 |  |
| Consultations |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
| | |||
| > Publications | ||||
< Previous | Contents | Next >
71. Part 3 of the Bill deals with conservation and maritime burdens.
Conservation burdens
72. The 2000 Act allowed some feudal burdens to be saved as a new class of burden to be called conservation burdens. The purpose was to preserve, for the benefit of the public, burdens which protect the built or natural environment. A conservation burden was defined as a burden which has the purpose of preserving or protecting -
73. Conservation burdens can only be enforced by bodies which are designated as conservation bodies by Scottish Ministers, or by the Scottish Ministers themselves.
Maritime burdens
74. Maritime burdens were also identified as a special category of burdens under the 2000 Act. The Crown has in the past sold parts of the seabed or (more frequently) the foreshore for various purposes including the construction of piers, harbours and bridges. Burdens restricting these parts of the seabed or foreshore may have been imposed when the land was sold. The Crown's right to enforce these 'maritime burdens' was preserved in the Act because these burdens are of public benefit.
75. The proposals for conservation and maritime burdens were generally welcomed during the passage of the 2000 Act.
76. The Scottish Law Commission have now recommended that it should in the future be possible to create conservation and maritime burdens on the same basis as the saved feudal burdens.
|
Discussion Point 16 The Executive believes that it should be possible for conservation and maritime burdens to be created in the future. Do you agree? |
77. Some feudal burdens which were imposed in the past by private individuals rather than conservation trusts or other public or private bodies may have been imposed for altruistic reasons to protect some historic or architecturally significant building or buildings or perhaps an area of natural beauty or interest. They are therefore like conservation burdens since they were not imposed principally to protect the feudal superior's own land but rather to preserve land or buildings for the public good. Unless they can be saved under the general provisions of the 2000 Act, these burdens will be lost. During the passage of the 2000 Act the Executive canvassed the possibility of introducing provisions which would allow a superior to nominate a conservation body as his successor as the benefited proprietor for these burdens, which would become fully fledged conservation burdens. Obviously the conservation body would have to consent to becoming the benefited proprietor of the burden.
|
Discussion Point 17 Do you think it would be helpful to allow former superiors to nominate a conservation body as the benefited proprietor for burdens which are similar to conservation burdens? |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.
For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.
