In the latest DTAS Debates Series we asked the following question:  

‘How can Development Trusts play a role in the future use of land and buildings being disposed of by the Church of Scotland, and when should they say no?’ 

The event took place during the largest sale of buildings in the history of Scotland’s Church. Based on DTAS’s research, approximately 800 church buildings are at risk of disposal by the Church of Scotland by 2027, with a large portion having been put on the market or sold already. These church buildings play varied and significant roles in communities across Scotland. The choice to sell buildings at this speed and scale has put communities in a challenging position wondering if there’s anything they can do to keep these buildings in community use, and whether they should consider attempting to take them on. 

In direct response to this unprecedented moment, DTAS’ Community Ownership Support Service (COSS) recently launched the ‘New Futures: Former Places of Worship’ programme. Beginning in January 2025, COSS have been funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Historic Environment Scotland, and Development Trusts Association Scotland to provide expert advice to communities considering bringing a church into community ownership.  

This DTAS Debates session brought together development trusts from across the country to open a dialogue about the ongoing church disposals. Three panellists from Arisaig Community Trust, Action Porty, and Lochwinnoch Community Development Trust, explained their differing experiences and views regarding bringing churches into community ownership, providing structure and lived experience to the discussion. 

Key Themes and Challenges 

Significance of churches as community spaces 

• Panellists and attendees alike felt that for them and their community, their local church was a highly significant building. In many cases, the church is the only civic space available in a community, and losing it poses a significant threat to community life. Attendees expressed a sense that ‘once it’s lost, we’ll not get it back’ about their church buildings. 

• Although the threat of losing the building is significant, they can be an opportunity to rally and boost community engagement, with panellists reporting higher-than-usual local engagement in relation to their church. This included high response rates to surveys and other engagement and even high sum donations from private individuals. 

• The uniqueness and significance of churches can also come with complications, with communities having to consider complexities around graveyards, scheduled monuments, and listed statuses before deciding whether to take on a church asset. 

Scale of the sale 

• Many communities were frustrated with the scale and speed of church sales across Scotland and some felt that they haven’t been given enough time to prepare adequately for a community buyout. 

• However, communities were experiencing a huge variety in the process when initiating a community buyout – especially in relation to expectations and timescales from the Church of Scotland. One panellist began the process in 2020 and bought their church in 2025, while the other two panellists were given tight deadlines and had rush to purchase the building on time, with one only successful thanks to a community right to buy. 

• While a community right to buy proved successful for some communities, others felt that this route was unrealistic for them due to the rapid sale of church assets and the procedural challenges associated with CRtB.  

Suitability of church buildings 

• While the flexibility and size of church spaces appeals to many community groups, others felt that churches are too large or unsuitably laid out for regular use and required significant adaptation. 

• The cost of adapting and maintaining church buildings can be significant. In two presentations, panellists explained that 6 and 7 figure sums were required to improve the buildings to the standard necessary for community use. 

• Ecclesiastical exemption also means that many church facilities aren’t up to modern building regulations, despite being in active use. Therefore, when communities acquire them, they are faced with a costly task to upgrade the building’s basic facilities before they can use it. 

What Needs to Happen Next? 

DTAS expects church sales to continue at pace over the next two years. Alongside this, there will be an increased need for advice, support and clarity for communities wishing to bring churches into community ownership. 

While COSS’s programme is timely, it needs to act quickly to ensure that communities are getting the support they need to take on church assets as more buildings go on the market. 

What COSS can offer: increased support to communities through the New Futures: Former Places of Worship programme.  

• COSS began to provide specialist advice with the joint publication ‘your church, your community’, which gives guidance to communities interested in acquiring a church. The COSS churches team are now providing a one-to-one support service with two churches advisors, giving direct advice to communities looking to bring churches into community ownership.  

• Alongside this, we are providing a series of workshops for communities looking to bring churches into community ownership. Topics include the first steps to community ownership, community right to buy, engaging with your community, finance and fundraising and business planning. 

COSS will continue to develop its offering to communities as the New Futures programme develops. 

What communities want to see: 

• Increased support with community right to buy. Due to the speed at which churches are being put on the market, communities need increased support at all levels with the community right to buy, especially as it pertains to late applications, to ensure its efficacy as a mechanism to empower communities and enable community ownership. 

• Greater clarity about which buildings are for sale, and when they will go on the market. Communities have found it difficult to prepare in time for the sale of the church buildings as sales times often fail to match with release dates in the presbytery plans. Increased clarity around planned release dates will allow communities to prepare a bid in advance. 

• Development of a standardised pathway to community ownership. Communities have had inconsistent experiences and advice regarding the potential for them to take on their church building. Attendees desired a clear, consistent approach from the Church of Scotland, and an established pathway to community ownership. 

Conclusion: 

The importance of this moment is hard to overstate as we witness the rapid change in ownership of one of the most significant estates in Scotland. Yet with the right support and advice an opportunity exists for communities to be given the chance to step in and maintain Scotland’s places of worship for generations to come. 

However, there is also a danger that as this moment passes, the opportunity will slip away for many communities, and they will lose their church forever. With so much at stake, all parties must work together, with DTAS continuing to advocate in the interest of our membership, to ensure that those hoping to bring their church into community ownership are given clear and consistent advice at all levels, and an easily understood pathway to follow in order to make an informed choice. 

The latest DTAS Debates session delved into a complex and timely issue: how Development Trusts can harness natural capital markets to benefit their communities.

As natural capital markets continue to grow, DTs find themselves at a crossroads, balancing opportunities for financial and ecological gain with the potential risks of corporate exploitation, inequity, and greenwashing.

The event brought together a panel of practitioners and academics: Professor Mark Reed (Huntly Development Trust and SRUC), Dr. Josh Doble (Community Land Scotland), Rowan Aitchison (Tayvallich Initiative), and Ewen Mclachlan (Assynt Development Trusts). The discussion highlighted both the transformative potential of natural capital projects and the challenges that communities must navigate to ensure that benefits are truly equitable and sustainable.

Several panellists shared practical case studies of community engagement with natural capital markets, specifically spotlighted was Assynt DT’s participation in the North-west 2045 Rural Land Use Partnership. The trust’s natural capital audit revealed that the carbon stored in their land was worth an estimated £17 billion in social value, providing a powerful tool for community empowerment. Their efforts to engage youth, collaborate with landowners, and build local capacity show how natural capital projects can provide real social and environmental benefits when communities maintain control.

Key Themes and Challenges

Uncertainty and Regulation

• One of the primary concerns raised was the infancy of natural capital markets. Panellists noted that these markets are still developing, with significant uncertainty on the long-term social and environmental impacts.
• Speculative carbon credit sales, referred to as pending issuances units, were specifically mentioned as particularly risky initiatives in such a new market.
• There is a pressing need for clear standards and regulations to ensure transparency and trustworthiness in these markets, with the British Standards Institution (BSI) aiming to provide accreditation from 2025.

Ethical Concerns and Greenwashing

• Panellists repeatedly emphasised the ethical dilemmas inherent in carbon credit trading. The risk of companies using carbon credits as a “license to pollute”, while failing to make meaningful reductions in their own emissions was mentioned several times.
• Panellists also questioned the theoretical underpinnings of such a market, positing the question of if capitalist mechanisms can effectively address environmental problems created by capitalism.

Community Control and Land Ownership

• Legislative levers that guarantee community decision-making and ownership were called for, ensuring that communities can retain control over projects.
• Having final control regarding the sale of carbon credits, to avoid selling to companies with questionable social and environmental practices was specifically mentioned.
• Natural capital markets have already begun to affect land prices, with “Green Lairds” driving up costs and complicating community land ownership.
• Panellists emphasised that for natural capital to benefit communities equitably, it must be rooted in land reform and community ownership of land.
• While landowning communities are currently better positioned to take advantage of these markets, non-landowning communities can still benefit through the development of community benefit frameworks.

What Needs to Happen Next?

The panellists left no doubt that, while the potential benefits of natural capital markets are significant, much work remains to ensure these benefits are shared equitably.

• Strengthen Regulations and Standards: Governments must establish regulations that prevent greenwashing and ensure community control over natural capital resources. These regulations should also clarify environmental and social outcomes, allowing communities to assess the true long-term impact of projects.
• Build Community Capacity: Communities need knowledge and resources to engage with natural capital markets meaningfully. This includes training, access to expert advice, and the development of internal governance structures that can handle the complexity of these projects.
• Foster Collaboration: Successful natural capital projects will require partnerships between DTs, landowners, environmental NGOs, and access to patient capital (i.e. philanthropists and pension funds).
• Ensure Community Control: Legislation that protects community rights over who can purchase carbon credits is essential. Communities must have a say in how their resources are used and who benefits from them, ensuring that local social and environmental rights are respected.

Conclusion: Towards a Just and Sustainable Future

The DTAS Debates on natural capital revealed both the promise and the peril of this emerging market. While the potential for regenerating communities on a wider scale as exemplified by Assynt’s case is considerable, so too are the risks. By advocating for stronger regulations, building internal capacity in DTs, and ensuring that communities retain control over their natural resources, we can navigate these challenges.

The message is clear: natural capital markets must be approached with care, thoughtfulness, and a commitment to community-led solutions. As Ewen McLachlan aptly put it, “Nothing about us without us is for us.”

For DTs, the path forward lies in collaboration, control, and capacity-building—ensuring that communities, not external interests, remain at the heart of this new green economy.