2.2 Many of
the responses came from various groups with a direct interest in land matters; but equally
there were significant numbers of responses from individuals many of whom had personal
experience of the issues raised. The overall breakdown of the responses is as follows:
- 15 public bodies (Argyll & Islands Enterprise, Crofters
Commission, Crown Estate, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Historic Scotland, Lochaber
Ltd, Ministry of Defence, North of Scotland Water, Scottish Environment Protection Agency,
Scottish Homes, Scottish Land Court, Scottish Natural Heritage, Skye & Lochalsh
Enterprise, the Secretary of State for Scotland’s Advisory Group on Education for
Sustainable Development and agricultural staff in AEFD);
- 15 local authorities (Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll &
Bute, East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Fife, Highland, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire,
West Lothian, Moray, Perth & Kinross, Renfrewshire, Stirling and COSLA);
- 3 community councils (Airth Parish, Mull and Stratherrick
and Foyers): the disappointing number of responses from community councils highlighted the
need for the Group to target them direct rather than through the Association of Scottish
Community Councils. The Group will take this on board for the second consultation paper;
- 4 political parties (Conservative and Unionist Party,
Liberal Democrats Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform, Scottish Green Party and
the SNP);
- 8 non-Governmental organisations (John Muir Trust, National
Trust for Scotland, RSPB, Rural Forum, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations,
Scottish Wildlife Trust, Shelter and Woodland Trust);
- 13 professional or representative bodies (Association of
Professional Foresters, Institute of Chartered Foresters, Landowners Group, Law Society of
Scotland, National Farmers Union of Scotland (3), Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, Royal Scottish Forestry Society, Scottish Agricultural Arbiters Association,
Scottish Crofters Union, Scottish Landowners Federation, Tenant Farmers Association);
- 38 other organisations;
- 78 landowners;
- 42 land agents;
- 20 tenant farmers;
- 19 crofters;
- 109 other individuals.
|
2.3 The main
themes emerging from each category were as follows:
- public bodies: most limited their comments to issues related
to their remits; there was broad support for simplified compulsory purchase procedures,
greater integration of rural policies and incentive schemes and cross compliance, and more
easily accessible information about land;
- local authorities: most took a broadly similar approach:
they emphasised the need for greater local accountability, more access to information,
greater integration of rural policy, streamlining of compulsory purchase powers and
ability to intervene in land sales in the public interest; called for flexible tenancy
arrangements and better procedures for dispute resolution; strongly favoured publication
of details of those in receipt of grants and public moneys; emphasised the need to
maximise access opportunities; there was general support in principle for bringing some
aspects of agriculture and forestry development into the planning system, but concern over
resource implications; and general resistance to any reduction in the scale of public land
holdings;
- community councils: expressed concerns about access to land
for community use; and about the loss of rights of way; about lack of land for housing and
the unwillingness of landowners to sell or let old houses; supported the concept of
community forests; favoured integration of grant schemes; called for a simplified
procedure for community acquisition of land, and time for assessment of public interest in
land sales; called for easily accessible information about land ownership;
- political parties: the views expressed naturally reflected
the different party political approaches, but there was some consensus, for example about
the need to co-ordinate land policies (two parties calling for the creation of a rural
affairs ministry); about better access to information about land and incentives; about
support for responsible access; about the need for local accountability and community
involvement; for reducing crofting bureaucracy; only one party supported placing
restrictions on foreign or corporate ownership; two parties supported the introduction of
land value taxation;
- non-Governmental organisations: agreed that management not
ownership is the prime concern; called for better information; emphasised the need for
community involvement and partnership; pointed out the local employment opportunities NGOs
already provide; supported the development of codes of good practice, but called for
clearer guidelines from Government and the integration of incentives; strongly supported
flexible tenancy arrangements and diversification wherever possible; and expressed some
concern that problems in the Highlands may dominate the debate;
- professional or representative bodies: virtually all would
oppose any prohibition on corporate or foreign ownership, believing that it is the
management of land that matters; suggested that current planning procedures often inhibit
sustainable development; generally supported the tenanted sector, endorsing reform of
arbitration procedures and opportunities for diversification; some expressed opposition to
extending planning control to agriculture and forestry; many advocated the introduction of
a code of good practice; although some expressed support for the principle of community
ownership, there were also real concerns over practicalities;
- other organisations: these ranged from Deer Management
Groups to the Carbeth Hutters Association, and accordingly there was a range of specific
interests and views represented, but consensus emerged on greater local involvement in
land use issues; more responsible access to land; more diversity of ownership and use;
- landowners: most were broadly in favour of the status quo;
were opposed to any increase in land regulation; argued that changes ill lead to a
reduction in local development and employment; suggested that any diminution of their
current rights would require compensation; emphasised their commitment to the land and the
local community; but some recognised that there would be merit in some changes to ensure
that all performed to the standards of the best;
- land agents: much more uniform in their views than the
landowners, and even more opposed to most kinds of change; emphasised the threat to income
levels of increased land regulation; pointed out practical difficulties and unnecessary
costs of intervention in land market; strongly favoured greater flexibility of
agricultural tenancies;
- tenant farmers: a notable proportion of tenant farmers asked
for their views to remain confidential; there was a strong and often passionate belief in
the right to buy; frustration was expressed at inability to diversify; difficulties in
raising capital; endorsement of proposals to improve arbitration procedures; frustration
when landlords unwilling to keep maintenance up;
- crofters: largely in favour of regulation as a means of
dealing with problems; attached importance to crofting as a way of life and to
continuation of measures which would encourage and support it. However, there was no
consistency of view over what these measures should be, with some expressing concern about
the performance of the Crofters Commission; some supporting the existing right to buy;
arguments for less restriction of decrofting, but also calls to tighten up control in
these areas;
- other individuals: representing nearly a third of responses,
there was a great diversity of replies from individuals from all walks of life, indicating
the level of interest and concern about land reform issues. It was clear that there is
support for reform and clear areas of consensus as follows: more community involvement in
land issues and local accountability; more diversity of ownership and use; better
integration of rural policies and incentives; more access to information about land
ownership and use; more public access on a responsible basis.
|
