4 10 39 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/606/230209_HousingForum_summary_cover.jpg a761c3661e31ffad1a12e54ea688a3ac https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/606/230209_HousingForum_summary.pdf eba098b5b3b767de5d9eaa4008c101b8 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Glenkens Housing Forum 9th February 2023 The Smiddy, Balmaclellan 32 attendees Agenda • • • • • • Introduction – Helen Keron, GCAT Glenkens Housing Demand and Need Survey – Mike Staples, SoSCH Case Studies: Retro-fitting - Mike Staples Case Study: New build – Mike Steele, Nith Valley Leaf Trust Some Glenkens plans – Alan Smith, Pamela Young Trust Open discussion SOSCH provides long-term support to community organisations around the planning and delivery of community-led housing. We will get involved at the very start of a housing conversation and can provide support all the way through to delivery and beyond. We understand the unique and specific needs of individual communities and have years of experience in taking ideas into delivery, including recommending funding sources. If you would like to hear more about the potential of communityled housing or have a specific idea for a project, please get in touch! Mike Staples, Chief Exec – mike.sosch@outlook.com sosch.org/what-we-do/ Glenkens Housing Needs and Demands Assessment (HNDA) • Carried out November 2021 - March 2022, online. • 146 responses from a population of 3,000 (5%) • Included an Employer Survey and a review of housing association waiting lists data for Glenkens • Full report available at glenkenstrust.org.uk • Purpose: • to establish the views of the area relative to housing needs (present and future) • to consider type and tenure of any potential community housing within the Glenkens. Glenkens HNDA - Demographics • • • 32% of respondents live and work in the Glenkens 30% in D&G or further 11% were based elsewhere but can now work from home remotely • • 63% of respondents are homeowners 27% rent • 44% of respondents need a 2-bed home; 33% a 3-bed Glenkens HNDA – Findings (1) • 27% of respondents said that their housing doesn’t meet their current needs: • 50% because of low energy efficiency / running costs • 28% because it is too small • 19% because it is in poor condition • Insecurity of occupancy/tenure for rented properties was also referenced. Glenkens HNDA – Findings (2) • 39% of respondents said that they would be in need of housing now or in the next 5 years. • 51% knew of someone who had had to leave the household due to a lack of suitable housing. • 65% have need for a workspace within the home. • Top preferred routes for identifying housing options (all equal): • Renting (private / housing association / community groups) • Buying • Self-build Glenkens HNDA – Key Conclusions • The offer of housing in the Glenkens is extremely limited and is affecting the sustainability of communities. • There is a need for housing that is affordable, fuel efficient and low cost to run, whether re-developing existing properties or new build. • Community housing allocated or bought with a local needs policy in place will ensure that the housing is protected in perpetuity and that it is designed to meet the needs of the community. Housing Challenges for all rural D&G Communities • Undersupply of safe, warm, low-energy (affordable running costs), secure homes for rent or purchase • Heated property market and second home ownership has been exacerbated post-Covid • Shrinking private rental market – unintended consequence of energy efficiency legislation • Repopulation agenda – supporting schools, businesses etc • Increased development costs and insufficient supply chain • Issues of social equality and housing • Addressing Net Zero / climate emergency and fuel poverty Some retro-fit case studies Old Police Station, Langholm • Town Centre decline – key issue of empty buildings and vacant “gap” sites • Repurposing of empty / vacant / derelict buildings as energy-efficient community-led homes • “The Old Police Station”, Langholm – completed July 2021 • Community Asset Transfer of building from D&G Council - disused for 15 years, “B” listed – heritage restoration • Complex funding package - Rural Housing Fund, Scottish Land Fund, Architectural Heritage Fund, SOSE, Borrowing, Eskdale Foundation, Town Centre Living Fund The Grapes Hotel, Whithorn • Prominent High Street Building, disused for 30+ years and source of significant frustration to local community • Property internally derelict, some external repair • All Roads Lead to Whithorn – community development trust, worked with SOSCH to develop partnership approach, business planning and funding package • Acquisition in 2019 via Scottish Land Fund • Capital programme of works completed mid-2022 • Rural Housing Fund, Town Centre Living Fund, Town Centre Capital Fund, Scottish Land Fund • Two large family homes, addressing localised demand profile. • Planning consent for further homes on land to rear - Phase 2 Wigtown Former Bank • Former Bank of Scotland, Wigtown – key High Street property, vacated following withdrawal of service in 2017 • Completion May 2022 – two homes (family and amenity accessible home for older resident) plus community-run bunkhouse plus community growing project on large garden • Community Right to Buy enacted, property acquired via Scottish Land Fund • Mixed use community-led High Street regeneration • Multi-partnership project, complex funding package • Rural Housing Fund / Scottish Land Fund / Town Centre Living Fund / Town Centre Capital Fund / Windfarm Community Benefits Glentrool: Community-led Regeneration - Remote community – community-led response to securing a sustainable future - Threat of loss of affordable housing supply - Homes in ownership of RSL transferred to community org - Community ownership of former school – “The Hive” – projects are complementary - Rural Housing Fund / SLF / SOSE / SIS Loan + Vendor Contribution Glenkens Community Led Housing – Next Steps • HNDA indicated a significant issue around suitable and locally affordable housing supply across Glenkens communities. • SOSCH are keen to hear from individual communities with an interest in housing. • Strategic discussions ongoing with GDT/GCAT/SOSE • Working with Pamela Young Trust around project development • Support to Carsphairn Community Council – HNDA New-build case study: Nith Valley Leaf Trust Community-owned Passivhaus homes for affordable rent www.nithvalley.org Mike.steelebsas@yahoo.co.uk Project Development process • Early clarity on objectives - homes for families - highest energy/health standards • Community Asset Transfer - D&G Council • Development Funding - Scottish Land Fund - Rural Housing Fund • Community engagement • Site identification / Housing Needs survey • Appointment of Design Team and “Passivhaus” partnership • Planning and building warrant • Team approach - NVLT/SOSCH + John Gilbert Architects + Quantity Surveyors Project Delivery • Scottish Land Fund – Stage Two Award for land/expenses/development officer • Rural Housing Fund – full grant award • Capital supplemented by Windfarm Funding and Loan - Ecology Building Society • Contract with main contractor (Stewart and Shields) • 15-month build • Challenges of Covid-19 • Scotland’s 1st community-owned passive-certified homes! Passive certification Feb 21 • SURF Awards 2020 – “Housing and Regeneration” - WINNER! NVLT Passivhaus – Post-delivery learning • Local Allocations Policy has to be agreed • Expect a long snagging period • Consider appointing Managing agents Outcomes - Community Impacts • Rural regeneration • Increased population - especially the primary school • Rental income for community projects • Community-owned low-impact housing at affordable levels long term • Motivation for more sustainable environmental conscious projects • Attractive and colourful architecture on derelict land • Direct community-led response to Climate Change. Outcomes - Tenant Impacts • Security of tenure • Affordable rent – “social” rent levels and low running costs • Very low energy bills addressing fuel poverty • Low / no energy consumption for comfortable year round temperatures • Filtered air due to MVHR system – health benefits • Ability to stay local for family, friends and work • New state of the art environmentally sensitive village homes • Sense of pride and reduced anxiety. • • • 22 houses purchased between 1992 and 2022, plus 1 commercial property used as local charity shop Originally intended to support farm-workers in their retirement from tied houses. Now open to anyone who has a connection with the Glenkens and would benefit from rentassured permanent housing. Allocation policy reflects this. • • • • Housing stock being brought up to current EPC requirements as tenancies allow. Recently retro-fitted 2 family houses to very high standards of energy efficiency, including air source heat pumps. Trustees are all local and have a good knowledge of local requirements Historically properties have only been purchased after prolonged exposure on the general housing market. Now extending into new builds to meet needs, working in partnership with SOSCH. • Balmaclellan New Build Housing (potentially Passivhaus standard) • The Pamela Young Trust (PYT) has purchased a brownfield derelict site in Balmaclellan village centre and plans to build up to 3 new houses to the highest energy efficiency standards. Feasibility Study/options analysis in planning. • Houses at Glenlee (currently owned by SPEN) • Constructive discussions underway between SPEN and PYT • Tenders to assess scope of work at Glenlee being assessed which will in turn feed into a Feasibility Study to be commissioned by PYT. • Feasibility Study / Viability Assessment • Both projects have secured initial strategic support from the Rural Housing Fund (and therefore D&G Council) and are in the process of submitting applications to the RHF Feasibility Fund which will cover this initial phase . Additional funding will be sought to cover development work. Additional points from the event Mike Staples, SOSCH • The rental market is shrinking because landlords have to meet minimum EPC standards. This is so difficult for much Galloway housing stock that they are removing them from the market. • You have to do a thorough Options Appraisal and remain flexible to meeting the true need with a community housing project e.g. Langholm Old Police Station was to be accommodation plus office space but ended up being all accommodation because that’s where the need was. • SOSCH can support community projects from idea to delivery so long as the funding can be sourced – it’s hard work but not impossible! Additional points from the event Mike Steele, NVLT • The Trust went to the Council to ask what land they (the Council) owned and therefore might be available for asset transfer. • Consider fixed interest loans from e.g. Social Investment Scotland to complete a funding package, because you will have income (rent). • Quantity Surveyor services were invaluable, and all project management was hidden behind that one interface with the NVLT Board. • The Local Allocation Policy is key. They prioritized young families, and their 4 homes have added 9 children (15%) to the primary school roll. • There is an issue of allocation as children grow up, but they are hoping to create smaller homes of a similar standard that people will be happy to move into. Additional points from the event Alan Smith, Pamela Young Trust • PYT currently has a waiting list of 27, showing the need. • PYT is committed to maintaining and upgrading its existing housing stock, and any new projects can’t jeopardise that base. • Any new projects around housing are a marathon not a sprint, but if people get organised, there’s no reason why we can’t have many new projects in addition to those the PYT are working on From the floor • Could we create a Glenkens-wide network of owners and landlords who have been through an energy-efficiency upgrade to share knowledge? • Could we bundle work in order to create sufficient demand for people to start businesses? Contacts and follow-up Thanks to all who came and contributed so positively. Community-led housing projects are difficult but not impossible, and funding sources are out there to support community groups who have identified a need and organised around a project. Once the funding is in place, technical support is also out there to make the project a reality. Contacts: • Mike Staples: Mike.sosch@outlook.com • Mike Steele: mike.steelebsas@yahoo.co.uk • Pamela Young Trust: enquiries@abamatthews.com • GCAT: Helen@catstrand.com This event was organised and hosted by GCAT in support of the Glenkens & District Community Action Plan.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens Housing Forum February 2023 Description An account of the resource Slides from the Glenkens Housing Forum meeting held on 9th February 2023 at the Smiddy, Balmaclellan. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_9 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 CAP Theme 3 housing https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/605/SOSCH_HousingNeedsAndDemandsSurveyReport_GDT_cover.jpg 7405238d6b20112d02d8df73489b2083 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/605/SOSCH_HousingNeedsAndDemandsSurveyReport_GDT.pdf 698da48abbad887e1c3b158145c4e967 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Housing Needs and Demands Survey Report Glenkens and District Trust March 2022 Background to the project Glenkens & District Trust (GDT) is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation established in 2011 as a fund distribution body from the Blackcraig Windfarm fund for the communities within its area. The GDT provide a framework to resource, enable, and stimulate community development. The Glenkens and District area is defined as the Community Council areas of Balmaghie, Balmaclellan, Carsphairn, Corsock & Kirkpatrick Durham, Crossmichael, St. John’s Town of Dalry, Dunscore, Glencairn, New Galloway & Kells and Parton. Glenkens and District Trust survey catchment boundary 1 Dumfries and Galloway Council, 2022. Community Councils (online) https://www.dumgal.gov.uk/communitycouncils Key to Community Council Areas within survey area: Parton Crossmichael & District St. John’s Town of Dalry Balmaghie Glencairn Carsphairn Dunscore Balmaclellan New Galloway & Kells Corsock & Kirkpatrick Durham The Glenkens and District Community Action Plan was commissioned by the Trust and published in July 2020. The Community Action Plan (CAP) proposed 4 Themed Areas. CAP Theme 2: An Asset Rich Community, identified the commissioning of a Housing Needs and Demands Assessment and the consideration of affordable housing for young people and families as Action Areas. Background to the Survey The GDT approached South of Scotland Community Housing (SOSCH) in 2021 to discuss the undertaking of a Housing Needs and Demands Assessment for the Trust to understand more about the current and future housing needs of its residents within the area covered by the GDT. GDT recognised that housing was a hot topic across its whole area and that an HNDA was the key that would unlocks the door to strategic and funding support for community led housing initiatives –it is needed to kick-start any serious community led action and it made sense to cover the area with one process. Working with GDT, SOSCH developed a broad Housing Needs and Demands Assessment (HNDA) survey which was launched on the SurveyMonkey platform as a fully digital means of gathering evidence in line with the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions which have been in place throughout. The purpose of the HNDA survey was to establish the views of the Glenkens and District area relative to housing needs, present and future, and to consider type and tenure of any potential community housing within the Glenkens. Due to the ongoing restrictions relative to the COVID-19 pandemic the survey was conducted exclusively online, but it has nonetheless had a good response. Responses were gathered from November 2021 until March 2022. Overall, there were 146 completed responses to the survey, however, respondents did have the option of skipping individual questions. Results will be given as either a percentage or number relative to those who answered specific questions. In this unique context, with the level of overall community engagement around the project, SOSCH would consider the response rate to be good, and as such the evidence can be considered as a viable insight into the need of the community relative to affordable housing, which responses indicate is present. The area covered by the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment relates to 10 Community Council areas highlighted in the map above, within Wards 3,4 and 7 of the Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council area. 1. Key survey outcomes Demographics ❖ The graph below depicts the number of respondents (141) to the question of ‘Where do you live?’ from each of the 10 communities within the survey area, as well as those who responded from elsewhere in Dumfries and Galloway and those living elsewhere outside the region. The combined estimated population of the 10 community areas is 4703 inhabitants1. Excluding those outwith the 10 Glenkens’ community areas, collectively 122 respondents live within the Glenkens and this is representative of approximately 343 people within those 122 households. ❖ The age of the respondents across all the age groups ranges indicated that all agegroups were well represented in the survey: 16-24 (8%), 25-34 (12%), 35-44 (20%), 45-54 (19%), 55-64 (22%) and 65+ (19%). ❖ 84% of respondents lived within the GDT survey area and 40% of those had either lived in the area for more than 15 years or all their life, suggesting that people tended to stay settled in the area. ❖ On scrutinising the written responses to those who had responded as living ‘elsewhere’ other than one of the communities or the Dumfries and Galloway region, 13% did in fact state that they lived in the wider Glenkens, and Dumfries and Galloway region, with less than 1% living ‘elsewhere’ outside the region. ❖ There were 4 community areas where the number of responses relative to the population size of each of the community council areas provided a good picture of need and demand within those areas : Balmaclellan had 18 responses (13% of the total survey responses) representing 7% of its community population of 243, Carsphairn had 16 responses (11% of the total survey responses) representing 9% of its community population of 169, St.John’s Town of Dalry had 43 responses (31% of the total survey responses) representing 9% of its community population of 488, New Galloway and Kells had 21 responses ( 15% of the total survey response) representing 4% of its community population of 546. ❖ The remaining 6 Glenkens communities where the survey response was lower relative to the population were Balmaghie, Corsock and Kirkpatrick Durham, Crossmichael, Dunscore, Parton and Glencairn. The responses from these communities will still be included and contribute to the overall survey findings but are not shown in more detailed breakdown of the data. The survey report therefore represents the overall survey outcomes for the whole Glenkens area, with a separate breakdown of outcomes (Detailed Community Breakdown) included, where considered appropriate, for the four survey areas where the response to the survey was considered good. ❖ Overall survey results indicated, households comprising only 2 occupants represented the largest occupancy number group at 37%, with 13% having only one household member, 18% of households with 3 occupants, 21% households with 4 members, and 11% of households with 5 or more members. However, New Galloway & Kells responses showed more households with 4 members than 2, and respondents in St. John’s Town of Dalry had almost as many 4 person households as 2 person households in its community. This could be attributed to the fact that these two communities still have schools and more families are living in these locations. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: Number of people in household ❖ Responses to the question on ages of household residents, in the overall survey area, results indicated 49% had at least one child or young person (0-24) in their household, with 31% having children of school age. St. John’s Town of Dalry and New Galloway had the highest proportion of under 16’s compared to elsewhere. ❖ For the questions on what age were the respondents and others in their households, the numbers were as follows within given age ranges: Under 16 (77), 16-24 (45), 2534 (30), 35-44 (52), 45-54 (31), 55-64 (33) and 65+ (49). ❖ 20% of the 142 respondents worked within their communities with a further 11% working in the wider Glenkens area. More detailed written responses highlighted a shift to remote homeworking since COVID regulations initially came into force and continuing to work from home since restrictions were lifted. Many of these respondents work for organisations based outside the Glenkens area but are no longer required to commute to work as they are now working from home. 26% of respondents to the question, worked in the Stewartry and wider Dumfries and Galloway and 4% worked elsewhere outside the region. A large group (21%) were retired, reflecting the picture in many other rural settlements throughout the region where the area is viewed as an attractive place to retire and settle. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: When asked what attracted them to the area, written responses indicated that community, family, quiet and rural village location were especially important to those who responded. The most common words used in response to this question appear below in the ‘word cloud,’ with the most often used of these words being in the largest text: Housing As with many rural areas of the Dumfries and Galloway region, most respondents were homeowners (63%), and in all 10 settlements most respondents within each settlement were homeowners. 18% of the respondents were living in private rented accommodation, 7% in Housing Association properties, 11% are living with parents/relatives and friends, and 1% were in tied accommodation. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: I own my own home (with or without a mortgage) I rent my home from a private landlord I rent my home from a Housing Association My home is tied to my employment I live with parents/ relatives/friends I live in temporary accommodation Other ❖ Again, within the four main settlements, home ownership is the main tenure of respondents, with a lower proportion renting or in tied accommodation. ❖ Overall, more than 50% of respondents lived in 3-bedroom homes, with 3% in 1bedroom, 18% in 2-bedroom, and 17% in 4- bedroom homes. ❖ When asked if they had a second/ holiday home in the Glenkens, of the 140 respondents to this question, 1% said they had a privately used second/holiday home, 2% had one run as a business for short term let and 4% had one for a private long-term residential let. ❖ Of the survey responses to the relevant questions, 27% indicated that their current property did not meet their current needs. For those who identified as having issues with their current property, the main factors were homes with issues relative to energy efficiency/running costs, being too small or in poor condition. In the ‘other’ category, responses included insecurity of occupancy due to landlords selling the property and poor broadband connectivity. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: (Options: Too small, too large, special adaptations/accessibility features required, need to be closer to work/school/family/transport links, property in poor condition/requires major repair, is too expensive to run/heat, temporary accommodation, other). DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: ❖ To the question on housing need, overall survey results indicated a total of 39% respondents were either in need either at present (14%) or likely to be in the next five years (25%) and this was broadly reflective of each of the identified 4 main communities. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: Yes, at present Yes, someone may/will be in need of housing in the future No, I/we have no current or expected housing needs ❖ Questions relating to availability and affordability of housing indicated that there was a perceived overall need for affordable housing throughout the area, as well as the lack of its availability precipitating outward movement from the Glenkens. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: Yes, and I/we are need of affordable housing in our town/village/settlement Yes, and I/we are in need of affordable housing in another settlement Yes, but I/we are not in need of affordable housing No, we have enough affordable housing No, we need other types of housing ❖ 51% overall in the Glenkens area knew of someone who had to leave their community due to lack of affordable housing. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: ❖ When asked if they knew of anyone who would need affordable housing in order to move to the Glenkens area, 51% responded yes, they knew of family members/former members of their household or friends/ acquaintances/work colleagues. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: ❖ On the question of what level of monthly payment for housing would be acceptable to them, there was an equal distribution of responses between £200-£300, £300-£400, £400-£500, £500-£600 with only 4% of the 49 respondents to this question indicating that they could afford £600 or more. These figures reflect the fact that the region is a lowwage economy and that £600 would be much more than which respondents would consider affordable. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: ❖ When asked how many bedrooms their household needed, overall, most of the 48 respondents to this question needed a 2 -bedroom house (44%), followed by a 3-bedroom house at 33%. This is reflected within the individual communities (34 respondents collectively), except for Carsphairn where 3-bedroom houses are needed. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: ❖ Overall survey responses considered a relatively equal preference of either buying on the open market, renting or self-build/conversion as best suiting their needs. In terms of renting, responses indicated an overall preference to rent from a community organisation. In respect of renting, responses from the four communities indicated a broadly equal preference to rent from either a community organisation, housing association or private landlord. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: Buying on the open market Shared equity Self-build or conversion Sheltered housing Residential care Renting (community organisation) Renting (private landlord) Renting (housing association) Not applicable Other DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: ❖ Responding to the question on which type of accommodation would best suit their needs, ticking all options that would suit, the overall survey area and detailed community breakdown responses were broadly similar, showing a preference for a house (detached, semi-detached, terraced), followed by a cottage or bungalow. DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: House (detached, semi-detached, terraced) Cottage Bungalow Flat Ground floor Other Glenkens and District Employers Survey In addition to the wider community housing survey, the larger organisation employers within the Glenkens and District area were asked to complete a short questionnaire to help establish data on housing need and demand from the workforce in this area. This would help to establish a picture of the housing issues faced when employees are recruiting staff as well as difficulties existing employees may have in securing housing. From the employers who were approached at the beginning of the survey, an online questionnaire was forwarded to them during the survey period to elicit a response. When asked if their organisations knew of any issues with employees securing housing when relocating to work in the area, the one employer commented, ‘New staff relocating to the area have found it challenging to find affordable and available accommodation - so far it has always worked out in the end. As an organisation the lack of readily available housing could lead to potential new staff looking elsewhere. Going forward I think housing needs will change - many employers now offer flexible and remote working which offers an opportunity to repopulate our rural areas. However, it does mean that housing needs to consider how this can be accommodated whether through 'home office' space, ensuring new properties are connected to high- speed broadband, or through the development of community hubs providing communal remote working space.’ Evidence from Housing Waiting Lists The Pamela Young Trust operate as a local Housing Trust throughout the Glenkens managing 23, 1 and 2- bedroom properties. The first properties let in Dalry were originally allocated to farm workers moving out of tied properties. The Trust has over the years expanded the number of properties in its portfolio throughout the Glenkens, buying properties which had been on sale on the open market for some time with no apparent interest from potential buyers. The Trust tends to let to elderly tenants who are usually tenants for life, with very low turnover and a waiting list for properties. With the rise in popularity of holiday lets and second homes, and associated house prices, the Glenkens has become a more challenging housing market for the Trust in which to secure further properties for local tenants. While there are several Housing Associations operating in Dumfries and Galloway, information on waiting lists is only readily available for the Common Housing Register which includes DGHP, Home Group, Irvine Housing and Cunninghame Housing Association properties.1 A breakdown of property type for the settlements within the Glenkens and District Trust survey area with Housing Association properties on the Common Housing Register within Dumfries and Galloway, shows that there is a total number of applications (598) waiting on 119 properties, with only 11 new tenancies in the past 12 months. Considering the type of properties available on the register, the waiting lists show a high demand for 1 and 2- bedroom bungalows, these being the main type of houses on offer. 1 Homes4D&G, 2022. Find a New Home – Waiting List Statistics. Available from: wwwWL_Stats_detail_ALL (homes4dg.org.uk) Special interest questions SOSCH are always keen to work collaboratively on our housing needs and demands approach, seek the views and concerns of the community groups we work with whilst creating our Surveys. We have developed some special interest questions for inclusion which are particularly significant for the types of rural communities in the South of Scotland that we are working with. These questions relate to fuel poverty, energy efficiency, and working from home, all of which are now coming into sharper focus because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in both staying at and working from home. ❖ Of the survey responses to the relevant questions, 27% indicated that their current property did not meet their current needs. For those who identified as having issues with their current property, the main factors were homes with issues relative to energy efficiency/running costs or being too small. Respondents felt that to make their households more energy efficient, triple glazing and more insulation would be the preferrable options. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: ❖ Clear indication from survey responses on the increase in working from home, as well as issues around rural employment and connectivity in general, a question relative to workspace was included to establish demand for this within the home. In the GDTsurvey, a total of 65% of the 136 respondents to this question, or someone in their household, support a requirement for workspace within the home. OVERALL GLENKENS SURVEY RESULT: DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: ❖ When asked if workspace was offered within/alongside/in proximity to affordable housing, would it be beneficial for your specific community, the Glenkens community you would like to live in or the wider Glenkens area, overall, nearly 60% of the 117 respondents to this question said yes. Again, this figure was broadly the same on the more detailed community breakdown. OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS: DETAILED COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN: ❖ Written responses suggested that some kind of crofting model could be established to develop a locally skilled workforce alongside housing or establishing a woodland housing community. A community hub with shared workspace was also put forward as an idea. Face-to-face Engagement Due to the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was agreed that the Housing Needs and Demands Survey would be the primary means to gather information relative to housing. It was understood that any other direct engagement on housing beyond the survey would be inappropriate at the time Desire to address the issue of affordable housing has been well understood in the local communities since our initial discussions, and it is the intention of GDT, supported by SOSCH, to continue to further engage with communities to help them develop their housing solutions. Should further consultation relative to affordable housing be required at a future date, this report will be updated to include any relevant findings. Anecdotal Evidence The survey allowed scope for responses and comments to gain anecdotal feedback, and these have been included as part of the broad survey findings, where relevant, and referred to as written responses. Many written responses referred to: ❖ The lack of new-build, energy efficient, homes available which would lower energy bills, as most of the traditional older housing is very expensive to run and not fuel efficient. ❖ Those wishing to downsize or upsize, do not have the finances to upgrade older properties and have no opportunity to move to more cost-effective and suitable housing due to both the lack of availability of such housing and competing to buy with incomers with more buying power. ❖ Locals are feeling priced out of the housing market within their communities, both in buying and renting, due to the economic advantage of those moving into the communities from elsewhere. ❖ It was felt that community vitality and sustainability and of communities would be eroded due to the lack of available and affordable housing. Comments expressed concern for what is currently being perceived in communities: the falling school rolls, an unbalanced age structure of the area as it is increasingly populated by retirees, holiday homes and holiday lets, young people and families economically unable to enter or compete for available housing. ❖ Opportunities for homes for local needs alongside workspace/ crofting should be an option to be explored to develop more skills within the local workforce, including the establishment of a woodland community. ❖ It was considered that derelict and empty homes were an opportunity to develop more homes in a sustainable way rather than more new-build properties. ❖ If more new housing was to be built, some respondents felt it must be ensured that these are allocated to local needs, both for buying and renting. ❖ Land on the edges of settlements being available to enable communities to develop housing themselves for local needs was proposed a solution to the sustainability of communities. ❖ New-build housing for local needs should blend in and not stand out visually as ‘social’ housing, with the traditional character of settlements respected. ❖ Holiday homes and short-term holiday lets are exacerbating the problem of housing availability and affordability. ❖ Frustration was expressed about the lack of self-build opportunities, through both the planning system and the lack of sites affordable serviced available, feeling that there is a lack of responsiveness to the self-build market. ❖ The provision of affordable, rented property is a concern for residents when considering the sustainability of the communities. There is a need for affordable housing in the local area. ❖ The resultant impact on the social and economic vitality of the community due to second homes/ holiday homes/ short-term holiday lets was also stated as a concern in written responses for those who wish to live in the community as permanent residents. ❖ The contribution of non-locals moving to the area permanently is welcomed for the contributions they can make to a community but housing supply for locals must be also met to address need. Future Considerations The Glenkens continues to be a popular place to live both for families who have long associations with the area as well as those seeking to retire or to live and work in the area. Of the respondents who answered whether they intended to stay in the Glenkens in the future, 62% indicated they wished to stay in the area they currently lived in with an additional 13% wishing to move to another part of the Glenkens and 4% would like to move to the Glenkens. 15% were unsure whether they would stay or move out of the area and 6% want to move away from the Glenkens. The continuing increase in the short-term holiday sector post pandemic, means that homes once available to permanent residents are now not as widely accessible as they move into the holiday rental market. Considering the responses to specific questions around present and future need, together with current trends in the popularity of the short-term holiday home market, it is clear that there is a pressing need for local needs housing throughout most of the Glenkens’ communities. Measures to address climate change and fuel inefficiency in housing to combat rising fuel prices and fuel poverty will need to be important considerations in future housing design and development as clearly evidenced in respondents needs relative to their housing requirements. The shift from commuting to a workplace to home working arrangements, looks set to continue post-pandemic for many. Taken together, such factors have created change in the way our workplaces and spaces might be viewed relative to future housing design and development to create a more sustainable way of living both within the home and alongside homes. It will be necessary to adequately house both older residents, as their current housing becomes too large and expensive to run, and families with children to sustain local services and ensure the diversity and vitality of the community. Housing provision is required to meet the needs of employees working locally and employers are already highlighting this as an issue at present. Availability of appropriate housing is integral to the economy and its needs. It will be important to have a variety of housing options to address the need for affordable housing. The type, tenure and size of housing must ensure that all needs are addressed. Conclusion Efficient, suitable, available, and affordable housing is clearly a prominent issue currently facing the communities of the Glenkens. By attempting to address this in line with identified and localised needs and demands, these communities will be able to begin to create more sustainable and innovative solutions to the challenges they face. Traditional housing solutions are not meeting the needs of some residents and the offer of housing, to let or buy, is extremely limited. There is also a desire to self-build but the lack of suitable, available, and affordable land is not presently making this an option. This has the greatest impact on those on the lowest incomes, the most vulnerable and working aged people with families, as both availability and affordability are preventing those who would prefer to live and work in this area the opportunity to do so. For communities to continue to be vibrant, diverse, sustainable places to live, a balanced mix of housing must be available within the community to meet all needs. Housing allocated or bought with a local needs policy in place will ensure the housing is protected in perpetuity for local needs. This will ensure the sustainability of communities. The survey showed there is a need for family sized housing as well as accommodation for those wishing to downsize, both to rent and buy. Self- build plots are also sought after which will provide housing solutions to create a more diverse range of housing options to meet need. The special interest survey findings indicate support for workspace within the home (65%) and workshops within/alongside/in proximity to affordable housing (nearly 60%). Future housing projects should consider how it might address the demand for such when considering potential housing development and design solutions. The survey results highlight the need for housing that is affordable, fuel efficient and lowcost to run, whether re-developing existing property or new build. Respondents highlighted the need for more energy efficient homes and this was highlighted when 27% of respondents indicated that their housing did not meet their needs, with 51% of this group stating that the main factor were issues relative to energy efficiency and running costs. Over 50% of respondents indicated that fuel inefficiency was a factor in their homes not meeting their needs. By addressing this through measures such as higher levels of insulation, incorporating triple glazing and other energy efficient measures, this would address both climate change and the rising cost of energy. The GDT commissioned the HNDA for the communities within its area and it is now for communities and community groups to use the information from this survey to develop housing solutions to address their individual community need and demand. The survey report provides communities and groups within the Glenkens with a good basis to begin to explore further their ambitions for community-led housing. The most often used words used referring to housing options and availability of housing in the Glenkens area are contained in the following word cloud:  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Housing Needs and Demands Survey Description An account of the resource Glenkens & District Trust (GDT) commissioned South of Scotland Community Housing (SOSCH) to undertake a Housing Needs and Demands Assessment (HNDA) for the Trust to understand more about the current and future housing needs of its residents within the area covered by the Glenkens and wider district. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_8 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available South of Scotland Community Housing (SOSCH) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust CAP Theme 3 housing https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/604/CAP_Theme_3_Propagate_Local_Produce_Report_cover.jpg 3a22b37c4bdacc73db8729c0b59b676b https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/604/CAP_Theme_3_Propagate_Local_Produce_Report.pdf 227d983e5b16b04cd45cf66489714a7d PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Good Food in the Glenkens October 2021 Beth Coleman, Mary Smith, Abi Mordin 1 Introduction - what’s this all about, and why? This report provides the feedback from the Glenkens Food Scoping Study, carried out by Propagate between May and September 2021. The Study builds on some of the outcomes and actions in the ‘Economy’ section of the Glenkens Community Action Plan, published in September 2020. Those actions indicated a need for a more joined up local food system, and increased local food production. Throughout this work we have taken a community engagement approach to explore key questions. We have spoken to local people via surveys and focus groups, and have carried out interviews and discussions with local producers, shops, hospitality and supply chain operators. Further sections of this report break down the process and analyse the responses we received. We have pulled together key themes emerging from the discussions, and propose 3 pieces of work to take forward. Before we delve into the research and its results, we will take a look at the local, regional and national context for this work. 2 Local Context - a look at food in the Glenkens The Glenkens is classified as a ‘remote rural area’, being over a 25 minute drive from a settlement with over 20,000 people. It has a population of just over 3000 people, spread across a wide geographical area. The boundaries of the Glenkens are fluid and vary depending on who you speak to - however we have included the communities of Crossmichael and Laurieston to the South, and Carsphairn to the North. The Glenkens is a thriving community with much in its favour - active citizens, local shops, community organisations and events. Food is already a big feature of the region: • Garroch Walled Garden, in between Dalry and New Galloway is currently used as a community growing space. Members have their own plots and support each other to grow and learn. • Glenkens Food Month in September has just had it’s third run. This local food festival includes events of many types to connect people to local and seasonal food, and support local food enterprises and businesses. • Most of the local shops already stock various food items from local businesses, e.g. the Damn Fine Cheese Co., Stockbridge Mac & Cheese Co., Love to Eat, Upper Dullarg Free Range Eggs, local honey and The Ethical Dairy. • The monthly Glenkens Producer Market regularly attracts upwards of 50 people who can choose from a range of local producers including local market garden Hidden Veg, Treats from the Courtyard, Gill’s Buns and Irene McReath. • The Glenkens Food Hub provides customers with an opportunity to pre-order produce before the market, and collect on the day. • The active local community organise a huge range of pop up, honesty box or ‘pay as you feel’ produce stalls. For example, a plot holder at Garroch makes produce available for a donation in Dalry alongside the free-range egg honesty box. Money from veg sales is donated to the Community Shop and furthers the aims of this initiative. Regular popup produce stalls are also held in Dalry and New Galloway with donated items, and profits going to good causes. Outside the 3 villages there are several produce stands at farms and smallholdings, for example at The Hidden Mill on the Hidden Rd where income goes towards sustainable and regenerative land management and education. • The Glenkens is of course predominantly a farming community, and is lucky to be typified by many small family farms producing mostly lamb and beef cattle. Elsewhere in Dumfries and Galloway many farms are owned by larger holdings and companies. Very few of these farms are able to sell produce locally however, with the exceptions being Hidden Veg and Upper Dullarg Eggs. Regional Context - what’s happening across Dumfries and Galloway Dumfries and Galloway prides itself on it’s farming communities, community run markets and huge range of food businesses and hospitality. Various associations exist to support these different sectors. For example, EAT SW Scotland provides support to food businesses, and brings them together under D&G Food and Drink Forum. National Farmers Union Scotland have a Dumfries and Galloway regional group, and provide support and networking to our farmers. Communities are coming together to create a citizen led good food movement through social media pages such as D&G Local Food Network - and taking community led action on good food all over the region. Community food organisations are also supported by the local Health and Social Care Partnership (NHS), through the ‘food providers networks’. These have mostly become established during the COIVD19 pandemic as a response to increasing food poverty and insecurity. D&G Council declared a climate emergency in 2020, and pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025. According to the council’s own climate emergency action plan, over 70% of D&G’s emissions are from agriculture. However, D&G Council has 4 one member of staff dedicated to implementing the climate emergency action plan. Various independent initiatives are underway to support farmers in the transition to climate friendly farming. The Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere has a new Land Use and Biodiversity Lead, who will be working with farmers to create and implement whole farm plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Biosphere has also been supporting Propagate to facilitate the Fork to Farm Dialogues that have brought farmers and local authority policy officers together to discuss agriculture and climate change, in the run up to COP26. Additional policies from D&G Council include the Food & Drink Strategy, due to expire in 2022. The current strategy has a strong focus on the economic benefits of food and drink businesses, but little on sustainability and resilience. Publishing a Food Growing Strategy is a requirement on every local authority under the Community Empowerment Act 2015. It should include an action plan setting out how the Council will support the creation of new community growing space and allotments. D&G Council passed their Food Growing Strategy at committee in 2018, however nothing has been done to date to implement it. A small group of determined Ward Officers have raised this, and it’s likely the work will be revisited. Finally, all the above organisations and others come together under the banner of the Dumfries and Galloway Sustainable Food Partnership. Formed in June 2020 and supported by coordination from Propagate, the Partnership aims to take holistic action to create an equitable, resilient and healthy food system. 5 National Context - A snapshot of Scotland’s food and drink As a nation, we export 80% of what we produce, and import 80% of what we eat. We produce mostly lamb, beef, dairy and whisky. 75% of crops grown are barley, wheat and maize, and most of that is for animal feed and whisky. Scotland is heavily enmeshed in complex, globalised supply chains, trading in huge quantities of cereals, oilseeds, fishmeal, soya and inorganic inputs like fertiliser. This causes serious environmental and social impacts to ecosystems, soil, water and human health. A third of the UK’s fruit and veg supply comes from countries particularly vulnerable to climate change and over half of our fruit and veg comes from countries facing high or extremely high levels of water scarcity. Trade can undermine local food cultures and tends to disproportionately negatively impact black, indigenous and people of colour. The new Scotland Food & Drink recovery plan ‘Recovering from Coronavirus and fuelling Brexit preparation’ suggests a move towards a more hierarchical approach which suggests a focus on feeding Scotland first, then the UK, followed by exports. The plan is just that for the moment, and time will tell how this translates into action. Eating more of what we grow and growing more of what we eat would certainly be a good move for Scotland. Scotland’s agricultural sector is responsible for 18% of Scotland’s emissions. However, that is only a part of the story around food. The energy that goes into making, refrigerating and transporting processed food for example, or the emissions from our health system treating non-communicable diseases, are hidden away in other 'sectors'. Food producers respond to market signals to decide what and how they grow, so what we are offered and what we choose to eat at home, at work, in restaurants and in public kitchens has a lot of influence on creating sustainable food systems. Public procurement is a great stimulus to transform these systems to be environmentally and socially responsible. Scottish Government and local authorities should engage with the public and their contractors about the health and sustainability of our food consumption patterns. Public kitchens from schools to social care to prisons can lead by example with local and organic plant-based options on all menus. Where animal proteins or seafood is included, it should be sourced from high welfare agroecological production systems. 6 Healthy and sustainable diets can also be supported through community food hubs. These food hubs can support positive physical and mental health and wellbeing as they provide safe and welcoming spaces for people to connect, share food and learn skills. The Scottish Government currently has two live consultations around food: • Local Food for Everyone is looking at the three pillars of the Scottish Government’s local food strategy - connecting people with food; connecting Scottish producers with buyers; and harnessing public sector procurement. It aims to start a conversation about local food in Scotland, inviting contributions about how everyone involved in food in Scotland could work together to build a food system based around quality local production and short and circular supply chains, to make high quality Scottish produce available to all. This consultation closes on 26th November • An Agricultural Transition in Scotland Is looking at measures to support farmers and crofters to ensure their economic sustainability as we deal with the twin global emergencies of climate change and biodiversity whilst also continuing to produce high quality food. This will enable them to lower emissions from production, be profitable, efficient and productive whilst playing their part as land managers to tackle climate change and enhance biodiversity. This consultation closes on 17th November. 7 Citizen-led food action across Scotland is alive and well. Across a great many cities, towns and regions people and communities are coming together to identify local needs and push for shorter supply chains, better food production and equal access to good food for all. In the Highlands, a recent series of webinars took place called the Highland Good Food Conversations. These brought together people involved in food from across sectors and have formed the basis of an action plan. Many regions have formed sustainable food partnerships, similar to the one recently formed in Dumfries and Galloway. These partnerships network and collaborate on Scotland-wide issues, such as procurement, through the UK-wide organisation Sustainable Food Places. The research - Good Food in the Glenkens Our scoping study set out to dig a little deeper into outcomes of the Glenkens Community Action Plan relating to food. These are set out in the table below. We wanted to speak to more people to see if these actions resonated with a wider sample of the community, and to explore ways in which the community could be involved with taking projects forward. In order to do this, we used a range of tools: online surveys, interviews and one-to-one conversations, focus groups and follow up conversations. S h o r t Develop plan for collaborative Collaborate with schools, community term yr 1 production and distribution of organisations and existing producers. local produce Focus on vegetables, M e d F e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y i n t o Partnership with local farmers. term 2-4 community farm. yr Develop ‘Eat Local’ strategy involving producers and range of outlets. Create a community run distribution system; encourage new small producers and coordinate with existing ones. L o n g Create a community farm. Could be community owned or term community 5yr+ Further develop the local food supported. distribution network. 8 Step 1 - Surveys Community and Consumer engagement 101 people responded to the Local People survey. The survey was shared both online through emails and social media - and in hard copies. Hard copies were left in local shops throughout the Glenkens, and were taken to two of the monthly Producers’ Markets in Dalry. Posters and flyers were also put up in shops and around the villages, reminding people that the surveys could be found in the shops. The consumer survey included 9 questions around what access people already have to local food, what barriers exist, what they would like to see more of, and whether they had been involved in any community food-related events. When asked what local food they already bought, the highest percentage of people (75%) reported that they buy eggs. This was followed by vegetables (48.5%), cakes and pastries (47.5%), honey (46.5%), cheese (43.6%) and milk and other dairy products (42.6%). Some other locally produced items were also said to be bought, amongst them meat, other savoury snacks, and bread. When asked whether they could give the name of local producers, many people mentioned Upper Dullarg eggs, along with other Glenkens Producers, particularly those 9 present at the Producers Markets. There were also names mentioned of producers who would not normally be considered as selling produce local to the area, such as Mitchells or Fleet Fish, which raised the question of what peoples’ different understandings of ‘local produce’ is. When asked “where do you currently buy local food?”, the majority of responses (81.2%) cited "Local shops” as a source. “Delivery” and "Producers Market/Online hub" came in together as second most popular at 37.6%, followed by "Farm Gate” at 21.8%. This was fairly concurrent with the question which asked where would they like to buy local food in response, 85.1% answered "Local shops”, 67.3% claimed they would like to shop via "the Producers Market/online Hub", 49.5% by ‘Delivery’, and 35.6% by “Farm Gate”. In response to the question "What locally produced food would you like to buy?”, an overwhelming majority of 70.3% stated they would like to buy vegetables, followed by fruit at 66.3%. Other responses to this question are recorded in the table below: When asked about barriers to them accessing local food, common themes identified were cost, distance and time, and availability of products. Many respondents identified that they would like to support local producers, but didn’t have the luxury of this choice and were therefore forced to buy in supermarkets: ‘“I do buy [some local food] – I would buy more if I had a higher income”. Convenience and knowing availability were also identified as issues for some people, who found it necessary to know in advance what produce they would have access to: “I plan meals weekly, so it’s important to know what I’m getting / what will be available when.” Unsurprisingly for such a rural area with large distances involved and few public transport services, distance was found to be one of the main barriers. One person said “I'd like to be able to buy local food without having a 20 mile round trip to reach Dalry. I'd like to walk or cycle to my local village of Carsphairn”. Many stated the issue of not knowing where they could access local food. Several pointed to the Dalry Producers’ market, but the fact that this is only held monthly, and that it is far to come for many Glenkens inhabitants, both came up as barriers. When asked about what changes they wished to see for locally produced food in the Glenkens, many respondents said they'd like to see better labelling on produce, as well as notices in shop windows stating they sell local products. One person asked for “better marketing to know that we are getting genuinely local food”. Some stated that they find it hard to source produce that is both local and organic. The few people who already had access to lots of local produce were usually those who 10 already had the land and/or knowledge to produce it themselves – and even then, there was a desire for specialist goods that could be produced locally – local oats and barley, hemp for food and fibre, and mushrooms were suggested, as well as locally produced store-cupboard foods. Whilst many people wanted to see more availability of locally produced meat, game and fish, a high number of those surveyed identified a lack of freshly grown local vegetables, asking for “more focus on veg and fruit production, less on meat”. There was a definite desire to see more small-scale and community supported producers. There were also some who stated involvement previously in community food-related ventures, and others who stated they would like to get involved in such activities. Finally, there was awareness of the need for change on a larger level in order to create the conditions for such a network: “The change I would most like to see is radical Land Reform and allocation of land to local, sustainable, ecologically-orientated small-scale growers, and the whole community involved, not very likely in the immediate future.” Producer engagement Ten people responded to the callout for Producers. An online survey was used initially to engage with Producers in the Glenkens, along with one to one interviews and discussions. Some Producers are already networked together via the Glenkens Food Hub and the Producer Market. These Producers readily engaged with the process, including those who produce pastries and pies, eggs, preserves, lamb, beef and vegetables. These Producers all have plans to upscale or develop their enterprise in different ways - for example by expanding their market garden and setting up a Community Supported Agriculture project; or through direct sales to local people via short supply chains. Others outside this loop also got involved, particularly aspiring vegetable producers keen to share their ideas with us. Some of these had access to land already, others were looking for land or to collaborate. One interesting project presented is the retrofitting of a former chicken shed as a heated and ventilated greenhouse. It is envisaged that this greenhouse will be able to produce a range of semi-tropical plants, possibly also including aquaponics (raising fish and plants in a circular system). It would also have an education element. 11 We also spoke with estate managers from Barwhillanty Estate near Parton, who have plans to set up a Community Larder. This would support a community of gamekeepers and hunters in the area, and provide storage and processing facilities for venison that could be sold locally, or collected by game dealers at a later date. Barriers to these plans included access to land, and a lack of time and capital to get things started. All Producers - existing and aspiring - wanted to see more support for a local food economy through networking, cooperative and collaborative working, shared marketing such as a ‘buy local’ campaign, and a distribution hub or local supply chain. Generally these interventions were perceived as being things that could address some of the barriers. Education was also raised as an important point, working with children on cooking and ‘fork to farm’ type projects that connect people with where their food comes from, and how to cook a healthy meal. “The more people get into the habit of buying from local suppliers the better it is for all of us. It helps if they can appreciate the time & effort it takes to produce a quality product (rather than being used to cheap, mass-produced, nutritionally-suspect supermarket type produce). A marketable provenance/brand would also help with sales to tourists. “ 12 Retail and Hospitality All local shops, cafes, hotels and food businesses were contacted by phone and email. Fully understanding the food businesses are incredibly busy, we kept the questions to a minimum: • What, if any produce, do you buy/use/stock that comes directly from the Glenkens? • What problems have you had buying or using more locally produced food? • If the following existed, would this encourage you to buy/use/stock more locally produced food?: • Single point ordering and delivery system with range of produce • A catalogue or directory of what’s available locally • More certified organic produce • Greater diversity of produce • Zero waste, reusable or recyclable packaging • A milk refill station (in your shop or premises) • What do you currently do with food waste? Out of the 16 possible hospitality, retail outlets and supply chain operatives identified, 5 answers were received and one conversation was held with Mitchell's Fruit and Veg. Most of these responses were received after repeated attempts. Other repeated attempts were not answered. All local respondents stocked some local produce - notably free range eggs, honey and secondary produce. Most locally stocked vegetables were donated, although one local cafe bought from a market garden. Cost and availability or accessibility were cited as the main problems. All respondents agreed they would use a single point of ordering for local food, but the price had to be affordable for their business, and their customers. Our conversation with Mitchell’s explored the possibility of cooperating with their supply chain and delivery service. However, this was not seen as a viable option by the Galloway supply chain operator. 13 Step 2 - Conversations Community Conversations Three ‘Local Food Conversations’ were held in venues in New Galloway, Dalry and Balmaclellan attended by 24 people in total. We invited people who had completed the survey to attend, with a limit of ten per group. There were several attendees who had not completed the survey, but had found out about the events through promotion in the Glenkens Gazette or on social media. There were also a couple of guests who attended from outside the Glenkens area, stating that they were interested in creating local food networks in other regions of Dumfries and Galloway. Attendees represented a range of ages and income levels (we did not specifically ask for this information, but it became apparent through observation and discussion). The conversations focused on four main themes to come out of the survey responses already gathered, and began with a short visioning exercise. Visioning: we asked people to imagine, ideally, what local food would look like in the Glenkens in ten years time. All three of the groups saw the future of Glenkens local food as a return to when there was a much more thriving local food system, characterised by more people growing their own food, local bakeries, butchers etc. Also mentioned in all groups was a desire to see much more diverse land use in the Glenkens - in particular poly-tunnels were called for as a tool for this, enabling a wider variety of fruit and vegetables to be grown. Theme 1: What is ‘local’? We asked - what does local produce mean to you - what do you see as the main reasons to buy local, and why would you prioritise it? Generally the definition of local extended further than the 25 miles definition in the survey, and depended more on the food in question. Seasonality was mentioned in all three conversations, with people saying they used this as a point of reference when shopping, as a means of ensuring they minimised imported food. People had a variety of reasons to prioritise local food. Taste and climate change mitigation (food miles) were primary, along with ethics - they would not buy locally produced food if they knew welfare or growing standards were low. Some said they would prefer to buy organic. 14 Theme 2: Making local food accessible. It was agreed that there needs to be a variety of options for local food purchasing to make it accessible. Many agreed that an online ordering and delivery system would make buying local food easiest for them, and would be prepared to pay for this. People would generally like to be able to purchase local food in the local shops, and for it to be more easily identifiable. It was, however, felt that although local shops were an important part of the picture, they would not address accessibility on their own. Producers markets were a popular choice for many, in particular people would like to see the Glenkens Producers Market held more frequently and rotated between Dalry and New Galloway. Attendees said they would like to see less crafts and more variety of produce, and that this was an issue across all the producers markets they had attended in D&G. The suggestion was also made that an ‘open table’ would be an ideal way to encourage more people, including children, to produce on a small scale. Cost was noted across the groups, and noted that it was a barrier in particular to those on a low income with larger families / children. The emphasis of the discussion again centred around fair access and food sharing as a community rather than on local produce as an economic product. Theme 3: Information and Awareness - promotion, education and engagement People agreed that it would be useful as both producers and consumers to have local produce identifiable in a cohesive way (local in this context being generally thought of as Galloway or Glenkens). People felt that this would raise awareness locally and encourage purchasing by residents and visitors. People also wanted to be able to access a local food directory and / or food map detailing local producers and how to purchase. The role of schools as key to short and longer term education and awareness raising was mentioned in all the group discussions, with a general feeling that there needs to be more active involvement at both primary and secondary level in growing and cooking, as well as farm visits. 15 Theme 4: Sustainable, fair and resilient local food production All attendees voiced support for a CSA in principle, particularly seeing it as having an educational, training and health and well-being role as well as increasing the availability of local produce through innovative land use, poly-tunnels etc… There were concerns about our ability to support such a model with a smaller population, but the overall feeling of the group was that it would be a huge asset and a case of ‘build it and they will come’. All discussions voiced concerns about reliance on volunteers, and the need to have the ability to finance skilled paid roles as well as land purchase, equipment etc.,thereby increasing local employment as well as attracting people to the area. Producer Focus Group Six Producers attended a focus group, which was held at one of the attendees' farm courtyard. Attendees were a mixture of beef cattle and sheep farmers, vegetable producers including established market gardeners, secondary producers and aspiring producers of different types. We picked up on the themes explored in the initial surveys and conversations, and those arising from the Community Conversations. Availability of local produce The first part of the discussion focussed on barriers around direct to consumer meat sales. The cost of slaughter was flagged up, combined with Lockerbie’s Borders Meats’ reluctance to take small batches. There is nowhere closer and very few options – e.g. Stoddarts in Ayr will take large-scale beef only. Processing and waste disposal is also a problem. A former plan to build an abattoir near Dalbeattie was discussed. This was a farmer-led cooperative project - many farmers put their own funds into setting up a company and buying land. Unfortunately this was shelved due to objections from the community in Dalbeattie. The possibility of this project being resurrected was raised although this is a task that is wider than the Glenkens so would need regional strategic support. We then discussed the community’s support for a Community Supported Agriculture project. Some concerns were raised, thinking about the financial viability of this work. Would people actually buy the produce? Who would do the work? However, positives were also discussed. The venture would bring more people to the area, provide jobs and training, and could be a hub for food education. Access to land was seen as the biggest barrier to this. Some suggestions were put forward in a brainstorm, thinking about 16 different landowners in the area who might be sympathetic to this project. The Producers agreed that the venture should be cooperative and community led. Supply Chains The Producer conversation then discussed cooperative distribution systems. Internet access was raised as a concern - there would have to be accessible ways for people to place orders. Keeping it low carbon was thought to be important - electric vans for example, potentially partnering with Galloway Community Transport. Awareness and education Finally the Producer conversation turned to awareness. Education around local food is key - it was felt there were misunderstandings around why local is often more expensive. It was agreed that The Producer story needs to be told - centring on methods of local production e.g. animal welfare and biodiversity - and that needs effective marketing. The point that shopping locally is beneficial to the local economy was also raised - the local economy multiplier effect creates benefits all round! Producers agreed that starting with a food education programme in partnership with local schools was a good idea. “Every £1 spent with a local supplier is worth £1.76 to the local economy, and only 36 pence if it is spent out of the local area. That makes £1 spent locally worth almost 400 % more to the local economy.” 17 Overall outcomes - discussion The summaries from the surveys and conversations show that people in the Glenkens are very enthusiastic about the idea of working cooperatively for the benefit of the wider community. People understand the challenges around producing and accessing local food, but there is a clear desire to tackle some of these big issues. Key cross cutting threads are around food education, increasing production of fruit and vegetables and creating a shared distribution system. This shows a willingness to think about the food system in an holistic way. Without explicitly mentioning it, local people are talking about food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is a food system in which the people who produce, distribute, and consume food also control the mechanisms and policies of food production and distribution. There are obvious co-benefits to establishing a Community Supported Agriculture project that can run on these principles: health and wellbeing, training and skills, reduced social isolation, community wealth building and much more can be additional outputs. Principles play a large part in people’s thinking. Producers want to tell their story to demonstrate their production methods such as using regenerative farming practices. Potential customers want to know they are purchasing an ecological product - if not certified organic then one that can show it is produced in a similar way. Again, taking a food sovereignty approach we can ensure that everyone can play a part in Glenkens food systems. Of course, there are larger issues here that can only be addressed on a regional, or national level. For example, land reform and agricultural payments are policies controlled by the Scottish Government. However, by engaging with existing structures such as the Dumfries and Galloway Sustainable Food Partnership we can represent the views of the Glenkens and help to shape and influence regional policy. Additionally there are opportunities to engage with the current and future consultations that will inform national policy by the Scottish Government. By building a good food network in the Glenkens we can act as a collective voice and have our seat at the table. 18 Projects to take forward Some obvious pieces of work have emerged from this scoping study. We have framed these as three main strands, all of which should be seen as underpinned by a collaborative, sharing economy ethos. These project outlines were first presented at the Glenkens Local Food Feast, part of Glenkens Food Month 2021. 25 people were treated to a sit down 3 course meal in which 95% of the ingredients were sourced within 25 miles. Project Outline 1: Food Education in Schools This project will engage schools in the Glenkens – primaries and Dalry Secondary – in a well thought out and planned food education programme for an academic year. It will have the following aims: • Increase skills in food production and cooking amongst young people • Increase awareness and understanding of the complex issues around our food system amongst both teachers and young people. • Increase understanding of greenhouse gas emissions arising from the food system, and create a whole school action plan to reduce the school’s food footprint. How will it work? Working with key teaching staff across schools and a working group of young people, a programme will be designed that contributes to learning outcomes and complements the curriculum. A range of activities will be curated, for example soil health games using drama and arts, vegetable growing and creative cooking, food waste awareness and community composting. The involvement of young people in the design of the programme will ensure that it is relevant for their learning needs. Sessions will take place 19 in the school and at various locations to be decided, for example farm visits. Sessions will be weekly, duration to be decided but potentially a whole afternoon. Partners likely to be involved will include Propagate, Education Services and the Learning for Sustainability Working Group, Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere, Royal Highland Educational Trust, Galloway Community Arts Trust and others. Project Outline 2: Hyper Local Supply Chain (pilot) This project will create a pilot for a local food distribution hub. This is in response to the needs identified for a single point of ordering and a weekly delivery, both for households, shops and hospitality. ow will it work? How will it work? Appropriate ordering systems will be put in place – online and by phone responding to local needs. These will likely build on the existing Glenkens Food Hub on the Open Food Network, currently used monthly for the Producer Market. A unit will be sought locally in a village central to the area. This will have capacity to store food safely, and electricity for cold storage. It will also need to be big enough to have a packing area. Customers will be able to place weekly orders, products will be collected from local food producers, sorted at the unit and then delivered to customers. Partners in the initial pilot will include all types of local food producers. Groundwork will need to be done to identify more producers and enable them to take part. It is hoped it will be possible to partner with Galloway Community Transport for delivery. Project Outline 3: Community Farm In response to the overwhelming demand for increased locally and organically produced vegetables and fruit, this will be a small (between 5-10 acres) Community Supported Agriculture project. It will also meet the needs identified for training, education, skills development and local jobs. ow will it work? 20 A whole site design will be carried out that will vary depending on the land acquired. Ideally, there will be around 3 acres suitable for vegetable production – although this will likely start smaller and grow according to need. Other areas will be managed for nature and biodiversity, and small-scale low density livestock may be possible. Beekeeping and other rural skills will be integrated. Growers will be employed to manage the garden areas, a coordinator will need to be in place to oversee the farm and put educational and outreach programmes in place. Trainees are common in market gardens, so spaces will be offered to young people to learn these skills. Links with schools will be forged, building on the previous food education programme. Produce will be distributed via the Hyper Local Distribution System. This needs a careful and coordinated approach to get it right. Food producers, land owners, development workers and educators will all need to be involved and working together. Again, Propagate has capacity to lead on getting this set up – and a track record to attract suitable funding. However, this project needs to be owned by and run by the community, so a new structure may emerge that can provide the governance required. 21 Conversations with landowners, producers and partner organisations are already underway to kick start some of these tangible projects. A funding application has been submitted to network local fruit and vegetable producers, and build capacity to enable participation in a local supply chain. We will look at the community’s suggestion to resource a local food development worker who can oversee and coordinate food activity in the Glenkens going forward. This will all be set in the context of community involvement and community wealth building, mutual support and growing a local, low carbon, resilient economy. bout Propagate 22 Propagate is a worker-led collective specialising in sustainable and community food work. We initiate conversations about how we relate to our environment, food systems in particular, and inspire people to take action. Our practices are about collaborating with people to create the conditions for social change through education, creative activity, discussion and practical projects. Tanks and acknowledgements This work has been funded by the Prince’s Countryside Fund, and Foundation Scotland (Blackcraig’s Windfarm). Thank you to both funders for supporting this work. Thanks also to all the community pages and outlets who helped to share and promote this work, enabling us to reach a large number of people. A thousand thank yous to all the local people, producers and businesses who took time to get involved in this research. And finally, thank you to the following folk for use of photos: Cow - Gillian Smith, Pastry - Gill Warnock, The Glenkens - Allan Smith, DG SFP logo - Lucy Smithies, Torr Haymaking - Lee Paton, Abundance Stall, Glenkens Producers - Lorraine Ishak, The Smithy-It’s Riding Time (web), Balmaclellan Store - unknown, Local Food Feast - Lorna Willock, Galloway Community Transport E-Van - Glenkens Community & Arts Trust., Veg Basket, Food Education, Hidden Veg Market Garden - Abi Mordin. 23  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens Food Report Description An account of the resource This report looking at local food production in the Glenkens was produced by Propagate CIC with the support of a grant from Blackcraig as part of the CAP set up phase co-ordinated by Community Enterprise, which supported selected projects under the short term priorities heading in the CAP. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_7 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Propagate CIC CAP Theme 3 food https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/603/CAP_Theme_3_SKS_Childcare_Feasibility_Study_cover.jpg 9b941cbcb51e67bf6de1abb333e98b88 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/603/CAP_Theme_3_SKS_Childcare_Feasibility_Study.pdf a77a53529ebd98788bb10445d7e35611 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Childcare Feasibility Study Produced by: Nicky Hesketh Claire Whyte SKS Scotland CIC www.sksscotland.co.uk 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust Sept 2021 1 Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Glenkens and District Trust ............................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Area covered in this study ................................................................................................................. 6 2. Current Provision ........................................................................................................................................ 8 3. Early Learning and Childcare - Entitlement .............................................................................................. 10 4. The challenges and requirements ............................................................................................................ 12 4.1. Previous Evidence / Background Info .............................................................................................. 12 4.2. Stakeholder Interviews.................................................................................................................... 13 5. Comparator Models .................................................................................................................................. 16 5.1. Fife mobile creche service ............................................................................................................... 16 6. Suggested models and evaluation ............................................................................................................ 18 6.1. Models – Long List ............................................................................................................................... 18 6.2. Models – Review and Short List ........................................................................................................... 24 7. Feasibility report ....................................................................................................................................... 25 7.1. Delivery Model: ............................................................................................................................... 25 7.1.1. Incentives Plan ............................................................................................................................ 26 7.1.2. Funding ....................................................................................................................................... 27 7.1.3. Recruitment and Advertising ...................................................................................................... 28 7.2. Cost of Provision and Cost to Customers ........................................................................................ 29 7.3. Social and economic impact ............................................................................................................ 29 7.4. Community support ........................................................................................................................ 30 7.5. Challenges ....................................................................................................................................... 30 7.6. Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 31 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 2 Executive Summary This report has been commissioned by the Glenkens District Trust to look into the provision of early learning and childcare in the Glenkens area. We have looked at various models which address the key issues of how high quality, flexible, accessible and affordable early learning and childcare can be provided in the Glenkens, supported and sustained in a dispersed rural economy. In rural areas such as the Glenkens the availability of childcare can severely limit the parent’s ability to work, with one parent having to stay at home during their children’s early years in some cases1. It also provides the opportunity for social interaction for children in remoter areas and supports the ethos of the equity agenda. The new government policy to expand ELC funded provision for 3 and 4 year olds, from 600 to 1140 hours, has exacerbated already vulnerable community childcare provision, and the GDT are concerned that the loss of service provision will contribute to the de-population in the area. There is no access for 0 to 2years-9months aged children to childcare and activity groups. There is no wraparound childcare provision or holiday provision. Previous projects to provide these services have had varying levels of success; they have all suffered from fluctuating numbers and ultimately become unstainable. This report has analysed the different models of childcare that could be adopted in the area and the feasibility of delivering them as a sustainable solution. Key points: - The preferred models are childminder and wrap-around clubs with outdoor provision being an important element of any service. - It is recommended that models be developed in phases to allow for buildup of confidence and demand. - The models support and complement each other. - Collaboration with the local schools and service providers for mutual support and development. - Communication with the community to gain their support is vital. - Continue dialogue with D&G Council to push for further support. Successful implementation is conditional on: - Funding, training and marketing support is needed in the initial start-up period. - Additional support at times when numbers of children drop below a financially sustainable level. - Finding a suitable community partner to deliver the project. 1 Commission on the delivery of rural education (COSLA/Scottish Government 2013 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 3 1. Introduction Glenkens and District is a rural community in Dumfries and Galloway. The Glenkens and District Trust was established to support regeneration and development in the local area, to make it a better place to live, work, play and visit. Their recent Community Action Plan2 identified the need for high quality, accessible and affordable childcare to be made available within the area. This feasibility study has been commissioned by GDT to research and assess the need for childcare in Glenkens and District, identify models that best suit the requirements of local people and establish whether the proposed model is feasible. The development of childcare provision will contribute directly towards one of the four action areas outlined in the Community Plan - for the Glenkens area to be an ‘economically flourishing community’. Quality ELC provision in fragile rural communities is seen as essential, enabling parents/carers to work and provide respite for carers. It also provides children with necessary social interaction which may be taken for granted in more urban settings. Recent research by the Care and Learning Alliance into rural delivery models for ELC expansion focused on 4 key areas of need, which are applicable to the Glenkens: Strong and sustainable workforce • • Use of ‘alternative’ places and times • • • Expansion of the ELC funded provision has added pressure for suitably qualified staff. The ELC profession is undervalued. Expanding outdoor provision to compensate for lack of capacity within existing buildings. Cost effective. Many benefits in terms of physical and mental health, development and environmental awareness Value of intergenerational partnerships • Provides learning experiences, increases children’s confidence and helps them grow into effective members of society and community. Transport • mobile approach to the delivery of ELC in rural areas National Agenda In August 2020 ELC funded provision was expanded, increasing the annual personal entitlement for children ages three and four from 600 to 1140 hours, and extend the provision to include eligible two-year olds. This originated from the Scottish Government’s ‘Funding Follows the Child’ strategy, which promotes flexibility and accessibility and allows parents/guardians to select the ELC provision for their child that best supports their child’s needs. This policy incorporates the government agenda to increase outdoor learning. 2 Glenkens and District Community Action Plan - July 2020 – Community Enterprise. https://www.foundationscotland.org.uk/sites/default/files/202102/Glenkens%20CAP%20report%20FINAL%20280820.pdf 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 4 1.1.Methodology To produce the feasibility study SKS carried out the following work: • • • • • • Background research – Reviewed all relevant information on childcare provision in the area, previous plans and strategic documents. Asset mapping – defined the area to focus the study on. Mapped and reviewed current and past childcare provision. Reviewed recent asset mapping in the area for suitable venue options. Childcare model research - Carried out desk-based research, interviews and consulted with childcare experts. Stakeholder consultation – as the group had already defined the issues, SKS focused on one-to-one stakeholder interviews and workshops to target specific groups, consulting them both before and after the models were created. Models for childcare delivery – using the information above, SKS created options for childcare delivery to present at the workshops. Feasibility report - with recommendations, articulating how the chosen childcare model could be developed 1.2. Glenkens and District Trust Glenkens and District Trust is a two-tier SCIO responsible for enabling community development in the Glenkens and District area. The focus of their work is around three key purposes: 1. To advance citizenship and community development by distributing Wind Farm Community Benefit finance and other grants. 2. The advancement of environmental protection and improvement. 3. The prevention or relief of poverty. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 5 1.3.Area covered in this study “The Glenkens” is the local name for this large, sparsely populated rural area in central Galloway. It is made up of the parishes of Carsphairn, Dalry, Kells, Parton and Balmaclellan. The focus of this study encompasses the all the communities in the CAP area plus Carsphairn. Nearby Dunscore and Glencairn (Moniaive) were also included in some aspects of our research. Focus areas: • Balmaclellan • Balmaghie • Corsock & Kirkpatrick Durham • Crossmichael & District • Dalry • Royal Burgh of New Galloway & Kells Parish • Parton 3 In 2019 the population of the area was 3,754 within 1,999 households, with 26 births recorded that year. House prices are higher than the average for Scotland and for Dumfries and Galloway. There is a general belief that a good sense of community exists in Glenkens and District and that it is a safe and nurturing place to raise a family. However, the sparse population spread means that there are limited opportunities for children and young people to interact socially. This can create serious difficulties for very young children who live in isolated places. 3 Google Maps. Glenkens location map from Statistics.gov.uk 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 6 The population facts and figures below directly impact the childcare provision debate: • • • • • An ageing population with a lower proportion of working age residents (although there is anecdotal evidence that younger families have moved to the area since the last census). An overall decreasing population in Dumfries & Galloway. Anecdotally, the Glenkens population is stable. A decreasing number of young people – 14% of the population are aged 0-15yrs and this number is predicted to decrease further, whilst the population in Scotland as a whole is increasing. A high proportion of car ownership, an infrequent bus service and no train or taxi services. The largest employment sector is agriculture and forestry, followed by health and social work. The service sector is increasingly important along with home working allowed by new technology. Natural Power in the Forrest Glen provides a significant number of technology jobs (80ish) for young people with appropriate qualifications. By 2037 the population of Dumfries & Galloway is projected to be 141,619, a decrease of 6.1% compared to the population in 2012. The population of Scotland is projected to increase by 8.8% between 2012 and 2037. The population aged under 16 in Dumfries & Galloway is projected to decline by 9.5% over the 25-year period. (Data sourced from National Records of Scotland)4 There is anecdotal evidence of a post-coved influx of families into the Glenkens from urban areas. This is reflected in a rapid fall in the number of houses for sale. 4 By 2037 the population of Dumfries & Galloway is projected to be 141,619, a decrease of 6.1% compared to the population in 2012. The population of Scotland is projected to increase by 8.8% between 2012 and 2037. The population aged under 16 in Dumfries & Galloway is projected to decline by 9.5% over the 25 year period. (Data sourced from National Records of Scotland) 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 7 2. Current Provision The map below is available online5 and shows the current provision in the Glenkens area: Glenkens has four primary schools, one nursery and no council framework childminders. The Glenkens geographic area is debated; here we have assumed it includes Crossmichael at the south end and Carsphairn at the north end. There are three cluster/partner schools serving the upland area of The Glenkens in Dumfries and Galloway – Dalry, Kells and Carsphairn. Carsphairn school is currently mothballed and steps are now being taken to close it permanently. The school roll in the area has fallen in recent years. They share resources and teachers. In Dumfries and Galloway all Local Authority run provision is within primary schools. There are no standalone council-run nurseries. Voluntary Provision in the area Parton & Crossmichael Playgroup (nursery) in Glenlochar is run as a non-profit organisation. It provide places for up to 20 children, 2yrs-6mths to 5 years. This is a vital part of the framework, it is well supported, but as a voluntary run project, it is always at risk of funding and fluctuating numbers. (Moniaive and Springholm also have community led provision which is not in the area covered by this study.) 5 https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1a9NUQ36Q8ZLdi2ytUaQqmJMJA3uBp_YJ&usp=sharing 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 8 PRIMARY Dalry Primary School Kirkland Street St Johns Town of Dalry DG7 3UX The school serves the villages of Dalry, Carsphairn and Balmaclellan and much of the surrounding rural district in the Glenkens area. Head teacher: Paul Scrimshaw School roll: 59 pupils 3 Classes: Primary P1 /2, P3/4/5 and P6/7. Hours: 9am to 3.25pm Kells Primary School Braeside, New Galloway Castle Douglas Dumfries and Galloway DG7 3RU The school is situated in the village of New Galloway. The school is paired with Carsphairn and Dalry Primary schools. Crossmichael Primary School Crossmichael, Castle Douglas DG7 3AP Crossmichael Primary serves the villages of Crossmichael, Parton, Glenlochar, Laurieston and surrounding areas. The school is partnered with Gelston Primary School. Head teacher: Paul Scrimshaw School roll: 29 pupils 2 Classes: P1-4 and P5-7 Hours: 9am to 3pm Head teacher: Mrs Mary Lidstone-Scott School roll: 76 pupils (capacity for 100) 3 Classes There are some children who attend Springholm Primary School which is located outside the area. SECONDARY SCHOOL Dalry Secondary School Kirkland Street St Johns Town of Dalry DG7 3UX Castle Douglas High School Dalry Secondary School is a secondary school in St John’s Town of Dalry. It is a partnership school with Castle Douglas High School where S5/S6 pupils who which to continue in full-time education, normally transfer. Head teacher: Mr James Smith School roll: 52 (S1-S4) 3 associated primary schools – Dalry, Kells and Carsphairn. Castle Douglas High School is a secondary school situated on the outskirts of the market town of Castle Douglas. Head teacher: Mr James Smith School roll: 518 (S1-S7) PRE-SCHOOL / NURSERY Dalry School Nursery Kirkland Street St Johns Town of Dalry DG7 3UX Crossmichael and Parton Playgroup Dalry Early Learning and Childcare provision provides places for children from Dalry and the surrounding area including those children who may go onto Kells Primary. Head teacher: Paul Scrimshaw School roll - nursery: 20 Crossmichael and Parton Playgroup - operates from Glenlochar Community Centre. Provide Early Learning and Childcare to children aged 2yrs 6months - 5 yrs. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 9 CHILDMINDERS There are no childminders registered in the Glenkens area and, anecdotally, there are no non-registered child minders. There are 6 Childminders registered in the Stewartry; 5 based in Castle Douglas and 1 in Auchencairn. They provide childcare for 2 to 5 year olds from 7 / 7.30am to 6 /6.30pm. Source: Dumfries and Galloway Council Early Learning and Childcare Expansion Plan 2017-2020. The table above shows the situation 4 years ago, with only 1 childminder providing a service in the area. 3. Early Learning and Childcare - Entitlement The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 defines Early Learning and Childcare as: ‘a service, consisting of education and care, of a kind which is suitable in the ordinary case for children who are under school age, regard being had to the importance of interactions and other experiences which support learning and development in a caring and nurturing environment’ The aim of the Act was to increase the amount and flexibility of Early Learning and Childcare; developing a high quality and flexible system which is accessible and affordable for all children, parents, carers and families. The Act originally increased funded hours to 600; this has since been increased to 1140 hours. D&G outlines the benefits of the new models for delivering 1140 hours Early Learning and Childcare: QUALITY ® All providers will be required to meet the quality benchmark within the Dumfries and Galloway Council framework. ® All providers will adhere to Dumfries and Galloway’s Early Learning and Childcare Strategy. FLEXIBILITY ® There are flexible options within an area for parents and carers by 2021. ® A provider neutral approach will ensure greater choice for parents and carers. ® Aligning out of school care provision with Early Learning and Childcare provision will provide more flexibility for families. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 10 AFFORDABILITY ® Future provision may offer opportunities for parents and carers to purchase additional wrap round care if required. ACCESSIBILITY ® These models will ensure services are accessible to support families to work, train and study. ® Access to Early Learning and Childcare provision will be provided in rural areas. ® Suitable access to provision and resources for children with additional support needs will be provided. Early learning and childcare settings offer education and childcare to children up to school age, they can be operated by the council, private businesses, voluntary organisations, or childminders. Council provision: • • • • • • • • Eligible 2-year-olds and all 3 and 4 year olds may apply to have up to 1140 hours of funded Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) a year. The hours can be taken during term time (38 weeks per year), or all year round. The maximum hours available in most school nurseries per week is 30 hours. Children can access no more than 10 funded hours in any one day. Children accessing funded hours over lunch time may receive a free meal. Most children start school between 4 years 6 months and 5 years old but it's possible to start children later in certain circumstances. These children may be entitled to an extra year of funded early learning and childcare. The 1140 hours is funded but some settings allow parents to purchase additional hours at a cost. Blended placements (defined as arrangements where children are attending two or more settings), are only permitted in extenuating circumstances. Local Authorities do not have a statutory requirement to provide out of school care, although the Children and Young People Act 2014 does require local authorities to consult representative groups of parents at least every two years on non-statutory hours of childcare, including out of school care. The 1995 Children (Scotland) Act placed a statutory duty on local authorities to provide daycare for school age children “in need6”, before and after school and during holidays. Being a child ‘in need’ is defined at section 93(4) of the 1995 Act as ‘being in need of care and attention’ because of a number of factors related to the child achieving or maintaining a reasonable standard of health or development; and disability – of the child themselves or a member of their family which, in turn, affects the child adversely. 6 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 11 4. The challenges and requirements The challenges around childcare provision have been evidenced from previous research, the CAP, workshops with community groups and stakeholder conversations. • Geography – dispersed settlements • Low population with fluctuating age cohorts • Personnel issues e.g., recruitment of qualified staff • Securing appropriate space / premises in an accessible location • Resourcing a 5 day a week guaranteed offering which will give parents/carers confidence to change their childcare and/or work. • Cost • How to cater to a wide range of children from very young babies to older school-aged children Gaps in the provision: • No council funded places for 2 year olds in the Glenkens. • No nursery for 2 year olds and younger. • No afterschool/preschool provision for school aged children. • No holiday clubs • No childminders 4.1.Previous Evidence / Background Info Nursery Provision In 2003, the Glenkens Childcare Initiative Feasibility Study was produced by White Hill. This study looked at the demand for childcare and concluded that there were sufficient numbers to secure the financial viability of a childcare facility in the Glenkens area. Bright Stars was developed as a result of this study. It provided nursery places for 2-5 year olds and was run by a mix of volunteers and employees. The nursery closed in 2019 due to low numbers of children, which made the service financially unsustainable. Childminding £4.14 Average rate per hour per child in Dumfries and Galloway (compared to £4.40 average across Scotland). Asset Mapping At the time of writing this report, Martha Schofield was carrying out an asset mapping exercise in the Glenkens area. The report was not available at this time, but Martha provided useful information (see Stakeholder Interviews, below, and appendix 4). 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 12 4.2.Stakeholder Interviews Online community workshops were initially planned. They were promoted on social media in early June, but uptake was very low and the preference from respondents was for one-to-one interviews. Nb. It is thought that the low uptake was due to several online workshops recently being carried out in the area, hence enthusiasm to participate in another was low. An extensive and wide-ranging programme of one-to-one interviews was therefore focused on, which generated strong participation and a good insight into different respondent’s experience knowledge – both local and further afield. These interviews are fully documented in appendix 1. Stakeholder’s names and contact details were obtained from: • • • The Trust Interest created from workshop promotion Third party introduction • • Dumfries & Galloway Council website SKS contacts A total of 23 stakeholder interviews were set up and carried out on Zoom or by telephone. These include: • • • • • • • The Headteacher of a local primary school – The former Chairperson of Bright Stars Community nursery An asset mapping expert Director of a private nursery in Castle Douglas Teacher with experience setting up and working in outdoor childcare settings Registered childminder Various experienced childcare workers, working in local playgroups and nurseries • • • • • • • Chair of Carsphairn Community Council Local Ward Officer/parent Dumfries & Galloway Council - Early Years Team NHS Screen Services Programme Scottish Childminding Association Three childcare experts with experience in Scotland and abroad 9 parents, some more than once and covering a wide range of children’s ages and what they want from childcare • 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 13 Interviews – SWOT Analysis A SWOT analysis has been carried out, to examine and focus the information gathered during the interviews. Strengths Weakness GENERAL • Community spirit can make informal childcare arrangements more workable. GENERAL • Area is rural and dispersed/remote. • Parental driving usually has to be involved to access childcare. • Local schools closing. • Numbers of children from year to year fluctuates, proving a lack of stability/viability. • Lack of childcare is a huge issue for parents and impacts children in Glenkens. • Feasibility study carried out in 2003 concluded that there wasn’t enough demand in Glenkens to justify opening a new nursery. CHILDMINDING • Childminding can be flexible work for providers and fit with their lives. • Scottish Childminding Association support highly regarded. NURSERIES • Nursery provision hours has recently been extended for 3 year old +. • Local nursery provision is highly regarded CHILDMINDING • Childminding seen as an onerous job with complicated paperwork and red tape. • Grants for childcare providers have been hard to come by recently. • Low number of volunteers for clubs such as Beavers and Brownies. • Provision for children aged 0-3 years is sparce. Opportunities Threats GENERAL • Respondents suggested using windfarm money to provide assistance for childcare provision. • Approach Natural Power for potential match funding. • A network of nannies or house keepers, which would take some of the stress out of working with children. • The Trust to share information i.e. lists of childminders, au pair companies etc. • Utilise Galloway Transport Initiative. • Attract young families – needs more activities that are parent and child friendly. • There are assets in Glenkens (e.g. village halls etc) that could be used for locating childcare models. • Encourage mums to get together, perhaps through Mothers that Matter. New Galloway Town Hall. GENERAL • Lack of childcare options can lead to parents struggling to work, poor mental health, lack of socialising options for children etc. This can drive people out of the area or discourage people from moving to it. • When a new childcare option is offer it takes a while to ‘bed-in’ and has to be guaranteed for a period of time or parents will not have the confidence to change their current arrangement – initially there will always be low numbers. Failure can be self-fulfilling prophecy as this is used as evidence that demand isn’t there. • School nursery/pre-school is 9am-3pm during term times which is not sufficient for many working parents. • Staff – unreliable and difficult to source. Can be a high turnover. CHILDMINDING • Childminding can provide flexible work and childcare options at a low cost. • Offers from individuals to act as ‘mentors’ to help potential childminders navigate the process. PLAYGROUPS/NURSERIES • Crossmichael playgroup – funding can be problematic. Closure of this facility would have a big impact on the area. • Providing holiday care can be difficult, as it is bound up in red tape (e.g. staff holidays, legal guidelines) – not worth CHILDMINDING • Care Inspectorate registration process is difficult and 1st inspection can put people off. • D&G Council process can be difficult. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 14 • Trust could give support to prospective childminder to help them through registration process. doing it. Not financially viable, nor work for staff. NURSERIES • GDT could underwrite model for 2 or 3 years so people can relax into it. It you build a service, people will come. • Forest school clubs. AFTERSCHOOL CLUB • • • Kells and Dalry schools could base an afterschool club at one and transport kids to the other. Galloway Activity Centre – outdoor activity centre Outdoor childcare – some local people have experience setting up/running outdoor childcare afterschool clubs. One local teacher is willing to help set one up. There are potential locations available. Fits with general ethos in area. BABYSITTING • Create informal bank of babysitting. Make it community led, encourage retired and young people to be involved. Perhaps a fund could be available to help those on a lower income. The various points in this analysis have all been considered and used to inform section 6: suggested models and evaluation. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 15 5. Comparator Models Initially we looked for models both in the UK and Europe. However, differing regulations in Europe and cultural differences would have made the models hard to replicate in Scotland. The regulation framework in Scotland contributes to the lack of diversity in childcare models in the country. For a realistic approach, we have therefore looked at models within the UK. 5.1. Fife mobile creche service This is a non-profit service, part funded by Fife council. The council also provides play resources and vans to transport staff to the various creche venues. It caters for children aged between 6 weeks and 12 years of age, operating from 9am to 11pm. The service is registered with the Care Commission, to provide creche services for up to 14 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a very flexible service which works well in rural communities. They provide creches for community, public and voluntary organisations, allowing parents and carers to Figure 1 Example of a mobile creche van benefit from one-off events such as college open days, to weekly parenting support groups or basic skills courses delivered over a number of months. Creches are free for parents/carers and are held on the site of the event. Income is generated from the community, public and voluntary services who "buy in" the creche service. They can be hired for events which helps the service remain sustainable, producing an income to off-set the cost of the service. Creche venues are vetted before being approved for use. Staff are drawn from a 40-strong pool of casual workers, all of whom undergo two and a half days' induction training and are required to have, or be working towards, nationally recognised childcare qualifications. During the first six months of employment, they are also required to complete training in relevant issues, such as child protection, health and safety, and first aid. They have a good system for signing children in and out and provide regular slots for children during term time and in the holidays. 5.2. Auchlone Nature Kindergarten Children between 2 and 5 years old spend the majority of the day outdoors in all weathers. They run a week-day nursery as well as holiday camps for older children. In the past, Mindstretchers, the organisation who run Auchlone, have provided staff to run outdoor afterschool clubs in local primary schools. The site is situated in the Abercairny estate, about four miles from Crieff at an old estate gatehouse, which provides toilet facilities and a small amount of heated indoor space. Other structures include a 3-sided outdoor 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 16 room, with a kitchen and heating stove. There is also a wooden to keep all the children’s coats and it has an area with soft cushions for relaxing. In the woods there is an outdoor shelter with seats around a campfire. The children spend the majority of their time in the naturalistic garden or in the woodlands where they build dens and bird hides using tools such as saws and loppers, make fires to cook their own snacks, climb trees and generally explore. There is also a mud kitchen and a gardening area. During the Covid-19 closures, they ran a Virtual Nature School which has continued to operate. The children come from all over Perthshire and Stirlingshire. Many families are happy to travel an extra distance to access the services of Auchlone, even if they have a traditional nursery on their doorstep. Funding: They have funded places from Perth Council as well as privately funded places. 5.3. Springholm Primary School Nursery This is a small rural nursery offering pre-school education. They are developing the learning environment for nursery children by providing an innovative outdoor nursery within the grounds of the village primary school. They also benefit from having safe access to Springholm School Forest area, playing fields, The Bridge and the Burn to enhance the learning journey. Open 8.30am – 3pm Funding: Black Craig Windfarm, parent fundraising activities, government provision. 5.4. Lauriston Childminder The following information was gathered during a one-to-one interview carried out by SKS with a childminder in Lauriston who has been a Registered childminder in the town for 16 years. She is also registered with the Council to provide ELC for 3 / 4year-olds, can have up to 6 children and provides wrap around care and holiday childminding from 7am – 6pm. She has had children from Glenkens in the past but picks up from various schools near her so can’t now pick up from Dalry. She loves being a childminder and it has meant she can work with a degree of flexibility and control. When asked why she thought there was not childminding options in the Glenkens & District area, she mentioned some perceived issues which, if addressed by the Trust, might enable and encourage local people to become childminders. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 17 For example, she felt that going through the registration process with the Care Inspectorate was onerous and getting through the first inspection and required paperwork caused panic – she knows of people who started the process and pulled out because they felt out of their depth. The childminder has also had problems when registering ‘variations’ with the Council i.e., she applied to care for more than six children as she has the capacity and there is the demand, but has to apply for planning permission to change the use of her house to ‘business’. She would have to put in a pre-application (£50) – which takes months for the Council to process – and then has to pay £400 for full application, plus additional Council Tax. She doesn’t know whether it is worth her while, and the Council make her feel as if she is being difficult. These are all potential barriers for those that might consider being a childminder in the Glenkens area that could be addressed and assisted by the Trust. For example: • • • • appropriate signposting/promotion initiated to encourage people to look at childminding as a career option links built with the Scottish Childminding Association a mentoring programme with a local expert to help get through the Council and Care Inspectorate processes created financial assistance offered in some cases 6. Suggested models and evaluation Key to the success of all the models below is the continuity of service. Each model will need to give parents and carers the confidence that the provision is sustainable long term. They will need support to become established over 1 or 2 years, become embedded within the community, so that parents/carers have the confidence to rely on them for their work/life commitments. 6.1. Models – Long List All the models we have listed below reflect the pedagogy of the setting and current research and policy around ELC provision. Their unique financial, social and environmental characteristics have been evaluated by SKS, GDT and educational consultants to find the best model for the Glenkens area. All models will require support in the set-up stages. The clear message from all stakeholders was the need for long-term solutions that will give parents and carers confidence to change current arrangements. Key to the success of these models is the continuity of service. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 18 CHILDMINDER MODEL Childminder – Private Provider or Partner Provider Model Summary: Provision for 0-3 year olds. Full-time and part-time care. Provision for primary school wraparound care. Private sector provision with set-up support from GDT. Care provided in childminders home setting. As a private parent/carer-funded business. GDT provide a Starter Pack and Safety Net to help recruit and sustain a childminder in the area. Starter Pack: • Set amount of money towards start-up costs • Support and mentoring provided by Scottish Childminders Association membership. • Care Inspectorate registration fee. Safety Net: Financial support for childminders if the child numbers fall below the minimum sustainable number from the business plan. Support Group: A support group/network for childminders in Glenkens area was suggested Evaluation Benefits: Fulfils the requirements of 0-3 year olds and primary school wrap around care. A practical solution for a dispersed population. Flexible Lots of support from the local community from people with childminding experience (e.g. Director of Treasure Island Nursery) Challenges: £4.14 per hour is low. Need to recruit childminders and help fund start-up costs. Over 6 children and you need to go through the planning department to change the use of your house. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 19 CLUB MODELS Model Evaluation Breakfast Club • Run by a paid co-ordinator (part grant funded, GDT funded). • Falls under the 2-hr requirement for registration, so we can be more flexible about who delivers this. • £4.50 cost per child per hour or subsidised by funding/sponsorship (£5ph in Castle Douglas). • Free venue (school? or other) would leave more resources to run the club. • Provide toast, cereal and fruit. • Costs – staff and resources. Benefits: Easier to set up due to less regulations (under 2 hrs) Could provide a healthy breakfast, which is shown to increase children’s attainment and provide social benefits of sharing the first meal of the day7. Provides a safe, supportive environment. Challenges: Requires co-operation from the school or other venue. Co-ordination. Volunteers Model Evaluation Afterschool Club • Run by a paid co-ordinator who will establish a timetable of activities e.g. 6-week block of lets get sporty. • £4.50 per hour (£11 for 3-6pm in Castle Douglas. £5ph for holiday club) • Free venue (school? or other) would leave more resources to run the club. • Costs – staff and resources. Benefits8: Supports growth of the community. Incorporate outdoor play. Opportunities to take part in activities Challenges9: Accessible and affordable. Finding suitable premises, look for LA support Registration with Care Inspectorate Meet the National Care Standards for Early Education and Childcare. Recruitment and staff retention. Model Outdoor afterschool Club Run voluntarily or paid position - by local teachers/parents, initially as a part-time option (2/3 days per week), in Dalry Primary playground and area beside it. Minimum contribution to pay for essentials (£2 per child?). Seek out funding/match funding to extend model. 7 Community Food and Health Gov.scot Out of School Care Executive Summary f 9 Business Start Up Guide Out of School Club Scotland 8 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 20 Evaluation Benefits: Supports the Glenkens ethos of outdoor activities Lower running costs. Local trained staff available, with a strong interest in outdoor learning. Challenges: Risk assessments. Community support. Suitable location and venue. NURSERY AND TODDLER GROUP MODELS Nursery Model • Provision for 3 year olds and under • Community based. Evaluation Benefits: Local childcare access Challenges: Committee run – turnover of volunteers as children move on. Running costs for low numbers Model Mobile Toddler Group A mobile toddler group that rotates around different communities and locations. Either as a: • Mobile facility - Modified vehicle which can host ELC sessions. • Pop-up provision - Staff and equipment are brought to community facilities to deliver ELC sessions • Support from Early Years Scotland Run by a funded Co-Ordinator whose role will be engage with the communities, fundraising, organise planned activities and liaise with volunteers. Location suggestions: CatStrand in New Galloway – potential location for initial group whilst numbers build. Smiddy in Balmaclellan, Glenkens Community Centre, Dalry Session House, Dalry Town Hall, Spalding Bowling Club, Dalry Evaluation Benefits: Potential to overcome capacity problems where there isn’t full time access to a built setting. Potential to provide employment/career start for young local people who have an interest in developing a career in childcare. Can help provide outdoor learning at dispersed settings. Increases service viability if they can cover a greater area. Could include intergenerational engagement Challenges: Set up and running costs. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 21 Model Outdoor Provision – Part of the Ethos of all models There are benefits from outdoor learning and opportunities within any of these models. Run mainly outdoors but would still need a fall-back space for severe weather. Community run with parents to help with set up and running. Aim to move to paid co-ordinator. Evaluation Benefits Local trained staff available, with a strong interest in outdoor learning. Quality of provision is far higher than a group based in a community hall. Potential to be year round, rather than just term time. Can get funding for clothing. A cost effective solution with less reliance on a built environment or help increase capacity with a setting. Outdoor play is a Health and Social Care Standard for children Provides considerable benefits in terms of physical and mental health, development and environmental awareness for children. Challenges Suitable location Staff recruitment, retention and training. Model Childcare Hub Phase One: Provision of Baby and Toddler Group. Run by a funded Co-Ordinator whose role will be engage with the community, fundraising, organise planned activities for both groups and liaise with volunteers. Phase Two: Afterschool Club & Holiday Club Run by the Co-Ordinator for school-aged children. Phase Three: Expansion into nursery provision for under 3s and holiday/extended hours for 3 year olds. Once the Baby and Toddler Group and Afterschool Club are embedded within the community, the Day Centre can investigate expansion of services to childcare/nursery provision for 2year olds and younger. Recruit a nursery manager. Galloway Transport Initiative – transport between the two schools. Location suggestions: CatStrand in New Galloway – potential location for initial group whilst numbers build. Glenkens Community Centre Dalry Session House Dalry Town Hall Spalding Bowling Club, Dalry 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 22 Evaluation Benefits: If an active and well-run Baby and Toddler Group and Afterschool Club are established, they will attract people from all over the Glenkens. The natural flow to this is to expand to nursery provision. Challenges: Sustainability of numbers. Staff. Location Intergenerational Practice Model Intergenerational practice is defined as interactions that bring together younger and older generations for a common purpose (St Monica Trust, 2018). These interactions are purposeful and planned, rather than just an activity out with the normal routine. Some ELC centres have co-located with residential care homes for older adults e.g. Nightingale House in Wandsworth Evaluation Benefits: It’s proven to provide varied learning experiences, increases children’s confidence and helps them grow into effective members of society and community. Intergenerational practice does not need significant financial resources it can make use of available spaces and buildings. Challenges: Co-ordination and logistics. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 23 6.2. Models – Review and Short List The models above were discussed with the GDT and refined to present to a workshop group of parents and key stakeholders. Model Childminder Model Review Provision for 0-3 year olds. Fulltime and part-time care. Provision for primary school children wrap around care. Feasibility High Workshop Feedback All agreed this was the preferred model and would like to see it taken forward. Club Model Provision for school children. Wraparound care before and after school. Should include holiday provision. Should include an outdoor element. High Medium Felt this was best run in the school. Would suggest a private group run the clubs within the school building. Nursery and Toddler Group Models Provision for pre-school children. Full-time and part-time care. Medium Low Agreed to save this model for future developments. Outdoor Provision High All agreed they would like to see outdoor provision with any model taken forward. Childcare Hub + Provision for pre-school children. Intergenerational Practice Full-time and part-time care. Intergenerational practice is an idea for future project phases. Low Felt this wasn’t feasible at this time. See appendix 3 for the workshop notes from the short listed models. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 24 7. Feasibility report The Childminder Model received the backing of both the workshop attendees and the GDT. It was agreed that the other models all had merit and could be revisited in the future. The first priority is the establish a network of childminders in the Glenkens area. Childminding is consistently rated by the Care Inspectorate as providing one of the highest quality forms of childcare in Scotland10. The Scottish Childminders Association (SCMA) will be an important partner in this process. They will be able to help guide both the GDT and potential childminders through the process. Outdoor provision as a stand-alone “club” model as well as part of childminding provision, was also seen as a priority. It is suggested that the GDT follow up engagements with the relevant stakeholders (appendix 1) to continue conversations on club provision. We have considered the following aspects of the chosen model to establish viability. 7.1. Delivery Model: GDT aim to enable, encourage and support the establishment of a reliable supply of childminders across the Glenkens and District to supply daily and wrap around childcare (the management of this model is explored in section 7.1.4 below). They will be self-employed, working from their home and caring for other people’s children for payment. Advertise 10 Incentivise Support SCMA quote. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 25 7.1.1. Incentives Plan Starter Pack Support Group Safety Net STARTER PACK Below is an overview of the main costs involved in started a childminding business. Start Up Requirements Care Inspectorate registration fee Details Childminders must, by law, register with the Care Inspectorate. Cost £28 registration fee (£17 annual continuation fee) Associated with this is a list of policies and procedures which must be completed. 11 It takes 3-6 months to become registered and will include a home visit. Childminding Induction Training This can be undertaken during the registration process. Can be done online. Membership of the PVG scheme Protection of Vulnerable Groups (PVG) Scheme record check for each childminder. Criminal records checks Disclosure Scotland criminal records checks for all those aged over 16, including adult children, who live with the childminder. Fire Safety Checklist to be completed and sent to the local Fire and Rescue Service. Support and mentoring provided by Scottish Childminders Association membership. Fire safety risk assessment SCMA Membership Public liability insurance Business class car insurance Premises adaption cost First aid training IT and essential equipment Business stationery Care plan organiser Business Plan & Accounting 11 Add on to business class 1 to current insurance. Wired smoked detectors, stair gates etc. Free - £200 Funding available from Skills Development Scotland. £59 £25 £0 (self-managed) £48 per year £42 per year £50 per year Potential funding from Business Gateway Recommended but not required. Potential funding from Business Gateway Needed to support the business. E.g. laptop Potential funding from Business Gateway E.g. cash books and contracts Part of SCMA membership Help to fill in a business plan to review £40 SCMA course minimum child numbers and sustainability. covering the business Accounting support for self-employment. side of childminding. Register with HMRC. Care Inspectorate application guide 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 26 SUPPORT GROUP A support group/network for childminders in Glenkens area was suggested. SCMA already provides this service. They run training courses and provide help with registration and first year support. We suggest a mentor service would be helpful to guide potential childminders through the process. There are local people who have offered this support service. SAFETY NET Financial support for childminders if the child numbers fall below the minimum sustainable number from the business plan. This could be linked to the childminders business plan. Year 1 Year 2 Mentor for guidance Mentor for guidance Funding for set up costs Membership of SCMA Membership of SCMA Help recruiting clients Safety net funding Year 3 Membership of SCMA Safety net funding 7.1.2. Funding Blackcraig Wind Farm - GDT should consider how much they can contribute to costs via the windfarm allocation of funding. For example, could they fund set up and insurance costs for the first year? Could they fund SCMA membership annually? Access to Childcare Fund12 - The purpose of this fund is to support childcare solutions that enable more accessible and affordable childcare for families. Primarily aimed at the six priority family groups as set out in Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan. Skills Development Scotland – Potential to fund training and cover Childminding Induction Support Programme costs. Apply for an Individual Training Account (ITA) Business Gateway – Support with business set up. Potential funds for business set up costs. A suggested option is GDT set up a sub-fund to offer bursaries to people who want to become childminders. The fund would need to be coordinated by a GDT member or sub-contractor, marketing the fund, review of applications and dispersal of the fund be included in this role. An example of this type of fund and how it is structured - EDF Renewables Burnhead Moss Education & Training (BMET) Fund. 12 https://childreninscotland.org.uk/access-to-childcare-fund-summary/ 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 27 7.1.3. Recruitment and Advertising Target audience: The workshop group recommended targeting parents with young/primary school children. Adverts should sell the benefits of becoming a childminder and the support available. • • • • • Advertisements should be put in local papers and magazines. Posters should be displayed in local shops and halls. Social media posts should be created and shared amongst local groups. The local schools should email the poster to parents. Listing on the SCMA website. We recommend that GDT offer childminders a Starter Pack at the beginning of the process and reassurance with a Safety Net protocol set out. Example text for advert: Professional childminding enables you to: Help to get started. We will: ✓ Contribute to children’s development and learning in your community. ✓ Develop new skills and qualifications. ✓ Be your own boss. ✓ Run your own business from home. ✓ Earn money while working around your family’s needs ✓ Talk to you about the pros and cons ✓ Contribute financial support with set up costs ✓ Provide mentors to help guide you through the process ✓ Offer support groups with other childminders ✓ Support you to create a thriving business 7.1.4. Management GDT will encourage, support and help to resource to enable this project. An organisation needs to be identified to manage a key person to co-ordinate the set-up of this model. Their role would include: • • • • Documenting the process and support package Setting up the support package with partner providers Co-ordinating the advertising and recruitment Working with mentors to provide support We see this as need an initial set-up piece of work for 3 months. This would then become a part-time role which could be incorporated into other development roles within the organisation. There is potential for this to become a self-led service eventually. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 28 7.2. Cost of Provision and Cost to Customers Childminder Income Average rate is £4.14 per hour per child (average across Scotland is £4.40). Example: 2 x children full time 5 days a week (8am to 6pm) = £414 gross income per week 4 x children after school hours 5 days a week (1 hr am, 3 hrs pm) = £331.20 gross income per week Annual gross income for a childminder with 2 full time children, 48wks of the year = £19,872 Annual gross income for a childminder with 4 school children, 48wks of the year = £15,898 Childminders on the council framework have slightly different rates, £4.01 per hour for children age three and over, £4.78 per hour for two-year-olds and £9.51 per hour to support children with additional support needs. The council require childminders to adhere to the Professional Learning and Development Pathway for Childminders. Childminder Annual Expenditure Care inspectorate SCMA Membership Additional car insurance Public liability insurance Equipment, stationary, supplies TOTAL Annual cost £17 £48 £50 £42 £480 (est £10 per wk) £637 Cost to Parents/Carers Average rate is £4.14 per hour per child Example: 1 x child full time 5 days a week (8am to 6pm) = £207 per week 1 x child before & after school 5 days a week (1 hr am, 3 hrs pm) = £82.80 per week 7.3. Social and economic impact Learning Provision of childcare impacts on the development, learning and behavior of a child. A childminder’s relationship with the parent/carer also gives an opportunity for teaching and guiding behavior, which can impact the way they parent. Social interaction This is important in many ways for children. They learn and develop skills from being in a social environment away from their home. Communication, forming relationships, physical movements, language skills, resolving conflicts, learning about boundaries are all part of socialising with other children. In rural settings, children do not always experience the day to day interactions we take for granted in urban environments. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 29 Economy High-quality childcare impact personal finances and the economy. It gives the opportunity to increase parental earnings and employment, by providing the ability for both parents to work, thus reducing the wage gap. This leads to greater educational attainment and earnings for children in adulthood. These programs also benefit taxpayers and strengthen the economy. Childminding provides a flexible self-employment option for local people. This could potentially help parents/carers who aren’t able to find work due to their own childcare commitments. 7.4. Community support From conversations with stakeholders and workshop sessions SKS has noted a great deal of support from the local community for the childminding model. Some degree of skepticism for this and other models was, however, shown by those who have experienced the disappointment of short-lived projects of provision that has had to close, which is why we need to ensure any new provision has the support to become sustainable. Community members volunteered their help and knowledge to support projects. 7.5. Challenges Opportunities: • Childminders are self-employed and can set their own rates of pay. • Registered childminders have the opportunity to become a “partner provider” with the local council – which will enable them to deliver funded early learning and childcare (ELC). Additional requirements are needed to do this. • Expand provision outdoors by participating in activities with OWL Scotland (Outdoor woodland learning) who have a group in D&G13. Challenges: • Fluctuating numbers of children due to birth rates and the economic situation. Numbers could fall below a viable level to continue with the business. • The number of children is limited depending on how many children belonging to the childminder, are currently at home. • Childminder’s commitment to training and paperwork. • Recruitment of childminders. • As childminding suits those with young children and their own accommodation, it is unlikely to provide employment for other elements of the local population. • Confidence of parents/carers. 13 https://www.owlscotland.org/local-groups/dumfries_and_galloway_cluster_group/cluster/projects 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 30 7.6. Evaluation The service delivery model should include an evaluation strategy to measure, record and evidence the changes it has brought about for children, families, communities and staff. We suggest an anonymous survey to parents/carers and childminders after one year of provision. 16/09/2021 CHILDCARE FEASIBILITY STUDY for Glenkens & District Trust 31  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Childcare Feasibility Study Description An account of the resource This feasibility study from SKS Consulting was commissioned by Glenkens & District Trust using Blackcraig funds in order to explore what solutions might be available to meet the challenges to local childcare provision. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_6 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available SKS Consulting CAP Theme 3 children https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/602/CAP_Covid_Learning_Report_cover.jpg 44c57328b71245dc862ceeca6955a601 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/602/CAP_Covid_Learning_Report.pdf 29f2e284a557bbc521f4f41593b45be7 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document COVID and Community Resilience Learning Report June 2021 “Resilience is more than just bad weather and sandbags” 1) Introduction As part of a commission to support Glenkens and District Trust in the set-up phase of the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, Sleeping Giants (on behalf of the partnership delivery team) were asked tp undertake a programme of work to learn from local community resilience teams’ experience of COVID-19, in order to:  assess local COVID-19 related activity that took place, the value added and whether any initiatives need support to be continued and/or should be included in the Action Plan in its current or an evolved format; along with  consideration of the scope and ambition of the Action Plan and whether it needs to be revised in response to the likely knock-on effects of the pandemic on our communities. With this brief in mind, Sleeping Giants interviewed several community resilience teams1 as well as members of the Stewartry Locality Hub which included local Ward Officers from Dumfries and Galloway Council, a Health Improvement Officer from the NHS locality team, and the locality Engagement Officer from Third Sector Dumfries and Galloway. During these interviews, information was gathered around:  the kind of activities run, during various phases of lockdown and the ongoing pandemic  numbers of people helped and in what way  what worked well and any particular achievements  any challenges or frustrations teams faced  any learning for the future, both for ongoing community resilience efforts and for the CAP. The findings are presented below, alongside a summary of the key lessons learned and recommendations for the future. 2) Background to Community Resilience Teams All community resilience teams interviewed were linked to their local community council in some way, although the degree to which community councils took an active role varied with several having been almost completely ‘stood down’ due to e.g. more vulnerable members self-isolating and difficulties meeting online etc. Some teams were much more informal, while others had much more robust infrastructure, more volunteers and wider range of activities. Some teams were fully led and managed through the community council while in others, community resilience efforts began with active community members taking the initiative first, eventually linking with community councils to support infrastructure including insurance, ownership of the community resilience plans and access to funding. There were also community resilience teams who were supported by paid members of staff, who were partly redeployed by local organisations to help support community resilience efforts. In these communities, the range of support available to local communities was much wider. Community resilience plans were also patchy, with some community councils having plans in place, and designated community resilience leads, while others had no plan in place and had to start from scratch. Even where community resilience plans existed however, none covered eventualities such as a global pandemic and were more targeted towards bad weather / accidents etc. 1 Balmaghie, Crossmichael, Corsock and Kirkpatrick Durham, Parton, Dunscore, New Galloway, Balmaclellan, Dalry and Carsphairn The local authority and the Stewartry Locality Hub supported community resilience efforts by:  providing a framework for the community resilience efforts through a new template for community resilience plans  providing community resilience volunteers named on plans with ID to help identify them to community members, shopkeepers and the police during the height of stay at home restrictions  providing funding to community councils to support community resilience efforts, focussed initially on the purchase of PPE  linking volunteers and vulnerable people who contacted central numbers to local community resilience teams  providing regular briefings and information through community resilience leads. 3) Activities Provided by Community Resilience Teams The range of activities provided by community resilience teams varied greatly, depending on the size of the community, the voluntary capacity available and often dependent on whether there was support from members of staff from local organisations as outlined above. That said, at the height of the COVID pandemic, particularly through the first lockdown, community resilience teams undertook a range of activities, many of which fell into the same broad themes.        Planning, management and infrastructure Working in partnership Communications Provision of / supporting access to food Supporting acute health needs Reducing isolation / improving mental health Community events and activities As time went on and the initial crisis response phase of the pandemic became less acute, some of the community resilience activities became less needed, but many of the same work themes above remained, just to a lesser extent. Different community resilience teams reported supporting different numbers of people. This ranged from two that supported fewer than 10 people, three that supported 10-50, three that supported 50-100 and one that supported over 100 people at the height of lockdown restrictions. 3.1) Planning, management and infrastructure “A capacity for self-organisation is particularly important in disaster management, where citizen-led initiatives are often more timely, responsive to local needs, and effective over the longer term than external responses”2 2 The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertain: Contributions of Volunteered Geographic Information to Community Disaster Resilience: Frontiers in Earth Science, 01 November 2018. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2018.00183/full Community resilience leads (to a lesser or greater extent) undertook a range of activities to build the infrastructure of community resilience teams including:  recruiting and supporting volunteers including allocating roles, ensuring good communication (including through holding community resilience team meetings), processing expenses, distributing PPE etc.  developing / updating community resilience plans to more fully reflect activities during the pandemic  liaising / linking with the Community Council re. plans, money, insurance, activity etc.  developing databases, policies and processes to support the work (including GDPR / Risk etc.)  setting up communication methods (to and from community / between partners / volunteers etc.)  allocating funds to activity including the purchase of PPE etc. Several challenges were identified in relation to the effective planning and management of community resilience teams and the development of their infrastructure. These included:  a lack of clarity around: o who was leading the community resilience efforts (e.g. volunteers or the community council) o everyone’s different roles o where decision making powers lay  a disconnect between some community resilience teams and community councils, which was at times due to some community councils having been ‘stood down’ with many members vulnerable or lacking capacity to engage  the lack of central co-ordination which it was felt at times led to disjointedness and duplication of effort  community resilience plans either not being in place or not fit for purpose, often focussed more on bad weather  some teams lacked the knowledge, skills or capacity to be very ‘organised’, and communities with no central ‘hub’ (shop / hall / funded group or organisation etc.) found it harder to co-ordinate  teams sometimes lacked diversity leading to (at times) a lack of agreement on needs or focus of activity 3.2) Working in partnership “Collaborative disaster management is recognized as an important contributor to resilience but requires coordination and pre-existing trust between government agencies, third sector, private sector, and the community”3 Many local community resilience teams relied on a range of public, private and third sector organisations to support their work. Partnership related activities included:    3 engaging with local community councils (challenges outlined above notwithstanding) who ‘owned’ plans, provided insurance, helped with local knowledge and connections, and distributed funds linking with Third Sector Dumfries and Galloway – receiving referrals for volunteers as well as vulnerable people in need of help linking with local Posties who supported leaflet distribution in some areas As above      engaging with local business (shops, cafes, supermarkets, take-aways, fuel providers etc.) who were often critical in supporting the community resilience efforts linking with other local groups and organisations including churches referring / signposting community members to other help (e.g. Food Train, food bank, NHS etc.) using individuals in the community who had good local knowledge to help identify people who were vulnerable etc. in one area, linking with a local GP who did some additional voluntary support to take pressure off NHS There were however some things which got in the way of effective partnership work in some areas, including:       not all areas having community shops, community facilities, or other community groups / organisations meaning they were quite isolated and had less local capacity and infrastructure not enough communication and cross working between community resilience teams which prevented the sharing of ideas, capacity, skills and resources some community resilience teams being unsure of how appropriate it is to refer people onto other help for fear of offending or breaching GDPR regulations etc. lack of clarity about who to ring with specific questions about COVID e.g. ward workers or Third Sector Interface it not always being clear who should be doing what (see planning, management and infrastructure above) a danger identified if communities were to over rely on postal workers, both because postal rounds don’t map neatly with community council areas, leading to a risk of people being missed; and also because there can be the threat of disciplinary action for individual posties from Royal Mail management for providing informal deliveries, given the increasing workloads of their paid role. 3.3) Communication “Resilience is intimately associated with good communication; whereby two-way dialog delivers both resources to communities and intelligence regarding community needs to relevant agencies”4 Effective communication was seen as the fundamental cornerstone of most community resilience efforts, and as such a whole range of activities were undertaken around this theme including:         4 disseminating information via leaflets around door, on notice boards and in shops etc. using existing media channels such as the Glenkens Gazette to share information and highlight activities being undertaken setting up and using a whole range of electronic communication, including email lists, WhatsApp groups and social media pages, some which were new and dedicated only to the pandemic, others which utilised existing e.g. community council Facebook pages. talking to people at their doors (while ensuring social distancing) to pass on information and make connections using informal networks such as word of mouth / ringing around engaging people online through e.g. zoom meetings and events (where shops existed) using these as a useful focal point for communication using creative ways to get messages across e.g. sending out a spring bulb with information to raise spirits As above Again however, some key challenges which impeded effective communication were identified by community resilience teams and many worried that there were vulnerable people who were being missed. These included:       fundamentally, not having contact details of community members (including those with vulnerabilities) and for many community resilience teams, these had to be quickly gathered a lack of knowledge and awareness about GDPR and ways in which to store people’s data safely, which put some off from gathering information in the first place there being no central point for communication for many teams with no central mobile phone or central email etc. difficulties in reaching people in outlying areas (both in terms of knowledge of who was out there and where community council boundaries lay, as well as capacity to deliver information outside the main villages) community councils having to quickly adapt to new ways of working e.g. online broadband connectivity issues and other forms of digital exclusion, with not everyone online or able to use email / social media, not least some older and more vulnerable members of the community 3.4) Provision of / supporting access to food In the early stages of the pandemic, with high levels of public fear causing panic buying and older and more vulnerable people being told clearly not to leave the house, there was an acute need for community resilience teams to support access to food and other essentials, and volunteers undertook a range of efforts including:       distributing information to the community about who could deliver food and how to order. e.g. supermarkets, local shops, butchers, grocers etc. undertaking shopping for vulnerable people (lots of this also happened informally) undertaking various other ways of distributing food such as food parcels, sharing home grown food, supporting bulk-buying (e.g. cash and carry), providing hot meals, distributing cakes to the elderly, collective ordering from local take-aways, volunteers supporting delivery of food from local shops providing access to emergency food to tackle food poverty and to help with ease of access – engaging with food banks, referrals to Food Train, setting up community food / wellbeing cupboards where people replace food if and when they can linking with local shops, which again were instrumental in providing basic necessities for people in outlying areas offering access to cooking facilities (stoves, gas, flasks, food flasks etc.) if required There were several challenges related to people accessing necessities (and community resilience teams supporting this access) including:     difficulty getting Tesco and other supermarket orders some basic essentials not being available in supermarkets due to panic buying responding to instances of food poverty, which was more of an issue that anticipated concerns that some people were resistant to asking for help when they needed it and may have been going without As the pandemic progressed, this need became less acute, with people becoming more self-reliant (e.g. more confident in using online shopping), panic buying slowing down, and more online slots becoming available for people to buy their own shopping. 3.5) Supporting acute health needs The health of individuals within our communities during the pandemic was of primary concern to the community resilience teams, particularly those with underlying health conditions who required regular access to medication, treatment of other forms of support. Activities to support the acute health needs of communities included:          collecting prescriptions for vulnerable people – this was a common request from community members and many volunteers were involved in doing this taking people to medical appointments where appropriate, while ensuring safety using PPE etc. helping to people access appointments in new ways e.g. by phone or using NHS Near Me referring and signposting to other agencies (including providing emergency care) purchasing PPE and hand sanitiser etc. to distribute to volunteers / community members (or selling it cheaply to cover costs, enabling more to be purchased) supporting the wellbeing of pets e.g. dog walking, medicine collection from vet etc. ensuring emergency equipment such as first aid kits and defibrillators were in good working order as stated above, a local GP offered to be first point of contact for health concerns to take the pressure of the NHS undertaking other practical tasks such as basic DIY, house cleaning, lawn mowing etc. to keep people safe and well The challenges identified in relation to supporting the acute health needs of individuals across the community included:  long queues at pharmacies meaning that volunteers were often called out for long periods  some issues with collecting controlled drugs  community resilience teams picking up some care of elderly tasks that should have been provided by care at home or social services 3.6) Reducing isolation and improving mental health Although not quite as acute in the early days of lockdown, as the pandemic continued (and still continues) the isolation felt by many and the general stresses associated with COVID was exacerbated and has had negative impacts on the mental health of many people, of all ages. Several community resilience teams undertook some specific activities designed to try to reduce isolation and promote mental health, which included:     lots of small acts of kindness by community members to each other – many of these happened out with formal community resilience activities, but contributed strongly to the overall resilience of people and communities formal and informal check-ins with vulnerable community members including going to people’s doors to connect with them personally informal telephone buddying systems, often connecting people who were isolated with each other for chats over the phone offer of specialisms by trained and qualified local people including ‘laughter yoga’ and free counselling    circulating information about helplines and other mental health support lots of community events / activities to reduce isolation (see number 7 below) Corsock and KPD community resilience team supporting Lothlorien therapeutic community and its residents in a number of different ways Isolation and mental health as outlined above has been an increasingly challenging area for many over the pandemic, and community resilience teams highlighted some specific challenges in this area including:     mental health issues of people increasing, including anxiety around becoming infected or infecting others; a lack of access to usual support mechanisms, boredom leading to increasing depression anxiety for people (not least those shielding) around ‘getting back to normal’ with a huge amount of uncertainty around safety and security remaining, not least with new variants of COVID continuing to appear stress caused by schisms between community members around who is (or isn’t) following ‘the rules’ a significant amount of pre-COVID isolation / wellbeing / care issues identified for older people in some areas, exacerbated by COVID 3.7) Community events and activities “Involvement in activities that engender a sense of community (feelings of belonging and attachment for people and places), efficacy, and problem solving, strengthen peoples’ disaster-resilience”5 During lockdown particularly, given the isolation and increasing mental health issues outlined above, many community resilience teams felt it was important to undertake activities designed to reduce isolation, promote connections and lift spirits. Activities included:      programmes of socially distant and safe challenges such as window competitions, quiz sheets, anagrams, treasure hunts, scarecrow competition, sunflower growing, knitting challenges, orienteering etc. getting people together online through virtual quiz nights, bingo, church activities, live streaming of war memorial event, virtual Hogmanay etc. getting people together face to face in socially distant ways e.g. soup and biscuit event with people chatting over walls, VE day celebration (tables in drive), Santa parades etc. activities to make the villages look brighter such as stone painting, flowers planting etc. linking to activities run by other local organisations – Glenkens food month etc. This was an area of delivery that some community resilience teams found particularly difficult to deliver, with challenges identified such as:  not all teams having the voluntary capacity to run activities and events such as this  a disparity between budgets available – e.g. between teams which could link with funded organisations  a need demonstrated (and want articulated by some communities) for these to continue but many voluntary teams not having the capacity to continue them  a lack of knowledge, skills and capacity to ensure risk assessments were undertaken and safety concerns were mitigated 5 As above 4) Key lessons / recommendations This work has been wide ranging and has generated suggestions/recommendations for a number of different organisations across the area. Some are within the area of influence of GDT as they work with community groups on the development of the CAP, namely those in 4.2. Some suggested recommendations, namely those in 4.1, are more for the statutory groups who were involved in responding to COVID to consider. Representatives of the CAP oversight group plan to arrange a meeting of all the Community Councils , the Ward Officers and Locality Hubs to feed back on the report, gather their reflections, and to garner buy-in from these organisations to develop an agreed plan to progress any actions identified. 4.1 Areas for consideration by Dumfries and Galloway Council, Locality Hubs and Community Councils I. The Local Authority and Community Councils should clarify the governance for community resilience teams including accountability, decision making and spend etc. II. The Local Authority, Locality Hubs and Community Councils should enter into honest conversations as to whether Community Councils have the capacity / skills / infrastructure to manage the wider demands of community resilience over and above their statutory responsibilities, and if not, how will this be supported in the longer term. III. The Local Authority and Locality Hubs should support local Community Councils and their resilience teams to link governance of community resilience efforts to climate action, given that the climate crisis (and associated impacts) will present communities with the next big ‘disaster’ which will require community resilience efforts. Across the Glenkens and District, this could be linked to the work of the Loch Ken Trust into climate resilience. Community Councils across the locale should discuss with each other and with Locality Hubs how the following recommendations might be progressed, supported, and resourced: IV. More collaboration and co-ordination for community resilience efforts is required. This might include creating ‘hub venues’, creating a central (Glenkens and District) printing resource, and improving joint working between Community Councils, community resilience teams and other key partners to help build capacity, share resources and avoid duplication. This would also help support effective communication across the locale and avoid people ‘falling through the gaps’. V. Linked to the point above, co-ordinated communication is key. Mapping the area would be useful, as would developing central (Glenkens & District) communication points and resources (e.g. phone, email, Facebook, GK Gazette, printing facilities etc. VI. To add vital capacity and assist with co-ordination, paid roles (community co-ordinators / facilitators) covering areas across the Glenkens could provide capacity and help to ensure safety, quality and equity of provision across the locale – these roles could be responsible for e.g. coordination, managing plans, policies and systems, recruiting and supporting volunteers, leading community development activities and building partnerships etc. VII. Locality Hubs should work with Community Councils to identify how the unmet care / other needs of vulnerable and elderly community members (revealed by community resilience teams during COVID) can be better and more quickly identified, and should facilitate easy ways in which community resilience teams and local people can easily refer people on to help and support. 4.2 Recommendations for the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan Oversight Group As well as feedback relating directly to community resilience efforts, those interviewed were also given the opportunity to mention anything else they deemed important, including ideas for future projects that could be taken forward by Glenkens and District Trust or other local partners through the CAP. It is recommended that the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan Oversight Group consider the following points in the future development of the Community Action Plan: VIII. More focus should be given to work to address the digital divide, such as lobbying for faster broadband speeds, widening access and encouraging the willingness and skills to use IT. IX. Poverty and access to affordable food / basic essentials is an issue for some within our community and continued efforts must be made to ensure community members have access to what they need without stigma. This should be a key focus for the CAP, and the CAP Oversight Group might consider recommending that GDT ringfence a pot for small emergency funds which could be used to respond to this need. X. Members of our community continue to be isolated, lonely, and fearful of social situations. Improving mental wellbeing, alleviating loneliness and isolation, building connections between people, and building community spirit and pride could offer a key focus for the CAP. XI. Not all our communities have the same access to buildings, activities, services and support. The CAP should consider how to support equity of access across the locale. XII. The CAP must be promoted so that people know it exists and communication and joint planning are important in its development and implementation to ensure that it is meeting community needs, not least as these needs are still emerging given the multi-layered impacts of COVID. Thought should also be given to how people are kept up to date on progress, both in terms of activity and impact. The CAP oversight group should consider how capacity can built into the CAP to ensure this happens. XIII. The issues of wrap around childcare, gaps in terms of care of the elderly, lack of affordable and fit for purpose housing, gap in provision for young people, schools closures and the lack of working age people in our area should all be issues that should continue to be given priority in the future iterations of the CAP. The recommendations in 4.1 and 4.2 above fit broadly with the themes identified by Third Sector Dumfries and Galloway in their report, South of Scotland Third Sector: A Partnership Approach to COVID-19 Response and Recovery Planning (August 2020, http://thirdsectordumgal.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/200923Third-Sector-Recovery-Planning-FINALREPORTv3.2.pdf). The report identified four common themes that affect all and will continue to affect all third sector organisations into the future:     Dynamic partnership working Financial viability Volunteering and community spirit New way of working  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Covid Learning Report Description An account of the resource This report was produced by Sleeping Giants CIC as part of their work with Community Enterprise on the Glenkens & District CAP set up phase. The aim of the report was to ensure that local learning from the Covid-19 pandemic could be incorporated into the CAP. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_5 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Sleeping Giants CIC Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust CAP resilience https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/601/CAP_Theme_1_Glenkens_Gazette_Comms_Survey_Summary_cover.jpg 509c0e0d728dc863ac0b82f75605f06e https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/601/CAP_Theme_1_Glenkens_Gazette_Comms_Survey_Summary.pdf 0c6229e5b28190e4b72a1553fae4186f PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Project: A Connected Community Stage: Survey Research Summary Prepared by: Gill Warnock Date: October 2021 For: Glenkens & District Trust (GDT) & Glenkens Community & Arts Trust (GCAT) Survey Details We surveyed people in the Glenkens in July to August for their views on wider communication issues and to gather specific feedback on the Gazette. We received 103 responses to a four-page survey with nearly three-quarters completing it online. Survey Results: How people access local news, and information about the Glenkens We found people use a variety of sources for local information (24 additional sources were mentioned on top of those given). Facebook is the most popular (60% use regularly) except for those aged 65 & over who prefer local newspapers. For those aged 75 or over local newspapers eclipsed all other options. Nobody aged over 75 mentioned Twitter, Instagram or WhatsApp. Conversely, nobody aged under 55 mentioned national newspapers or radio. Smartphones were the most popular daily device across all ages. Even the least smartphone-friendly (those aged 75 or over) reported daily use from half of respondents Survey Results: Their views on the future for communications in the Glenkens The most popular idea was a website featuring urgent local information and event details (for attendees and organisers). Even the two least popular suggestions (tourist information and directory services) were of interest to 80% of respondents. Only one third of respondents entered their own suggestions. The most frequently mentioned idea was a website: updated daily with centralised information and links to other websites, Facebook pages, local directory and local producers listing etc. Survey Results: Their views on the Gazette Over two thirds of people read all or most of every issue and just under two-thirds keep it for reference (older age groups are more likely to do so). People were overwhelmingly happy with the usual contents and nobody felt there was too much local news, what’s on listings, freecycle or local directory content. All options had notable amounts of respondents feeling there was ‘too little’ especially What’s On Listings, Freecycle and local issues. The most popular responses for favourite content were news and history. Suggestions for the future included (in descending order of frequency): specific article ideas, general requests to include – or less frequently exclude – certain topics and ideas on Gazette distribution, publication frequency and promotion. Survey Results: Demographic information We received slightly more responses from females than males and from older age ranges. 55-64 year olds were the biggest group though we had responses from ‘under 18’ to ‘75 & over’. Almost all respondents gave Glenkens postcodes. They identified overwhelmingly as ‘white’. Over half of respondents were retired but nearly one in five ran their own business. Over half reported doing regular voluntary work which far exceeds the Scottish average for rural areas. Next Steps GDT and GCAT are considering full project reports.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Connected Community - Survey Research Summary Description An account of the resource Survey of people in the Glenkens in July to August 2021 for their views on wider communication issues and to gather specific feedback on the Gazette. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_4 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust CAP Theme 1 communication https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/599/CAP_Theme_2_Asset_Mapping_2021_Summary_and_Conclusion_cover.jpg 15a132a659641d54fc129faee1806f2b https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/599/CAP_Theme_2_Asset_Mapping_2021_Summary_and_Conclusion.pdf f110adfad974c7d8ac7cb48cb7112233 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Mapping exercise report summary And conclusion Completed May 2021 By Martha Schofield, on behalf of Corsock Village Hall ———- Accessibility The majority of facilities have wheelchair access however only half have disabled toilets and only five have a hearing loop / baby changing facilities and while four have plans to make improvements, five have none of the resources mentioned. 91% are on a public transport route however, many comment that this provides is a limited service and a couple state it is not door to door. All 34 locations have parking but only one specifically mentions disabled parking, however this was not a specific question so there may be others with disabled parking. Access to the building it’s self was also not a question covered and one mentions this is a concern. Communication Word of mouth and local noticeboards are by far the most widely used methods for communicating. Half are currently using social media and around 40% use a website. While 40% have said they use a website this varies from having their own dedicated site to having some information on a third party site - in some cases with out of date information, making it a challenge to find the correct details. Other methods include printed material such as the Glenkens Gazette, flyers / posters (3 out of 5) distributing their flyers door to door suggesting this is mainly to communicate with local residents, as does community email. Many people stated that they use a mixture of methods. One mentions poor internet connection as a barrier. Several have asked for help with communication, which will need to be followed up. Users / Services Groups clearly play a significant role, with nearly 85% of the facilities answering ‘yes’ The groups listed are varied, although fitness / exercise groups are by far the most popular. Just under half provided services to their local community (pre-covid) with almost the same number (though not necessarily the same venues) finding new ways to continue to provide a service during covid. The majority of these are online, however with social distancing allowing, some have found other ways of helping. Two mention a lack of wi-fi as a barrier to their efforts. 90% of venues have been used less during the pandemic but the vast majority are hopeful things will return to normal, at some point. A minority have learnt something during this time, particularly an appreciation for their community hall. 80% of facilities host regular annual events, many of which are seasonal activities, several sporting events, all could be described as social activities. Occupancy There is quite a spread of occupancy rates ranging from two venues only used between 10 and 20 days per year, to others used over 250 days per year. There is a slight majority of facilities used between 101 and 150 days. The main barrier to increasing use are the number or availability of volunteers. Nearly 33% have stated they would like help with the areas mentioned (i.e. marketing / advertising, booking system / access or key management / cleaning / volunteer numbers) with a further 39% saying they might be interested in support. Bookings 25 of the facilities who responded are available to hire however 30 have responded with booking information. Groups and community events are the most popular types of booking with many taking bookings for weddings / wedding receptions and art / theatre performances. Around a third of facilities are used for community councils or polling stations. A wide variety of other types of booking are mentioned such as exercise classes, training sessions and bring and buy sales. Many facilities feel they need significant improvements before being available to hire. One currently hosts club only events, several mention that for churches or church halls, approval may need to be sought for some bookings. Structure and Outdoor Space Facilities across the region vary in size, from being able to accommodate less than 50 people to others who can accommodate over 200 people, one has capacity for more than 400 people. This naturally gives a range of room sizes also varying widely from 20m² to over 200 m² Three venues have no toilets, the majority have 2, however, the question ought to have clarified if this was the number of cubicles or separate bathrooms. Looking back to question 1, 17 locations have a disabled bathroom The nature of construction, of the buildings, also varies considerably across the region. A couple, have modern upgrades, some are 100 year old wooden structures with metal roofs, others are period buildings one with a tower. Most are stone with slate roofs, several are concrete or brick buildings. Some are in a very basic condition while one or two meet current building regulations. Ages range from the 1700’s to the early 2000’s. The majority date from the 1800’s to 1900’s Most buildings have little to no insulation. 40% of respondents state that they need repairs, only one of these is described as major repair work needed. However, looking at the comments regarding future aspirations, six hope to do major / minor repair work and many facilities feel they need significant improvements before being available to hire. Over half of those who responded have had a buildings survey and have plans of the site. The majority have had a recent fire risk assessment. Most of the facilities have a play park / green space / walking routes nearby but only 25% have public toilets close by. Renewable Technology, Water & Energy Use Only two facilities currently have some form of renewable technology installed. One will be installing electric car and electric bike charging points in 2021 and one other location is considering installing solar panels. To heat the main spaces, the vast majority have electric heating, with the rest relying on oil or gas, one facility has a wood burning stove. Most places rely on a separate system to heat hot water. 28 locations are on Mains water, 2 have no running water. There are 8 different energy suppliers, with charges ranging from 12p to nearly 20p per kW/h. Nobody stated that they are on a green tariff. Internet Access Nearly 73% are not connected to the internet, in several cases, the quality or lack of internet access has been mentioned as prohibitive. Based on the information provided, fibre broadband is only available to 25% of locations. Assets The main assets listed were tables and chairs however, there are a wide range of other items in the area people may be willing to share. Over 40% have said they would be happy to do so with another 50% stating they may share. Most places have shown an interest in sharing assets, within the GDT area. Legal Structure, Staff / Volunteers 50% of those who responded are registered charities, some come under more than one category. Number of staff or volunteers, 3 facilities are able to employ 10 + people, however this is perhaps mis-leading considering schools are included in the survey. Of the 39 + people employed 20 + of these are in relation to the schools. The data shows the high number of volunteers involved with the halls, schools, churches and the other facilities across the area. Considering 34 facilities have participated, this is an average of 4 (ish) volunteers per location, however they are obviously not distributed this evenly. Skill set some have said they would be happy to share their skills, in particular one location has a member of staff to assist with this. Others mention particular skills such as greenskeeper specialist, solicitor, business knowledge, marketing, sports and book keeping. Financial situation almost 70% of the 25 respondents feel their current finical situation is healthy, 32% feel their situation is of concern. Future Investment over half have plans for future investments most of these are upgrades to the buildings structure / fixtures or fittings / heating / or outdoor spaces. One comments that they need to improve their heating system but doesn’t currently have the funds to do so. Running Costs, nearly all halls have insurance and and energy bills, over half have cleaning bills and around a third have other costs such as phone / internet connection, window cleaning, printing, advertising, maintaining defibrillators or equipment hire. There are a variety of other costs listed including grass cutting / licences / website maintenance for example. Half of respondents are aware of new ongoing costs considering Covid again, half of those who responded have concerns about this, half are un-concerned. Perhaps reflecting the lack of certainty about the changing situation of the pandemic. Many comment that any income generated is often only just meeting expenses. Future Aspirations & Challenges Future Goals Of the 24 respondents, half would like to see increased use of their facility, perhaps in relation to engaging more people or with a younger audience. 6 hope to see major or minor building improvements. 3 are looking to change their legal structure, ownership status or lease. Some goals are to meet basic needs, such as running water and bathroom facilities, others are more aspirational in hoping to encourage a younger audience into a particular sport. Challenges Over 50% are concerned about the workload for a voluntary led team while over 70% are concerned about increased costs. 40% worry about lack of use and changing demographics with funding bottom of the pile at 25%. It seems in many cases that the buildings are in reasonable condition but lack of use / falling numbers are leading to bigger problems. Looking at comments made across the surveys many of the churches in particular appear to be reaching a critical point, some due to lack of use, IN CONCLUSION There are many facilities across the Glenkens and District Trust catchment area, and they vary widely, in size, construction, condition, use, accessibility and financial situation. They are also spread far and wide geographically, as are the communities they serve, with what seems to be ‘limited’ public transport links. The diversity of the buildings are part of the tapestry of our landscape, sadly a few seem to suggest they are reaching a critical point. Lack of use and / or the condition of the building sometimes exacerbating the problem. The churches seem to be particularly at risk and it could perhaps be argued that the crafstmanship and build of these are irreplaceable. Some hope to see these retained as community facilities, should they have to change. In many cases it seems that the buildings are in reasonable condition but lack of use / falling numbers and increasing costs are leading to bigger problems. Maintenance of buildings is a common challenge with a minority feeling they need to make significant improvements before being made available for wider use. While the majority have said they feel their financial situation is healthy many have also commented on only just balancing costs with income and have concerns for the future. A recurring theme is around people - more volunteers are needed as is increased community engagement / use of many of the properties. Communication methods such as; community email, door to door delivered flyers, word of mouth and local noticeboards, seem to focus on communicating with local residents rather than aiming to reach a wider audience. It was a challenge to gather all of the correct contact information for every venue, occasionally it was necessary to ask a resident. This could also make it difficult for anyone outwith an area to even know about a venue and very difficult to make a booking. In particular some of the smaller church halls were nearly overlooked because of this. When the correct contact details were found everyone responded promptly which was much appreciated Internet access is also a common challenge. Poor or no internet connection is mentioned several times as a barrier. Collaboration to tackle costs, communication to tackle use and community engagement could potentially be next steps towards achieving aspirations.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens Asset Report Description An account of the resource This report mapping assets in the Glenkens was led by Corsock Village Hall and supported by a grant from the Blackcraig fund, as part of the CAP set up phase co-ordinated by Community Enterprise, which supported selected projects under the short term priorities heading in the CAP. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_3 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust CAP Theme 2 community assets https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/598/Glenkens_CAP_cover.jpg 2ce36b41e5da6c57225ea936f99ef14f https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/598/Glenkens_CAP_report_FINAL_280820.pdf 95bdf8d6f1470771b54d36b06ffb26c0 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Glenkens & District Community Action Plan - 2020 Introduction The thinking for this Action Plan used previous research from 2018 as a key input into a new round of consultation in late 2019 and into 2020. What We Did Inception Meeting Analysis of previous primary research Asset mapping and Demographics 3 Glenkens - Community Action Plan Analysis of local and regional research Public consultation Community Enterprise and the Glenkens and District Trust engaged with as many people as possible in the local community as a critical part of the Community Action Plan. The methodology can be seen outlined in the graphic below. Targeted focus groups Round table with key stakeholders Presentation of research report Graphic Designed Cap Our Goal The purpose of the Glenkens and District Trust is to resource and enable community development in the part of rural Scotland called the Glenkens along with its surrounding area. The consultative process underpinning this action plan revealed a widely shared sense, right across our community, of the general direction that development should follow. Our goal is that this will be a connected, resilient and carbon neutral place, where people will Values and Principles The plan is not set in stone. New ideas and proposals will arise. Moreover, the Covid-19 emergency has brought home to us how quickly circumstances can change, and that flexibility will therefore always be important. But we have a clear direction of travel which is underpinned by a set of key principles: want to live, to work, to bring up their families, and to grow old. It will be somewhere that other places in Scotland will look to for inspiration. This plan outlines proposals that aim to make that goal a reality. Partnership – collaboration between all sections of the community will be a key element in our projects. Inclusion – a diverse community will include and welcome people of all ages, abilities and ethnicity. We will welcome project proposals put forward by any members and groups. Sustainability – projects we support will be outward-looking, flexible and unafraid to take on new challenges. They will provide continuing benefits to the community, and show awareness of the value of community self-reliance. Respect - for the special environment and rural landscape that has been placed in our trust. Community Action Plan - Glenkens 4 Turning Aspiration into Action The themes in this action plan have been distilled from those suggested by members of the community during the extensive consultation process described in the Research Report. Decisions about what could and should be included have been guided by the goals, values and principles outlined above, by our sense of the breadth and depth of support, and by an assessment of viability and fit with the plan as a whole. 5 Glenkens - Community Action Plan For each of the four themes, the table below outlines the action areas that emerged as the community’s main priorities. Alongside these, in a separate column, possible options for implementation are indicated; these also came out of the consultation process and comprise a first attempt to answer the questions ‘who?’ and ‘how?’, although at this early stage some options listed are more detailed than others. A third column provides a timescale – an answer to the question ‘when?’. As noted above, this plan can only be provisional. Since the final consultation event in February 2020, the totally unprecedented Covid-19 global pandemic has impacted communities right across the globe, including ours. The pandemic has demonstrated that our communities are ready and willing to take immediate and effective local action to mitigate the effects of the pandemic and to find creative solutions providing support to the isolated and vulnerable, young and old. These community actions are the embodiment of a central theme which already existed in the developing Community Action Plan, that of the need for greater community coordination, resilience and self-reliance. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the resilience response and a desire to see grassroots support activity maintained and the renewed emphasis on kindness maintained and embedded into community life. However the shock of the crisis has also prompted reflection on the scale of the challenge within this central theme, reflection which in turn poses the questions - are these the right priorities? And are they radical enough? The Community Action Plan will now move into a set up phase, preparing the route for delivery of the existing community priorities for action while providing scope to ensure that any learning from the pandemic can also be incorporated, both in terms of resilience and ambition. Key to setting out how the community’s priorities will be implemented, this set up phase will refine and add detail to the implementation plans outlined in the table below, by supporting the identification of community groups and bodies which might be able and ready to take forward some projects now, enabling effective delivery of the immediate priorities, as well as identifying any gaps that need filled in order to maximise successful delivery of priorities in the future. To guide delivery of this set up phase, which will run until the end of March 2021, the Glenkens and District Trust (GDT) will form a steering group made up of GDT Trustees and members drawn from the local community and community organisations. GDT will tender for expert external support, to work with the steering group and to deliver the following key pieces of work: • An analysis of the community priorities outlined in the table below aimed at providing information about where existing groups and agencies might already be in a position to implement some of these and establish where the gaps are. • Post Covid Resilience Learning. • A Glenkens Summit in Spring 2021. The Summit will be used to create a community conversation on the findings of the post Covid learning and CAP action analysis, and to discuss delivery gaps and how best to fill them • Publication of the revised ‘Outline Action Plan’ component below, which adds some more ‘who’ and ‘how’ and ‘when’ to each priority, based on the findings from the Set Up Phase. • Creation of a final report incorporating the findings from the above, which sets a clear path for ongoing arrangements for the management of the Community Action Plan. Community Action Plan - Glenkens 6 Monitoring the Community Action Plan Monitoring and evaluation is an essential requirement of any Community Action Plan to ensure it is being implemented and achieving its aims. The purpose of monitoring and review will be to check on progress and take stock of where things are on a regular basis, stimulating and resourcing ideas as required. While the Glenkens & District Trust, which commissioned this Action Plan, will play a co-ordinating role, community ownership of these processes is key for successful delivery. GDT itself is exploring ways of changing its structure and membership in order to be more representative 7 Glenkens - Community Action Plan of the local community and to increase its capacity to manage the community action plan. Responsibility for monitoring and review is likely to sit with a grouping evolved from the steering group formed in the Set Up Phase. In addition, we envisage that, building on the proposed Glenkens Summit, monitoring and review will include a role for an ongoing community action forum, meeting twice a year to review progress on the plan. These meetings will be open to other representative bodies and community groups. During the lifetime of the action plan this body, if its value is demonstrated, could take on an extended remit. Final monitoring and review mechanisms will be determined as part of the Set Up Phase and the updated processes will be published along with the updated Action Plan in April 2021. Community Action Plan - Glenkens 8 Theme 1: A Connected Community Time-scale Action Areas Options for Implementation Short (year 1) Invest in an effective communication tool for the whole community. Collaboration with GCAT to develop the Glenkens Gazette. Create a collaboration plan for assets and services across the area – facilities will be complementary, working together rather than in competition. Medium (year 2-4) Establish an on and off-line community database of services Links to FE colleges to encourage and spaces, complemented by the enhanced Glenkens learning and employability Gazette, with well-resourced community journalism. placements to help run database and Gazette. Suite of community events to bring people together. Long (year 5 and beyond) Embed gains in community involvement in extended opportunities for cross-area networking, involving community councils, core organisations and community activists. Build on stories of local resilience from Covid-19 experience. Evolution of community forum that has met bi-annually. Might involve citizens’ assemblies to discuss specific issues. 9 Glenkens - Community Action Plan Theme 2: An Asset Rich Community Time-scale Action Areas Options for Implementation Short (year 1) Develop a sustainability plan for current assets and core organisations that cannot be allowed to fail. Coordination based on collaboration plan developed in Theme 1. Clear, objective and transparent decision making process. Create space(s) for younger people, controlled by them, for activities initiated by them. Medium (year 2-4) Develop a rolling and long-term support and investment plan for the halls and community spaces of the area to ensure they are accessible for everyone. Utilisation of a community DIY approach – reflecting local resilience, links to training and apprenticeships. Develop a plan for to enable people to exercise both in buildings and outdoors. Create Better signage for buildings and green space – opening up access to locals and visitors. Commission a Housing Needs Analysis. Long (year 5 and beyond) Dedicated living spaces for older people using an innovative model such as co-housing or other approaches. Potentially led by Pamela Young Trust or locally active Registered Social Landlords. Affordable housing for young people and young families. To bear in mind carbonreduction strategy (Theme 4). Community Action Plan - Glenkens 10 Theme 3: An economically flourishing community Time-scale Action Areas Options for Implementation Short (year 1) Feasibility study into demand for local childcare and overcoming barriers to delivery. Commission in depth research. Liaise with local authority. Develop a tourism strategy, including developing a brand for the area. In collaboration with GGLP and Loch Ken Trust. Develop plan for more self-sustaining local economy – managing resources, consumption, work and income flows in as ‘circular’ a way as possible. Embed simple hot-desking and co-working capability into the campus of assets across the community with good wifi. Business support hub - collaborate with South of Scotland Enterprise. Medium (year 2-4) Develop plan for collaborative production and distribution of local produce. Collaborate with schools, community organisations and existing producers. Focus on vegetables. Invest in community based childcare provision based on the findings of the feasibility study. Utilise external support such as Just Enterprise to undertake childcare research. Develop a targeted work and training strategy for the area to retain and develop skills needed locally. Might include: hubs encouraging social enterprises and co-ops, skill share and ‘repair & re-use’ workshops; volunteer led skill share scheme; Database of local volunteers centrally co-ordinated; stronger links with FE/HE. Feasibility study into community farm. Partnership with local farmers. Community run distribution system; encourage new small producers and coordinate with existing ones. Develop ‘Eat Local’ strategy involving producers and range of outlets. Long (year 5 and beyond) Create a community farm. Could be community owned or community supported. Further develop local food distribution network. Could include new community run shops/cafes. Further develop enterprise hub network. 11 Glenkens - Community Action Plan Theme 4: A Carbon Neutral Community Time-scale Action Areas Options for Implementation Short (year 1) Research and develop a Local Energy Plan. Build on existing local momentum and collaborate with local energy providers and national agencies. Promote expansion of already available modes of sustainable transport. Establish more EV charging points; E-bikes for hire and a community bike library; grants for E-bikes. Research plan for longer term sustainable transport solutions. Potential partnerships with Galloway Community Transport, Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership and Loch Ken Management Trust. Commission masterplan to bottom out investment required for both sought after and existing cycle tracks and pathways across the area. Medium (year 2-4) Long (year 5 and beyond) Publicise our commitment to carbon neutrality. Link up with other places aiming at carbon neutrality, and D&G Council. Promote new modes of sustainable social transport. Could include: community car share and car hire scheme; electric community vehicles. Research and promote plan to move public buildings and households away from fossil fuel use. Invite/commission proposals for carbonreduction heating and insulation strategies. Investment in cycle tracks, pathways and signage and information about them which will benefit both the community and tourism alike. Collaborate with Galloway Glens and Loch Ken Trust. Glenkens to become a carbon neutral area. Planning for longer term aspiration. Develop an integrated community controlled transport scheme with a range of vehicles. Might include an electric boat for Loch Ken. Community energy generation at scale. Community investment in green energy production and battery storage. Invest in moving public buildings and households away from fossil fuel use. Partnerships with owners, landlords and other bodies. Community Action Plan - Glenkens 12 Thanks This plan has been created by the community, for the community. For more information please contact Fiona Smith at Fiona.Smith1@btinternet.com  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens and District Community Action Plan - Research Report and Action Plan Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_2 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust Description An account of the resource Report by Community Enterprise on behalf of Glenkens & District Trust CAP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/597/GlenkensCommunityActionPlanSummary_cover.jpg d6b4de9d6ff527415f27b1661a2b2ee5 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/597/Glenkens_Community_Action_Plan_Summary.pdf 89acf52ae78a227f335629e98bfcf312 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Glenkens & District Community Action Plan - 2020 Introduction The thinking for this Action Plan used previous research from 2018 as a key input into a new round of consultation in late 2019 and into 2020. What We Did Inception Meeting Analysis of previous primary research Asset mapping and Demographics 3 Glenkens - Community Action Plan Analysis of local and regional research Public consultation Community Enterprise and the Glenkens and District Trust engaged with as many people as possible in the local community as a critical part of the Community Action Plan. The methodology can be seen outlined in the graphic below. Targeted focus groups Round table with key stakeholders Presentation of research report Graphic Designed Cap Our Goal The purpose of the Glenkens and District Trust is to resource and enable community development in the part of rural Scotland called the Glenkens along with its surrounding area. The consultative process underpinning this action plan revealed a widely shared sense, right across our community, of the general direction that development should follow. Our goal is that this will be a connected, resilient and carbon neutral place, where people will Values and Principles The plan is not set in stone. New ideas and proposals will arise. Moreover, the Covid-19 emergency has brought home to us how quickly circumstances can change, and that flexibility will therefore always be important. But we have a clear direction of travel which is underpinned by a set of key principles: want to live, to work, to bring up their families, and to grow old. It will be somewhere that other places in Scotland will look to for inspiration. This plan outlines proposals that aim to make that goal a reality. Partnership – collaboration between all sections of the community will be a key element in our projects. Inclusion – a diverse community will include and welcome people of all ages, abilities and ethnicity. We will welcome project proposals put forward by any members and groups. Sustainability – projects we support will be outward-looking, flexible and unafraid to take on new challenges. They will provide continuing benefits to the community, and show awareness of the value of community self-reliance. Respect - for the special environment and rural landscape that has been placed in our trust. Community Action Plan - Glenkens 4 Turning Aspiration into Action The themes in this action plan have been distilled from those suggested by members of the community during the extensive consultation process described in the Research Report. Decisions about what could and should be included have been guided by the goals, values and principles outlined above, by our sense of the breadth and depth of support, and by an assessment of viability and fit with the plan as a whole. 5 Glenkens - Community Action Plan For each of the four themes, the table below outlines the action areas that emerged as the community’s main priorities. Alongside these, in a separate column, possible options for implementation are indicated; these also came out of the consultation process and comprise a first attempt to answer the questions ‘who?’ and ‘how?’, although at this early stage some options listed are more detailed than others. A third column provides a timescale – an answer to the question ‘when?’. As noted above, this plan can only be provisional. Since the final consultation event in February 2020, the totally unprecedented Covid-19 global pandemic has impacted communities right across the globe, including ours. The pandemic has demonstrated that our communities are ready and willing to take immediate and effective local action to mitigate the effects of the pandemic and to find creative solutions providing support to the isolated and vulnerable, young and old. These community actions are the embodiment of a central theme which already existed in the developing Community Action Plan, that of the need for greater community coordination, resilience and self-reliance. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the resilience response and a desire to see grassroots support activity maintained and the renewed emphasis on kindness maintained and embedded into community life. However the shock of the crisis has also prompted reflection on the scale of the challenge within this central theme, reflection which in turn poses the questions - are these the right priorities? And are they radical enough? The Community Action Plan will now move into a set up phase, preparing the route for delivery of the existing community priorities for action while providing scope to ensure that any learning from the pandemic can also be incorporated, both in terms of resilience and ambition. Key to setting out how the community’s priorities will be implemented, this set up phase will refine and add detail to the implementation plans outlined in the table below, by supporting the identification of community groups and bodies which might be able and ready to take forward some projects now, enabling effective delivery of the immediate priorities, as well as identifying any gaps that need filled in order to maximise successful delivery of priorities in the future. To guide delivery of this set up phase, which will run until the end of March 2021, the Glenkens and District Trust (GDT) will form a steering group made up of GDT Trustees and members drawn from the local community and community organisations. GDT will tender for expert external support, to work with the steering group and to deliver the following key pieces of work: • An analysis of the community priorities outlined in the table below aimed at providing information about where existing groups and agencies might already be in a position to implement some of these and establish where the gaps are. • Post Covid Resilience Learning. • A Glenkens Summit in Spring 2021. The Summit will be used to create a community conversation on the findings of the post Covid learning and CAP action analysis, and to discuss delivery gaps and how best to fill them • Publication of the revised ‘Outline Action Plan’ component below, which adds some more ‘who’ and ‘how’ and ‘when’ to each priority, based on the findings from the Set Up Phase. • Creation of a final report incorporating the findings from the above, which sets a clear path for ongoing arrangements for the management of the Community Action Plan. Community Action Plan - Glenkens 6 Monitoring the Community Action Plan Monitoring and evaluation is an essential requirement of any Community Action Plan to ensure it is being implemented and achieving its aims. The purpose of monitoring and review will be to check on progress and take stock of where things are on a regular basis, stimulating and resourcing ideas as required. While the Glenkens & District Trust, which commissioned this Action Plan, will play a co-ordinating role, community ownership of these processes is key for successful delivery. GDT itself is exploring ways of changing its structure and membership in order to be more representative 7 Glenkens - Community Action Plan of the local community and to increase its capacity to manage the community action plan. Responsibility for monitoring and review is likely to sit with a grouping evolved from the steering group formed in the Set Up Phase. In addition, we envisage that, building on the proposed Glenkens Summit, monitoring and review will include a role for an ongoing community action forum, meeting twice a year to review progress on the plan. These meetings will be open to other representative bodies and community groups. During the lifetime of the action plan this body, if its value is demonstrated, could take on an extended remit. Final monitoring and review mechanisms will be determined as part of the Set Up Phase and the updated processes will be published along with the updated Action Plan in April 2021. Community Action Plan - Glenkens 8 Theme 1: A Connected Community Time-scale Action Areas Options for Implementation Short (year 1) Invest in an effective communication tool for the whole community. Collaboration with GCAT to develop the Glenkens Gazette. Create a collaboration plan for assets and services across the area – facilities will be complementary, working together rather than in competition. Medium (year 2-4) Establish an on and off-line community database of services Links to FE colleges to encourage and spaces, complemented by the enhanced Glenkens learning and employability Gazette, with well-resourced community journalism. placements to help run database and Gazette. Suite of community events to bring people together. Long (year 5 and beyond) Embed gains in community involvement in extended opportunities for cross-area networking, involving community councils, core organisations and community activists. Build on stories of local resilience from Covid-19 experience. Evolution of community forum that has met bi-annually. Might involve citizens’ assemblies to discuss specific issues. 9 Glenkens - Community Action Plan Theme 2: An Asset Rich Community Time-scale Action Areas Options for Implementation Short (year 1) Develop a sustainability plan for current assets and core organisations that cannot be allowed to fail. Coordination based on collaboration plan developed in Theme 1. Clear, objective and transparent decision making process. Create space(s) for younger people, controlled by them, for activities initiated by them. Medium (year 2-4) Develop a rolling and long-term support and investment plan for the halls and community spaces of the area to ensure they are accessible for everyone. Utilisation of a community DIY approach – reflecting local resilience, links to training and apprenticeships. Develop a plan for to enable people to exercise both in buildings and outdoors. Create Better signage for buildings and green space – opening up access to locals and visitors. Commission a Housing Needs Analysis. Long (year 5 and beyond) Dedicated living spaces for older people using an innovative model such as co-housing or other approaches. Potentially led by Pamela Young Trust or locally active Registered Social Landlords. Affordable housing for young people and young families. To bear in mind carbonreduction strategy (Theme 4). Community Action Plan - Glenkens 10 Theme 3: An economically flourishing community Time-scale Action Areas Options for Implementation Short (year 1) Feasibility study into demand for local childcare and overcoming barriers to delivery. Commission in depth research. Liaise with local authority. Develop a tourism strategy, including developing a brand for the area. In collaboration with GGLP and Loch Ken Trust. Develop plan for more self-sustaining local economy – managing resources, consumption, work and income flows in as ‘circular’ a way as possible. Embed simple hot-desking and co-working capability into the campus of assets across the community with good wifi. Business support hub - collaborate with South of Scotland Enterprise. Medium (year 2-4) Develop plan for collaborative production and distribution of local produce. Collaborate with schools, community organisations and existing producers. Focus on vegetables. Invest in community based childcare provision based on the findings of the feasibility study. Utilise external support such as Just Enterprise to undertake childcare research. Develop a targeted work and training strategy for the area to retain and develop skills needed locally. Might include: hubs encouraging social enterprises and co-ops, skill share and ‘repair & re-use’ workshops; volunteer led skill share scheme; Database of local volunteers centrally co-ordinated; stronger links with FE/HE. Feasibility study into community farm. Partnership with local farmers. Community run distribution system; encourage new small producers and coordinate with existing ones. Develop ‘Eat Local’ strategy involving producers and range of outlets. Long (year 5 and beyond) Create a community farm. Could be community owned or community supported. Further develop local food distribution network. Could include new community run shops/cafes. Further develop enterprise hub network. 11 Glenkens - Community Action Plan Theme 4: A Carbon Neutral Community Time-scale Action Areas Options for Implementation Short (year 1) Research and develop a Local Energy Plan. Build on existing local momentum and collaborate with local energy providers and national agencies. Promote expansion of already available modes of sustainable transport. Establish more EV charging points; E-bikes for hire and a community bike library; grants for E-bikes. Research plan for longer term sustainable transport solutions. Potential partnerships with Galloway Community Transport, Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership and Loch Ken Management Trust. Commission masterplan to bottom out investment required for both sought after and existing cycle tracks and pathways across the area. Medium (year 2-4) Long (year 5 and beyond) Publicise our commitment to carbon neutrality. Link up with other places aiming at carbon neutrality, and D&G Council. Promote new modes of sustainable social transport. Could include: community car share and car hire scheme; electric community vehicles. Research and promote plan to move public buildings and households away from fossil fuel use. Invite/commission proposals for carbonreduction heating and insulation strategies. Investment in cycle tracks, pathways and signage and information about them which will benefit both the community and tourism alike. Collaborate with Galloway Glens and Loch Ken Trust. Glenkens to become a carbon neutral area. Planning for longer term aspiration. Develop an integrated community controlled transport scheme with a range of vehicles. Might include an electric boat for Loch Ken. Community energy generation at scale. Community investment in green energy production and battery storage. Invest in moving public buildings and households away from fossil fuel use. Partnerships with owners, landlords and other bodies. Community Action Plan - Glenkens 12 Thanks This plan has been created by the community, for the community. For more information please contact Fiona Smith at Fiona.Smith1@btinternet.com  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens & District Community Action Plan 2020 Summary Description An account of the resource A  Community Action Plan by Glenkens & District Trust organised into 4 themes: Theme 1: A Connected Community; Theme 2: An Asset Rich Community; Theme 3: An Economically Flourishing Community; Theme 4: A Carbon Neutral Community. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_1 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Glenkens & District Trust CAP