medium Inability to achieve optimal delivery of wider community benefits through development initiatives

Aim to secure higher numbers of volunteers via Working Groups to spread workload.

Recruitment of staff for key activities should reduce overall workload.

17. Funding SourcesThe funding landscape is in a state of flux at the moment due to a number of factors including on-going austerity, Brexit and further devolution of powers to the Scottish parliament.

Austerity has reduced the sums of money available to public funders such as Highlands & Islands Enterprise (HIE) and local authorities. It has also led to reductions in funding available to the lottery funders. The UK’s exit from the EU will mean that European funds such as those from the LEADER programme will no longer be available. The Coastal Communities Fund which was funded from 50% of the Crown Estate’s revenues in Scotland has been discontinued, at least until there is further clarity in the final shape of the Crown Estate’s management in Scotland following its devolution to Scotland.

Despite these issues there are a number of continuing sources of funding. These are:

a. Scottish Land Fund. The fund has £10m/yr for community purchases of land and other assets. It can give up to 95% grant on capital and revenue costs. AVHC has already received Stage 1 funding towards the feasibility study looking at the FCS owned assets, but not the school. Stage 2 funding could be made towards the purchase price and associated legal costs. If AVHC secures a discount on the sale price of property to be purchased this will be credited as a community contribution and SLF could fund 100% of remaining costs. Revenue funding could also be available to further develop the project, although this is currently only available until March 2021, when the fund is due to close. AVHC will be eligible and required to make a separate application to SLF for the purchase of the school. Each application will need to stand on its own merits (although reference to the other can be made) and each will be eligible for revenue funding, if appropriate.

b. Big Lottery Fund. The Community Assets stream is well-established as a primary funder for community groups wishing to create/improve key local assets for community use. It can award grants from £10,000 to £1m. It is highly competitive and only has a 44%22 success rate. This is because of the large number of applications and the limited funding available (£10m/yr for 10-15 projects across Scotland). A particular cause of rejection in the current programme is lack of demonstrable community benefit in community-led economic regeneration

22 https://bigblogscotland.org.uk/2018/10/30/success-rates-autumn-2018/#more-8567

72

projects23. It will therefore be important for AVHC to be able to demonstrate this in a future application for renovation of the school or for a new community centre, for example.

c. Scottish Government Regeneration Capital Grant Fund. This fund has been running for some years now and is administered through local authorities. It favours projects with strong community input and community-led projects from the Western Isles have been successful in securing funding in recent years.

d. Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund. The Scottish Government established this fund24, administered by VisitScotland, to assist areas where infrastructure is struggling to cope with tourism pressures. Only local authorities can apply for the funding, but community groups can apply to their local authority for inclusion in an application.

e. Highlands & Islands Enterprise. HIE’s resources have been reduced considerably in recent years but it is still able to contribute significantly to community-led regeneration projects.

f. Private Grant Making Trusts. There are a wide range of grant making trusts that award funding to community groups and charities delivering socially beneficial projects. Each trust has its own criteria and therefore different trusts will support different projects. A facility to help identify suitable options for any given project is found at https://fundingscotland.com/

18. Conclusions

This study has considered a range of assets and their potential for reinvigorating the community of Achnamara. The community has signalled that it strongly supports increasing the sustainability of the area through improved housing opportunities and business development linked to the local forest. It is strongly in favour of buying forest assets and managing these for community benefit. The study has shown that buying only the hall site, or only the school would deliver few of the benefits that the community aspires to achieve. The same would apply to buying only a small section of forest which, while offering considerable opportunities that the community currently does not have, would not deliver the full range of community aspirations. The purchase of the medium or large size of forest would be better options, with the large forest area offering most advantages in terms of surplus generation, regular cash flow and woodland croft creation opportunities.

We therefore make the following recommendations:

1. The community should seek to purchase either a medium or a large size of forest using the CAT regulations through the newly formed Achnamara Community Trust SCIO.

2. If the ownership of the pier area lies with a party other than Forestry & Land Scotland a separate process should be pursued for this.

23 https://bigblogscotland.org.uk/2017/09/26/4-things-you-should-know-about-community-assets-funding-one-year-on/ 24 https://www.visitscotland.org/supporting-your-business/funding/rural-tourism-infrastructure-fund

73

3. ACT SCIO should apply to the Scottish Land Fund for capital for the purchase and revenue funding to include for the provision of a Development Officer until the closure of the current programme in March 2021. Revenue funding could also be sought for a masterplanning exercise to prepare a Local Place Plan for the community to agree on where it wishes to site specific developments and to establish the infrastructure requirements associated with them.

4. Following purchase ACT SCIO should apply to HIE to become account managed as it seeks to deliver future development plans. Noting that SLF revenue funding is likely to available for only 1 year post-purchase ACT SCIO should discuss with HIE what opportunities might be available for continued support beyond March 2021.

5. The community should use the findings of this report, the outcome of the consultation process on the school closure and the Local Place Plan process to reflect further upon its preference for the long term provision of community meeting facilities.

6. If the school is closed permanently ACT SCIO should consider making a separate application to purchase this building using CATS and SLF, taking into account developments in community thinking on the issue and available capacity.

74

APPENDICES

75

Appendix 1 – Summary Option Finances

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4A

Option 4B

Option 5A

Option 5B

Option 6A

Option 6B

IncomeHall 4900 0 1890 4900 1890 4900 1890 4900 1890School Building 9180 9180 9180 9180 9180Campervan Hook-ups 8075 8075 8075 8075 8075Pods 10331 10331 10331 10331 10331Forestry 10140 10140 51410 51410 74810 74810Total 4900 27586 29476 15040 39616 56310 80886 79710 104286

ExpenditureHall 4900 0 284 4900 284 4900 284 4900 284School Building 9171 9171 9171 9171 9171Campervan Hook-ups 3502 3502 3502 3502 3502Pods 5676 5676 5676 5676 5676Forestry 8468 8468 39335 39335 44679 44679Accountancy 1000 1000 1000 1000 1500 1500 2000 2000

Total 4900 19349 19633 14368 28101 45735 59468 51579 65312

Surplus 0 8237 9843 672 11515 10575 21418 28131 38974

76

Appendix 2 – Forestry Management & AcquisitionAssumptions1. Figures in summary table use scenario 2, an illustrative cash flow. However this does not take account of:a. Purchase price and any public support for this purchase (shown in scenario 1)b. Forestry income and expenditure in reality does not follow a neat annual pattern. Cash flow will require attention, but can be secured by early standing sales2. Woodfuel capital costs are accounted for over 5 years, and no allowance is made for any capital grant supportScenario 1: Summary of first 5 years finances

Small Medium Large

Income £ £ £

Scottish Land Fund 59,200 238000 498,000

Standing Timber Sales 49,200 114300 231,300

Firewood sales 1,500 133750 133,750

Forest Croft Rentals - 1500 1,500

Woodlots - 7500 7,500

Total 109,900 495,050 872,050

Expenditure

Purchase Price 54,860 240,540 514,920

Legals 7,500 10,000 10,000

infrastructure 25,000 32,000 35,000

Management Costs 6,000 15,000 20,000

Restock costs 9,840 37,200 55,920

77

Woodfuel costs 1,500 62,475 62,475

Woodfuel capital 50,000 50,000

Total 104,700 447,215 748,315

Surplus 5,200 47,835 123,735

78

Appendix 2 continued

Scenario 2: illustrating annual cash flowSmall Medium Large

Income £ £ £Standing Timber Sales 9,840 22,860 46,260Firewood sales 300 26,750 26,750Forest Croft Rentals - 300 300Woodlots - 1,500 1,500Total 10,140 51,410 74,810

Expenditureinfrastructure 5,000 6,400 7,000Management Costs 1,200 3,000 4,000Restock costs 1,968 7,440 11,184Woodfuel running costs 300 12,495 12,495

Woodfuel cost of capital 10,000 10,000Total 8,468 39,335 44,679

Surplus 1,672 12,075 30,131

79

Appendix 3 – Achnamara Village HallAssumptions:

1. Hall only purchaseIt is assumed that the hall will be managed with no significant changeRepairs will be variable but will average £2000/yrFundraising events will be used to cover any deficits caused by expensive repairs

Income £Café Connect 1,000Table Tennis 600Hall Hire 1,600Band Practice 350Other 1,000Fundraising 350Total 4,900

ExpenditureUtilities 900Expenses 2,000Repairs 2,000Total 4,900

Surplus -

80

Appendix 3 continued

2. Hall & SchoolIt is assumed that the hall will be let to a private person and the school will become the community centre.The tenant will be responsible for repairs.

Occupancy rate: 90%Rental Rate/m2: 35Area (m2) 60Property Management (% of rental income) 15%

Repairs per m² 0

Insurance is recharged to tenant

HALL & SHEDIncome £Business Space Rental 1,890Total 1,890

ExpenditureManagement 284Repairs -Total 284

Surplus 1,607

81

Appendix 4 – Achnamara School

Assumptions:1. Business Space

Occupancy rate: Community centre 80%Community Regeneration 70%

Rental Rate/m2: 75

Property Management (% of rental income) 15%

Repairs per m² 10

2. Community Space Income

Income £Café Connect 1,200Table Tennis 600Hall Hire 2,000Band Practice 350Other 1,250Total 5,400

82

Appendix 4 continued

3. CafeCafé leased on basis of a percentage of gross takings (excluding any VAT)Café likely to be only open for the tourist seasonTurnover will be restricted to just below the VAT threshold

Estimated Turnover 80000Rental % of turnover 5.00%

Scenario 1 - COMMUNITY CENTRE Scenario 2 - COMMUNITY REGENERATIONIncome IncomeCommunity lets 5,400

5,400Community lets 25

0Business Space Rental 2,280 Business Space Rental 3,990Café Rental - Café Rental 4,000Tenant's Contribution: Tenants' Contribution:Insurance, Heat & light 1,500 Insurance, Heat & light 7,000Total 9,180 15,240

Expenditure ExpenditureManagement 1,377 Management 2,286Heat & Light 3,000 Heat & Light 5,000Insurance 2,000 Insurance 2,000Repairs 2,419 Repairs 2,419Cleaning materials 125 Cleaning materials 12

5Sundry 250 Sundry 250Total 9,171 12,080

Surplus 9 Surplus 3,160

83

Appendix 5 – Campervan Income & Expenditure

AssumptionsBookings made online and by telephone (office hours only).Pitches 4Rate £ 20Max 80

Wages: Cleaning Wage rate

£9.001 person x 2 hrs per day x 25%Electricity £1/stance/ntShowersCharge: £1 for 5mins. 10kw shower =15p cost in elec per showerOccupants per campervan / night 2.5 50% of occupants use showerLaundry1 Washing machines & 1 dryer

Campervan Use Local usePitches 4Occupancy 53%Days

180Days 0

Rate £ 5 Rate £ 5Usage 20% Usages/

day0

382 0 382

84

Appendix 5 continued

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31

av. occupancy 0% 0% 0% 20% 40% 70% 80% 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 44%

Days/pitch 6 12 21 25 25 6 95

Income -

-

-

480

992

1,680

1,984

1,984

480

-

-

-

-

7,600

Cleaning wages 149

153

149

153

153

149

-

906

IncomeHook-ups 7,600Showers 475Total 8,075ExpenditureCleaning wages 906Management 1,520Electricity 451Advertising 250Cleaning materials

125Sundry 250Total 3,502

Surplus 4,573

85

Appendix 6 – Pod/Shepherd Hut Provision

Bookings made online and by telephone (office hours only).

Pods 3Rate £ 35Max 105

Wages: Cleaning Wage rate £9.001 person x 2 hrs per day x 25%Electricity £1/pod/ntShowersCharge: £1 for 5mins. 10kw shower =15p cost in elec per showerOccupants per campervan / night 2.5 50% of occupants use shower

Laundry1 Washing machines & 1 dryer

Campervan UsePitches 3Occupancy 53%Days 180Rate £ 5Usage 20%

286

86

Appendix 6 continued

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31

av. occupancy 0% 0% 0% 20% 40% 70% 80% 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 44%

Days/pitch 6 12 21 25 25 6 95

Income -

-

-

630

1,302

2,205

2,604

2,604

630

-

-

-

-

9,975

Cleaning wages 446

460

446

460

460

446

-

2,718

IncomePods 9,975Showers 356Total 10,331

Expenditure -Cleaning wages 2,718Management 1,995Electricity 338Advertising 250Cleaning materials

125Sundry 250Total 5,676

Surplus 4,655

87

Appendix 7 – Bunkhouse

Bookings made online and by telephone (office hours only).

Beds 3Rate £ 40Max 120

Wages: Cleaning Wage rate £9.001 person x 2 hrs per dayElectricity £1/room/ntShowersCharge: £1 for 5mins. 10kw shower =15p cost in elec per showerOccupants per campervan / night 2.5 50% of occupants use showerLaundry1 Washing machines & 1 dryer

Bunkhouse Use Local useBeds 6

Occupancy 44%Days 180Rate £ 5Usage 20%

475 0 475

88

Appendix 7 continued

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31

av. occupancy 0% 0% 0% 20% 40% 70% 80% 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 44%

Days/room 6 12 21 25 25 6 95

Income -

-

-

720

1,488

2,520

2,976

2,976

720

-

-

-

-

11,400

Cleaning wages 594

614

594

614

614

594

-

3,623

IncomeBunks 11,400Laundry 475Showers 356Total 12,231

ExpenditureCleaning wages 3,623Management 2,446Electricity 457Advertising 250Cleaning materials

125Sundry 250Total 7,152

Surplus 5,080

89

90