Shared ownership: communities are ready, but they need developers at the table 

Across Scotland, communities have huge aspirations for community energy. Backed by dedicated staff and volunteers, communities are putting enormous amounts of time and energy getting projects off the ground and engaging with commercial developers about shared ownership opportunities. 

There is also a strong network of intermediary organisations working to support them, providing funding, expert advice and practical support, including Local Energy Scotland through CARES, DTAS, and Community Energy Scotland. 

Despite this support and community ambition community owned energy only represents around 1% and Shared Ownership only 0.2% of onshore wind capacity in Scotland.  In many areas the electricity grid is so constrained that shared ownership is the only viable option for community organisations to take a stake in the energy system. And still, for many communities, progressing shared ownership continues to feel like an uphill battle. 

Research done by the Centre for Local Economies (CLES) on who benefits financially from Scotland’s onshore wind shows a shocking wealth leakage in this sector. CLES found that 90% of profit generated by commercial windfarms leaves Scottish communities and is paid as dividends to corporate shareholders. Continuing with this business-as-usual approach, with little to no incentives or mandates to change ownership structures, will mean a continued wealth drain on our communities.  

What we’re hearing from communities:  

At our recent Shared Ownership Peer Learning Group, which had more than 60 organisations signed up, we heard directly from communities about their experiences of trying to make shared ownership happen. 

One of the strongest messages was that capable, experienced community organisations can spend years negotiating, access publicly funded professional legal and financial support and still end up without a viable shared ownership offer. 

Developer engagement came through as one of the most consistent barriers. 

” We’re talking to a number of developers (about shared ownership), but the impression we get is that they’re resistant to shared ownership because they think it’s a faff. So either it has to be mandated, or there needs to be a financial incentive for those developers to engage. What we need is something to really hold their feet to the fire to encourage them to engage. “ 

Several communities described developers as supportive of shared ownership in principle but said this did not always translate into meaningful offers or negotiations in practice. Communities also questioned whether the current voluntary approach gives them enough leverage to progress these conversations. 

Timing is part of this challenge. Shared ownership opportunities can come too late in the development process. Buying into a project later can also mean doing so at a much higher value than if the community had been involved earlier. However, buying in at an earlier stage of the project means communities may have to bear the risk of higher-than-expected construction costs.  

There were also questions about what constitutes a meaningful shared ownership offer. An opportunity existing on paper does not necessarily mean that the terms make it possible or financially viable for a community to take it up. 

“This example is a repowering (on Forestry and Land Scotland land). On paper, there’s a very nice offer, 1% free, up to 5% at cost, and up to 49 percent to be negotiated. ….. So, you start trying to negotiate that and they (the developer) say you can have up to the 49%, but only after it’s been built and at market value.  

Let’s just say… The wind farm costs 10 million pounds to build. Now, they are going to offer you 50% at market value. A market value might be 20 million. So the community pay for their half at 10 million, and that’s paid for the developers 10 million pounds, which they’ve used to build the wind farm. So the community has actually paid for it (the windfarm). And of course, it’s a very poor deal for the community because they’re not in from the start.  

This is on Forestry and Land Scotland land. It is government land. And the requirement in the tender is that the developer makes a meaningful offer to the community. But that’s it, it’s not defined, it’s not followed up, it’s not controlled in any way.  

What is a meaningful offer?” 

Communities also need the right conditions to invest 

Access to affordable finance remains another major barrier. For large renewable developments, even a relatively small stake can require millions of pounds of investment, which can feel overwhelming or simply impossible for a community organisation to pursue. 

We hope the recent funding announcements for CARES and the wider Great British Energy People’s Power programme can help unlock some of this gap. 

Funding timescales also need to reflect the reality of developing shared ownership projects. These projects can take years. Communities need resource funding to build relationships, negotiate, develop governance and progress an investment, rather than short bursts of funding that don’t match the development timeline. 

But the message we heard was clear: community capacity is not the whole story. 

” When I hear about building flexibility in for communities and more capacity for communities, I think that’s great. But the reality is that’s not where the problem lies. That is not why shared ownership isn’t being taken up and we have to look at the fact that the developers and the borrowing are the issues, so how do we tackle that?” 

Communities are ambitious, they are accessing support, they are developing their knowledge and expertise. Staff and volunteers are putting in the hours, and they are actively trying to engage, but they need willing partners on the other side of the table. 

Developers and the public sector have an important role to play: 

” My message would be to UK government, Scottish government, GB Energy, they need to robustly challenge developers to actually practise what they preach in saying that they are highly supportive of shared ownership. Whether that is mandating shared ownership, which would certainly help. But in the interim, because it takes time for legislation to be enacted, there needs to be a robust challenge to developers, because in my experience, they are just not delivering in terms of meaningful discussions with community groups.” 

While shared ownership remains voluntary, making it work is going to require meaningful engagement and goodwill from developers. There are commercial developers who can see the value of this. 

A community stake in a renewable energy project can create a long-term relationship between the development and the place hosting it. Communities become invested in maintaining their ownership stake and deriving a long-term benefit from the project. 

So our call to developers is simple: engage with communities early, meaningfully and with a genuine intention to explore what shared ownership could look like and make a credible offer. 

For any shared ownership or community energy support please get in touch with our Democratic Finance team at: info@democraticfinance.scot

A milestone in the South of Scotland: Fourteen community groups gather at Bedrule Church for an introduction to community ownership of rural church buildings

Two weeks ago, on the 23rd of September 2026, a significant milestone was celebrated at Bedrule Church in the Scottish Borders. The New Futures: Former Places of Worship programme brought together 14 community groups from across the South of Scotland for the first time. The event focused on the care and maintenance of church buildings in community ownership and was delivered in partnership with the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB). Hosted by Bedrule Church Future, the event also provided an opportunity for collaboration, knowledge sharing, and celebration between the communities who attended, each of which had recently purchased, or had taken significant steps towards purchasing, their local church building.

Practical guidance for community owners

The day’s agenda focused on practical sessions for owning a church building. The day began with Roger Curtis from Bedrule Church Future, who spoke about the group’s journey to acquire the building and how they’ve been running it as a community facility since the purchase. Lucy Stewart from SPAB spoke about how principles of regular maintenance and repair, in line with SPAB’s philosophy, could stave off costly damage down the line and encourage community engagement. Andrew Aldous, Facilities Management Advisor at DTAS, took attendees through the operational must-knows of running an asset, covering topics such as risk assessments, fire and electrical safety. In the afternoon, representatives from SPAB, DTAS and Bedrule Church Future walked attendees through the grounds of Bedrule Church to discuss the challenges the group faced and share their solutions.

Attendees felt that the event was an important step in their learning as new owners of church buildings. After the difficult and emotive process of purchasing a church, a back-to-basics guide for operating and caring for the building helped groups prepare for their new challenge.

As Fiona Bell from Friends of St Mary’s Hawick put it, “The purchase of a beloved church is an emotive action on so many levels. You raise the money, you have an idea of what you want to do with the building, and everyone rushes to put this in action. But it’s the prosaic that trips groups up. This [event] helped to bring the reality back into planning in a realistic and non-frightening way.”

Why communities are taking ownership?

But why have so many community groups found themselves in this position? This gathering took place in the context of an unprecedented nationwide sale of ecclesiastical buildings by the Church of Scotland. Since 2020, at least 41 churches in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders have been put on the open market or otherwise sold. Based on the contents of the Church of Scotland’s Presbytery Mission Plans, as many as 68 church buildings in this area could still be at risk of disposal. In response, dozens of communities have rallied together to keep their churches in local hands. The New Futures programme, part of DTAS’s Community Ownership Support Service, was created to help community groups make informed decisions about acquiring church buildings and running them as sustainable community assets. So far, the programme has supported well over a hundred groups and continues to receive new enquiries.

Sharing knowledge and supporting each other

For community groups, caring for a heritage asset has upsides; beloved buildings can draw high levels of local support and fundraising. However, maintaining a historic church building is also a unique challenge with a steep learning curve. As churches leave the ownership of the Church of Scotland, they face significant upheaval. Settled systems like maintenance schedules, insurance arrangements, and the safety net of a consolidated fabric fund are overturned. When the building enters community ownership, groups often find themselves dealing with these newfound pressures alone. Could communities working together, sharing their experiences and supporting each other, be the solution to these challenges? Overwhelmingly, attendees thought so.

Feedback highlighted the importance of coming together as a group to share knowledge and experiences. Alan Bailey, Chair of Bedrule Church Future, said that this event “showed the potential for new or potential owners of churches to combine efforts and share experiences and information,” and hopes that it will “be a starting point for some long-term cooperation and mutual support.” Conversations on the day included sharing experiences with different insurance brokers and different ways of making the church buildings more accessible.

A majority of attendees reported that they planned to reach out to other groups from the event after the fact, continuing the learning and support initiated by the New Futures programme.

This was the first time these groups had gathered, but the New Futures programme hopes it won’t be the last. Even at their first meeting, attendees couldn’t help but brainstorm potential collaborative projects like a community-owned “Churches Trail” for the South of Scotland. However, whether these ideas translate into action remains to be seen. But in the words of Lizzie Swarbrick, Research Manager at Research in Action on Church Heritage, this event has the potential to be “the start of a collaborative community with people caring for churches learning from each other.”

Support for communities considering ownership

There are dozens of church buildings now in community ownership and hundreds still at risk of disposal across Scotland. If you or your community are considering purchasing a church building, please contact the New Futures: Former Places of Worship programme.

The New Futures: Former Places of Worship programme is funded by Historic Environment Scotland, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and Development Trusts Association Scotland.

For any questions about this blog or the New Futures programme, please contact Addie Maher, Churches Programme Officer, at addie.maher@dtascot.org.uk.

Development Trusts in Scotland: Evidence from DTAS Members’ Survey 2026

Development trusts play a vital role in communities across Scotland, supporting local economies, delivering essential services and activities, creating opportunities and managing assets for community benefit.

Our 2026 Members’ Survey brings together responses from 172 member organisations — around half of the DTAS membership and very similar to the 173 responses received in 2023. Respondents’ area types and deprivation profiles closely match those of our wider membership, giving us a useful picture of the development trust movement today.

How DTAS will use the evidence

The findings provide a reflection of the vast range of activities development trusts are delivering and their economic and social impact. This gives us essential evidence to build our case on a national level and advocate on behalf of our members across policy areas such as community ownership, funding and investment, local democracy, community wealth building and public service reform.

The evidence will also help us respond to the changing needs of our members and adapt our services around people and wellbeing, governance, funding, assets and community energy.

Summary of findings

The findings show a movement that is active, ambitious and responding to growing demand, but also facing increasing pressure on people, funding and organisational capacity.

They highlight both the scale of what development trusts are delivering across Scotland and the support members need to sustain and grow that work.

A growing demand

Members work across culture, tourism and events; environment and climate; community and social services; education and sport; economy and enterprise; and housing and transport. Almost all respondents run their own activities, and around one in five also give grants or donations to local organisations or individuals.

More than half of members said they had delivered much of what they planned in the previous year. Where plans were delayed or could not be completed, respondents commonly cited limited staff or volunteer capacity, funding shortfalls and external delays.

People and governance

The majority of members employ paid staff, but volunteers remain fundamental to how development trusts operate. Across respondents, members reported 4,818 active volunteers compared with roughly 900 paid employees — more than five volunteers for every member of staff.

Paid staff help members coordinate volunteers, strengthen financial management and develop their work. But people capacity is also a major pressure. Volunteer shortages were the most frequently reported barrier to resilience, and around half of employers said staff wellbeing had been a significant challenge or a challenge to some extent in the past year.

The survey also highlights questions about board recruitment and representation. Recruitment is mainly through word of mouth. Members often described difficulty attracting younger trustees and ensuring boards reflect the communities they serve.

Funding, reserves and assets

Members use a mix of grants, trading and other income, however around a half of members rated themselves 5 out of 5 for grant reliance. Sales and hiring out space or equipment are common ways to earn income. The median share of income from trading and enterprise was 20%.

Over half of respondents hold less than six months of unrestricted reserves. This sits alongside rising costs and reports of funding delays or reductions.

Three-quarters of respondents own a physical asset, and leasing has become more common since 2023. Community buildings, land and other buildings feature prominently. Some assets also generate income, and nearly one in five respondents reported owning some renewable energy capacity. Members who had gone through an asset acquisition described the process as time-consuming, complex and costly.

How experiences vary by place

The survey shows that members’ circumstances differ across Scotland. Remote rural trusts are especially likely to own assets, while reporting fewer active volunteers on average. Urban trusts are more likely to lease than own assets and are much less likely to receive community benefit funds. Small-town trusts are the most likely to employ paid staff.

The report also finds differences by area deprivation. Trusts in more deprived areas are more likely to employ staff. Members in the least deprived areas reported the highest average number of volunteers, but the lowest average sense of resilience. These findings underline that a single overall picture can hide different local conditions.

How the findings compare with the wider third sector

The report compares DTAS findings with SCVO’s Third Sector Tracker. Both surveys identify funding, rising costs, volunteer recruitment and limited reserves as pressures. The questions and time periods differ, so these comparisons show broad patterns rather than precise like-for-like differences.

Read the full report here