Review of the Guidance on Engaging Communities in Decisions Relating to Land

6. Improving the effectiveness of the Guidance

Section six sets out areas where changes could be made to improve the effectiveness of the Guidance. These suggestions are based on the evidence summarised in Section five. Each part of this section outlines the issue and makes recommendations for consideration.

6.1 Raising awareness and dissemination of the Guidance

It is clear that there is lower awareness of the Guidance than there could be. Evidence also shows that not all Scottish Government policy areas dealing with decisions relating to land refer back to the Guidance where it could be relevant, which suggests there is scope to raise awareness and improve consistency of its application.

We recommend taking steps to address raising awareness including increasing Scottish Government promotion across policy areas and raising the profile of the Guidance within public bodies.

6.2 Improving the content of the Guidance

Some elements of the Guidance may be, or may appear to be, out of date. We therefore recommend that a future iteration of the Guidance:

• has a refreshed Ministerial foreword
• ensures all references are consistent and up to date with other publications
• provides clearer explanation that the Guidance sits alongside any statutory requirements that may also apply
• takes account of the 2025 Act as it is implemented, and the 2027 LRRS review, and considers any changes needed to ensure alignment with these.

We also note other feedback in section five from Stakeholders and the Hutton research and recommend further consideration is given to these areas for future iterations of the Guidance. This includes:

6.2.1 Practice and context changes in community engagement since 2018

Evidence from Stakeholders and the Hutton research shows the land use context has developed since 2018, including newer forms of landownership linked to natural capital markets and large scale nature restoration. Community engagement methods and expectations have also evolved, and there has also been a shift towards more participatory approaches such as co‑production and co‑design.

We recommend further consideration as to whether the Guidance could more clearly acknowledge these developments, including its relationship with more recent legislative processes and practices. Any revision could aim to help users understand how the principles of the Guidance apply alongside sector specific or statutory requirements, while maintaining an approach centred on broad expectations rather than detailed rules.

We note the feedback about whether or not the Guidance is relevant to Scottish Ministers when considering a Community Right to Buy Land to Further Sustainable Development application. There is no statutory duty on Scottish Ministers to take into account the extent to which regard has been had to the Guidance, but it may nonetheless be a relevant consideration in their decision making. We will consider whether this can be made clearer when implementing the future processes and guidance that will be developed in response to the recommendations of the Community Right to Buy Review.

6.2.2 Community engagement practices

Based on the evidence, we recommend considering whether the Guidance could offer clearer support for a broader range of community engagement practices that reflect current policy and land use contexts. It may also be helpful for the Guidance to further emphasise the importance of meaningful engagement, consistent with the 2022 LRRS which shifted the focus from ‘greater’ to ‘meaningful’ engagement.

The evidence shows a mix of expectations from communities and landowners and managers in relation to community engagement. There may therefore be value in considering how future iterations of the Guidance could set out more explicit expectations around good practice engagement, including being open about long term intentions, recognising cumulative impacts, and supporting inclusive and proportionate engagement approaches. Further consideration could also be given to whether the Guidance could clarify that the expectation of community engagement in land based decisions applies regardless of whether an intermediary or agent has been instructed to act on a landowner’s behalf.

6.2.3 Clarity and usability of the Guidance

Based on the evidence, it may be helpful to consider how the Guidance could be made clearer and easier to use. Stakeholders and the Hutton research identified several areas where the Guidance can feel difficult to interpret, including terminology that could benefit from clearer definitions and uncertainty around what proportionate engagement means in practice. Evidence also suggested that the presentation and structure of the document could be made more accessible.

For example, reviewing terms such as “significant impact” within the Guidance could improve how the Guidance encourages those who are making decisions about land consider effects in the widest sense, including cumulative effects.

6.2.4 Relationship of the Guidance to other statutory requirements

There may be value in further consideration of how the Guidance could better support those who are making decisions about land navigate the wider landscape of community engagement expectations linked to land use decisions. Evidence highlighted that the range of statutory and non‑statutory requirements can feel complex, particularly where multiple sources of guidance apply. It also noted that existing processes in areas such as planning and forestry can lead some landowners and managers to rely solely on statutory requirements, rather than the broader expectations set out in the Guidance.

Given this, it may be helpful to consider how future iterations of the Guidance could more clearly explain how these different duties interact. In particular there may be value in considering how the Guidance could set out that its community engagement expectations also apply where those making decisions about land are subject to statutory community engagement requirements.

Consideration could also be given to whether referencing practical examples or case studies could illustrate how engagement can work well when multiple requirements apply. In particular whether reference to the Commission’s library of case studies could support more practical application of the Guidance.

6.2.5 Skills and training

The evidence suggests there may be value in further considering how the Guidance could support training and capacity building around community engagement. Evidence from Stakeholders and the Hutton research highlighted that those involved in land use decision making benefit from access to skills and training to better understand good engagement practices.

Much of the existing training provision is delivered by public sector bodies, professional networks and membership organisations. The findings suggest there may be value in considering if the Guidance could more clearly acknowledge the training, case studies and resources offered by the Commission and other organisations, to help increase awareness of these resources and support more informed and consistent engagement across different contexts.

6.2.6 Support with conflict and contentious issues

The evidence suggests that engagement processes can become challenging where proposals are contentious or where communities feel their views have limited influence. Stakeholders and the Hutton research noted that the current Guidance offers limited direction on how to manage disagreements, navigate sensitive issues or support constructive discussion when views diverge.

Given this, there may be merit in further considering whether future iterations of the Guidance could provide clearer expectations around handling disagreements and ensuring the process for community influence is transparent and that communities have sufficient opportunity to take part.

6.2.7 Recording of community engagement

Evidence indicates that there may be benefits in clarifying expectations around how engagement activity is recorded and communicated. Stakeholders highlighted the value of keeping clear written records of engagement, noting that documentation can help demonstrate what has been done, how community views have been considered, and where further discussion may be needed.

It may therefore be helpful to consider whether future iterations of the Guidance could offer clearer and proportionate expectations around recording engagement in a transparent and accessible way.