In December, the government announced that an anticipated final round of the Community Ownership Fund (COF) would not go ahead.

The COF was closed with £15 million still unspent. Communities across the country who had been planning their applications were left in uncertainty as to when, or whether, a new programme will be launched.

The COF was a £150m government-funded programme to provide grants to local communities across the UK to take control of assets, amenities or facilities at risk of closure - from parks to pubs, lidos to libraries.

Groups could apply for capital funding to purchase or lease a local asset and/or help cover refurbishments (up to £2M in exceptional cases). Since its launch in 2021, the COF has awarded £135 million to 409 projects across the UK, with 283 projects in England, 57 projects in Scotland, 30 projects in Wales, and 39 projects in Northern Ireland.

Shared Assets has been a support provider for the programme as part of a consortium led by Locality and including Plunkett UK, Cooperatives UK, Cwmpas, Development Trusts Association Scotland, Development Trusts Association Wales, Development Trusts Northern Ireland, Architectural Heritage Fund and Sporting Assets.

The value of pre-application support is demonstrated by the fact that 65% of applicants who received in depth support from consortium partners were successful in their applications.

Shared Assets has supported nearly 40 groups to make applications, or to secure their funding and deliver their projects. These include groups working to secure the future of assets such as stables, nature reserves, parks and disused buildings.

When the government announced the end of the COF, it did not give any assurances about a successor programme ahead of the Spending Review. The COF support programme providers have compiled this useful list of alternative sources of capital funding.

However, COF’s closure leaves a big gap in the availability of funds to support community ownership, especially of land.

A new ‘Community Right to Buy’

There are some hopeful signs for the community ownership agenda. The UK Government’s English Devolution White Paper replaces the ‘Community Right to Bid’ with a strengthened ‘Community Right to Buy’ creating a more robust pathway to community asset ownership.

However the White Paper currently only mentions assets such as “local news outlets, community cafes, youth clubs, pubs, historic buildings, libraries or sport facilities” and does not mention the right to purchase land.

It is also based on so-called Assets of Community Value, whose definition is backward and limited, pertaining to assets whose main use is or has recently been to further the social wellbeing of the local community or could do so in the future.

These ‘social interests’ are narrowly defined as cultural, recreational and sporting interests. These definitions prevent communities from purchasing land or buildings that may have no history of community use but which could be used to help them deliver future ambitions, including economic, democratic, or social interests.

Calls for a successor government funding programme

A group of local and national leaders led by Power to Change has written to the government calling them to back community ownership by making £150m of public funding available in the upcoming spending review period , and leveraging £350m of other forms of finance like social investment.

The devolution white paper recognises the limitations of government funding programmes that ”have been done to communities, rather than for and with them, with one-sized-fits all approaches and complicated funding processes”.

We want to ensure that any successor programme is less complicated and has a more proportionate approach to due diligence requirements than COF, placing fewer barriers to the most disadvantaged and marginalised communities who can often benefit most from asset ownership.

At Shared Assets, we want to see a strengthened community right to buy that includes land specifically and a broader, more forward-looking definition of assets of community value.

This needs to be backed by longer term and more consistent funding programmes, with a simpler application process and more accessible support, especially for the most marginalised communities. We also want to see a more structured approach to supporting applicants securing match funding.

Any new rights, funding and support programmes should be co-designed with sector and grassroots groups. They should have a greater focus on the environmental, social and economic outcomes for communities alongside the need for financial viability.

The aim should be to foster entrepreneurship and empower communities, especially those most marginalised, where the risks may be greater, but the positive impact can be large. They should not be subject to requirements that mean that more affluent communities with a greater chance at commercial viability are more likely to secure funding.

A stronger narrative in favour of community ownership

There is also a need for a stronger narrative about what community ownership and community led development provides that other forms of ownership and development do not.

Power To Change suggests that this might go something along the lines of:

“We’re backing the people who are bringing empty high streets shops back into use, not the distant owners who leave the buildings people care about empty. We’re backing the people who are clubbing together to save their local, not the people who want to knock it down. We’re backing the people who care for our green spaces and rivers, not those who litter and pollute them. That’s why we’re empowering and supporting communities to take back control and make their places better.”

This resonates strongly with work we have been involved with as part of the Community Led Landscape Restoration working group where it has been clear that restoration of local land and assets gives people a sense of agency when many of the challenges facing them – such as climate change and the power of corporations feel distant and overwhelming.

Community ownership is not just about economic value. It is fundamentally about giving people a sense of agency and control. Community ownership should be part of a wider land reform narrative that builds a collective sense of ambition, possibility and capacity.