Community Rights to Buy: consultation analysis

3.3 Petitions and ballots

Q5a: Could some of levels of community support and turnout required be reduced while still providing sufficient evidence that the proposals have community support?

This question firstly invited respondents to choose from Yes/No/Unsure.

The accompanying free text box also invited comments on the following basis: “If so, which ones?”

There was a total of 49 standard responses to this question with 47 respondents selecting a voting option and 37 providing additional comments in the free text box.

Regarding the voting options, the breakdown was as follows:

Summary

Most respondents were in favour of reducing the required level of support and turnout, although some were cautious in how this would be achieved.

Themes

There was strong support for reducing the required levels of community support and turnout but with some variation in the reasons for this.

Some considered the threshold too high when compared to other democratic processes and thought it could be adjusted in line with those and reduce the burden on community groups (examples were elections to the Scottish Parliament and to local authorities).

In some cases, figures of between 5-15% were also proposed as alternatives as was some correlation and consistency with other requirements across the community right to buy process.

“The Ballot threshold is far too high. MSPs can get elected on a lot less than 50%!” (Individual respondent)

Some respondents supported the idea of flexible thresholds particularly in respect of large, urban communities but many also expressed support for flexible thresholds in smaller, rural ones too since rigid thresholds could impact on them as well.

“Currently the same thresholds apply irrespective of the size of the community. Achieving a 50% turnout is much harder in larger, generally urban communities. The South of Scotland has a considerable number of urban settlements that are, while small in relation to the central belt, still challenging to gather the requisite numbers to demonstrate community support.” (South of Scotland Enterprise)

Some respondents suggested adjustment to the age limits could also be considered, reflecting the fact that many younger community members will have a long-term interest in their community and what happens to it. Consideration could be given to those who were forced to leave the community for work or affordability reasons as their reasons for leaving could be relevant to the proposal.

Additionally, some respondents suggested:

• Using the same thresholds for late and for timeous responses.
• Consider lowering the turnout percentage but requiring a relatively high number or percentage figure to be in favour.
• Adapting to suit the differing rights i.e. different thresholds for compulsory and non-compulsory rights, particularly if a non-compulsory purchase is already referenced in a community action plan or local place plan.

Among those who opposed changing the levels a common theme was a wish to keep the levels the same and the importance of being able to demonstrate support across the community and to avoid creating a risk that control will move from outside of the community.

“There should be a high bar - public money is being used and the community must demonstrate the support for community intervention is substantial.” (Individual respondent)

“We do not believe that low turnout due to apathy is a valid justification for lowering the required thresholds.” (Scottish Land and Estates)

Amongst those unsure, it was commented that the method of collecting signatures, such as online collection, would need to be carefully verified. It was also cautiously suggested that reduction could be possible if the body representing the community is one comprising of elected community members.

“In our small community it is very difficult to get people to turn out and decisions are often made by the community council which has 8 members.”

As long as the body representing the community is one comprising of elected community members, then it might be possible to reduce the level of turnout required.” (Dalwhinnie Community Development)

Q5b: Should the demonstration of support in a ballot be solely based on the percentage of the community in support (i.e. with no separate minimum turnout requirement)—so for example a 25% threshold could be met by a 50% turnout and 50% support—or a 25% turnout and 100% support?

This question firstly invited respondents to choose from Yes/No/Unsure. The accompanying free text box also invited additional comments.

There was a total of 49 standard responses to this question with 47 respondents selecting a voting option and 32 providing additional comments in the free text box.

Regarding the voting options, the breakdown was as follows:

Summary

There was no clear consensus amongst respondents on this question, with the main arguments being around maintaining a democratic demonstration of community support, whilst others refer to the fact that there is no such minimum turnout requirement in parliamentary elections.

Themes

Prominent themes included:

Amongst those opposed to any change here, there was a strong preference to keep the same thresholds as they demonstrate and require community support.

“No, if the interest group cannot get half the community to vote then there is not sufficient interest in the community to overturn the ownership interest.” (Atholl Estates)

“The existing requirements should be retained as they provide a check on small unrepresentative groups making use of community-based rights.” (Individual respondent)

“The requirement of a 50% turnout is a more democratic community support check. It can be difficult to achieve but increases the chance that the vote will be more diverse and reach parts of the community who might otherwise be unaware.” (Scottish Community Development Centre)

Amongst those in favour of change, there was a common feeling that a single threshold is appropriate given the burdens on community groups and the challenges they face in meeting the various requirements for community right to buy.

“This would simplify the process and reflect genuine support without penalising lower turnouts. (Dumfries and Galloway Council)

A number of respondents were unsure and their caution was based on a combination of the comments made by those who were clear in opposing or supporting change e.g. an understanding of the need to reflect democratic norms, to demonstrate community support but also understanding the challenges groups face in meeting these thresholds.

Additional suggestions included:

• Turnout should be increased to 80% with 70% in favour.
• Turnout should be decreased to 25% with 75% in favour.
• Turnout should be decreased to 35%.
• Alternative combinations might include at least 50% support, with at least twice as many voting in favour as those against.

Q5c: If a ballot were based solely on the percentage of community support, with no minimum turnout, should the percentage of those against the proposals be considered, instead of just those in favour?

This question firstly invited respondents to choose from Yes/No/Unsure. The accompanying free text box also invited additional comments.

There was a total of 49 standard responses to this question with 47 respondents selecting a voting option and 30 providing additional comments in the free text box.

Regarding the voting options, the breakdown was as follows:

Summary

There was a clear opinion amongst respondents that the votes of those against proposals should be considered. The concept of a simple majority was still the main focus, rather than for any kind of percentage of those against, if less than 50%, becoming a primary consideration.

Themes

Amongst those who supported the proposition in the question the following points were added in the free text box:

Making changes to this effect would be in line with democratic norms (e.g. equal weighting of votes) and therefore help support community cohesion and the long-term intentions of the community group, as the result would be more robust and fairer.

“It is critical that those exercising their right to oppose are registered and recognised.” (Individual respondent)

Amongst those who record their opposition there is some concern that this could lead to those opposed to the process ‘gaming the system’ and that it could in fact add to divisions in the community. A proposal could be supported but apathy towards meetings and votes on process could put some people off and distort the result.

“Any changes shouldn’t open up opportunities for a vocal minority to sabotage an application, even where it has majority support.” (Community Enterprise)

Some respondents were less certain and for such respondents it was important to proceed carefully in the context of other changes that may be made to, for example, turnout thresholds.

“The fact that not everybody chooses to vote does not mean that all those who do not do so are against the proposal as some will be unsure or do not take a view.” (Dalwhinnie Community Development)

“Should be 25% of those eligible to vote in favour plus a majority of those voting.” (Individual respondent)