Identifying The Solutions

• Most landowners and agents agreed strongly that the current range of support schemes should be simplified (a few adding that there should be no reduction in the overall value of support); while some respondents favoured a ‘one stop shop’, practical limitations on this were noted by several others; however an overwhelming majority of those who commented - representing a broad range of interests - considered that existing grant and other schemes should so far as possible be focused and integrated better according to compatible objectives, to promote desirable land use;
• Opinion was divided on the issue of how successful the voluntary approach had been in delivering good management of land: most landowners favoured voluntarism, while a mix of respondents saw a continuing role for targeted financial incentives, information and advice (though a minority favoured regulation by a new body); several organisations and individuals saw merit in land management plans (except for a number of landowners who thought they would be burdensome) or suggested a code of good land use practice;
• There was a clear majority for attaching conditions to grants with support coming from a wide mix of respondents, including landowners, agents, and a range of public, NGO and other bodies, and individuals;
• Various ways to discourage undesirable land use were proposed, and some themes emerged: some respondents, mainly individuals, clearly considered that more local consultation was needed to deliver sustainable land use - others queried whether a standard fixed definition of "desirable" was possible; a new extended role for the planning authorities was suggested by a mix of bodies and individuals, including some local authorities, while a few respondents proposed that a new central body should be set up. Overall, it is clear that more community involvement in defining local objectives and better integration between the various interests are favoured;
• A clear body of opinion - mainly individuals - commented in favour of ending existing exemptions of agricultural and forestry-related developments from planning control, although most respondents with a landowning interest clearly were not in favour; while several commentators (both for and against) noted that local authority planning departments would need to be resourced and trained appropriately, in general, those local authorities who responded on this point saw merit in the idea;
• Far less support was forthcoming for the introduction of new financial penalties for undesirable land use (though some local authorities, other bodies and individuals were in favour), especially if alternative options were pursued such as grant conditions or broadening the planning role;
• On access, respondents’ views were split between a range of individuals and organisations wanting a legal right to roam responsibly, and those favouring non-statutory arrangements (predominantly landowners, factors and land agents);
• Regarding natural heritage designations and in particular Sites of Special Scientific Interest, several respondents (mostly individuals) considered more consultation should occur between conservation bodies and local communities to take account of the impact of site protection on economic development objectives; a strategic overview of designation practice was also thought to be desirable.

• better integration of policy for rural land use at national level;
• more integrated planning of rural land use at local level;
• more community involvement in decisions about rural land use;
• more public access on a responsible basis.

Vision for the Future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

LU2 Clarify and streamline public assistance and its objectives to achieve desirable land use.

LU3 Make existing public assistance supporting land uses such as agriculture, forestry and conservation more user-friendly.

LU4 Introduce a code of practice on rural land use.

LU5 Make provision of public assistance conditional on land uses such as agriculture, forestry, sporting and conservation being consistent with the code of practice.

LU7 Regulate local land use through local land councils.

LU8 Make provision of public assistance conditional on rural land use being consistent with rural development strategies.

LU9 Extend planning control to agricultural, forestry, sporting and conservation-related developments.

LU10 Provide for stronger enforcement of deer control measures.

LU12 Make provision of public assistance to landowners/tenants conditional on them consulting the community about the activities for which they are seeking assistance.

Better integration of policy for rural land use at national level.

Improve co-ordination of activity between public bodies responsible for conservation of the natural and cultural heritage, environmental, agricultural and other land use matters, eg rural regeneration and development.

No legislation required.

Ministers would ensure that all Government Departments and agencies take full account of sustainable rural development objectives. This would be supplemented by Ministerial letter to relevant public bodies including Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Historic Scotland requiring, eg the exchange of plans and that regular dialogue takes place. Co-ordination might be undertaken bilaterally or in the context of partnership arrangements such as those proposed recently by the Community Planning Working Group, or within the National Rural Partnership and strategic rural partnerships.

The resource costs of liaison would not be significant, and might well be offset to some extent by efficiencies of joint working opportunities or streamlining which develop as a result. Benefits for the private sector might also accrue.

• Such co-ordination is necessary to achieve integration in the delivery of Government objectives for sustainable rural development.

• Would build positively on the co-operation that takes place already, and on existing directions and approaches to ensure public bodies have regard to factors beyond their immediate remits.

• Would need to avoid duplication with other mechanisms for collaborative working, eg National Rural Partnership arrangements.

Probably yes: to ensure that opportunities are maximised.

Better integration of policy for rural land use at national level.

Clarify and streamline public assistance and its objectives to achieve desirable land use. The benefits of operational streamlining could be maximised by combining/merging suitable schemes. Initial and obvious candidate schemes for amalgamation include those agri-environment schemes whose merger into a single scheme was proposed in an AEFD consultation paper in January 1998; but the operation of other schemes, eg the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, might also be examined under this option to review the scope for possible integration with other funding arrangements.

A combination of primary and secondary legislation probably would be needed to effect the merging of existing land use support schemes, to the extent that is practicable and possible. The rules of some EC-funded schemes would not allow their merger or modification; for others, proposals for change would have to be negotiated with the EC. The Rural Development Regulation proposed under Agenda 2000 should increase the scope for integration of schemes by bringing a number together under a single legal framework.

It would be necessary to build on recent Government reviews which have already started this process of rationalisation, and to adjust scheme objectives and procedures. Where schemes were capable of integration, it would be necessary to consider where responsibility for administration and for professional/technical input should lie, and to ensure the correct balance is struck between central input and local control/delivery points. Some schemes would not be open to amalgamation, but their objectives might still benefit from review.

The overall cost of payments under merged schemes should not vary much from current costs, as rates would take account of the experience of running non-merged schemes. Administration costs rising in some areas might be offset by savings elsewhere. Applicants for assistance should benefit from the efficiencies of streamlining.

• Increased focus and clarity of objectives within an integrated strategy.
• Approach would come closer to the popular ‘one stop shop’ approach.
• Would enable more strategic direction of public support and advice.

• It would not be possible for all public assistance schemes to be merged.
• EC agricultural support cannot yet be included in such a merger.

Probably yes so far as possible: all relevant schemes could be considered for possible re-focusing or merging wherever an integrated approach would be both practicable and beneficial.

Better integration of policy for rural land use at national level.

Make existing public assistance supporting land uses such as agriculture, forestry and conservation more user-friendly. This would address current criticism of certain arrangements for claiming support, aiming to make it easier to obtain such assistance.

No legislation would be needed to review the user-friendliness of existing schemes. Implications thereafter would depend on the outcome for each scheme and whether this revealed scope and advantage in changing arrangements for submitting and processing claims. Agenda 2000 is in any event likely to require the relaunch of a number of existing schemes under the Rural Development Regulation.

The Scottish Office, its agencies and the Forestry Commission would need to look fundamentally at all relevant schemes, their administration and take up rates, and consider the scope for beneficial change, seeking feedback from past applicants. The work involved in each case would vary depending on when schemes were last reviewed. Some schemes (eg those established under EC rules) might not be open to change.

Existing resources should cover the administrative costs involved; and some off-setting savings might well result when findings were implemented. There should be no cost implications for applicants for public assistance; change should only be beneficial for this group.

• Would deliver scheme management which was more efficient and responsive to the needs of users.
• Would build on existing good practice.
• Might increase the take-up rate for certain schemes.
• Would respond positively to current criticism.

• A tricky balance would need to be considered in some cases between "user friendliness"/simplification of procedures, and the desire for consultation that provides adequate opportunity for objections.
• Where EC schemes require EC approval for any procedural change, this can be a complicated and time-consuming process. (Treasury and Parliamentary approval are also needed.)

Probably yes so far as possible: but action would be required on a scheme by scheme basis.

Better integration of policy for rural land use at national level.

Introduce a code of practice on rural land use, clearly setting out recommended good practice for land uses such as agriculture, forestry, sporting use and conservation, as appropriate across Scotland. This might focus on good examples of sustainable development, bringing together social, economic and environmental aspects.

None, if introduced on a voluntary basis. Otherwise, such a code might be enforced through new legislation.

Whether or not the code was to have statutory elements, its compilation would require contributions and input covering a range of relevant interests and expertise. As it would aim to be comprehensive "standalone" guidance on agricultural, forestry, sporting and conservation use, those producing it would need to consider whether to incorporate existing reference material and codes of practice or to cross refer the contents with, for example, the UK Forestry Standard. It might also be helpful to commission research on good practice to inform the process.

These would mainly be limited to project costs, and assistance might be obtained in terms of draft contributions from expert bodies. If the code was enforced by statute, there might be compliance costs for those using or managing land, although these should be of a low order as compared with current requirements. A statutory code would also carry the need to resource an appeals process.

• Would provide a thorough and comprehensive reference point for positive action to promote and give effect to sustainable rural land use.
• Would provide clear Government endorsement of activity to achieve rural objectives.
• Consultation on a draft code, and collaboration in its production, should help to command a good level of support.

• If voluntary, or not tied to public assistance, the code might not deliver improvements in land use practice.

Probably yes: there would appear to be a strong balance of advantage in producing a comprehensive source of advice, drawing on existing guidance.

Better integration of policy for rural land use at national level.

Make provision of public assistance conditional on land uses such as agriculture, forestry, sporting and conservation being consistent with the code of practice.

Would depend on whether the legislative basis of each public assistance scheme allowed for such a condition to be attached. It is likely that in most cases secondary legislation, at least, would be required to alter scheme rules. The rules of some EC-funded schemes would not allow such conditions to be applied; for others, appropriate criteria would have to be negotiated with the EC.

Once the code had been produced, grant scheme rules would need to be altered to incorporate this condition, and mechanisms would be required for checking compliance with the code of practice and for handling appeals.

Scheme administration would increase with the new work of compliance checking, and the handling of appeals. Overall, compliance costs for scheme applicants should be of a low order as against existing requirements.

• Would send a clear signal in support of the code of land use practice.
• Would provide an effective way of ensuring compliance with the code.
• A fair approach: attaching quid pro quo conditions to public assistance.

• Would not affect land use where no public assistance was received.
• First, requires the production of an authoritative and comprehensive code of practice; second, the passage of legislation to change the rules for each relevant scheme - all of which might take a significant time to implement.
• Additional administration costs.

Probably yes so far as possible: but each public assistance scheme would require to be addressed separately.

More integrated planning of rural land use at local level.

Use rural development strategies to deal with rural land use on an integrated basis. It was proposed recently in "Towards a Development Strategy for Rural Scotland; The Framework" that local authorities and agencies should work, in the context of community planning and in partnership with local communities, in developing and implementing such strategies. These would build on the shared vision set out in the community plan for their areas. This option aims to build on that: the partnership ethos would enable a fully integrated approach to rural land use and determining local priorities.

Community planning and the associated rural development strategies can be undertaken on a non-legislative basis. However, the recent report of the Community Planning Working Group recommended that in due course the Scottish Parliament should legislate to provide a statutory basis for community planning.

The paper, "Towards a Development Strategy for Rural Scotland; The Framework", proposed that rural development strategies should be formulated at local authority area level for all parts of rural Scotland. These strategies should be integrated with the community planning process. In most rural areas, land use and economic development issues will be a key dimension of the priorities identified in rural development strategies; such strategies should enable partners to develop a more integrated approach to priority land use issues facing an area, in a way which is attentive to the needs of the people they represent and serve.

Resources would be provided by the participating organisations. Some support is already available from the Rural Partnership Fund.

• Would facilitate greater joint vision-building, planning and delivery by the key local stakeholders of ways in which to address key land use priorities.
• Would increase local involvement by building on current proposals while avoiding the introduction of new consultative processes.
• Would complement the statutory planning system and arrangements for public participation.

• Would rely on implementation of community planning, which is at an early stage and currently has no legislative backing.
• An appropriate balance of local interests would need to be struck in identifying priorities.
• Would have resource implications for local authorities.

Probably yes: an integrated approach to rural land use, influenced by local priorities, is vital to underpin future action.

More integrated planning of rural land use at local level.

Regulate local land use through local land councils.

New primary legislation (significant change to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) would be required to create new powers of regulation; to set up new bodies; and as appropriate transfer powers from existing bodies such as local authorities, Scottish Natural Heritage etc. The legislation would need to set general criteria for the bodies’ activities. Different arrangements might be more appropriate for predominantly urban areas.

The new bodies would either duplicate or take over a great deal of local authorities’ current and proposed future planning role.

If largely duplicating the local authorities’ planning role, there would be massive additional costs. If the new bodies were to take over local authority functions, there would be considerable disruption and significant costs arising from the necessary reorganisation. The financial impact on private landowners and managers of land would depend on how the local land councils chose to exercise the new powers.

• Bodies would be dedicated to land use planning rather than this being only one of a number of functions.

• Untried and untested (unlike local authority alternative).
• Unnecessary duplication with local authority functions; or removal of significant functions from local authorities.
• More difficult to link to other related functions eg road and school planning.
• Particular difficulties for predominantly urban areas.
• Significant extra bureaucracy.
• Significant extra costs.

Probably not: likely to be less disruptive and more effective for local authorities to take on this role.

More integrated planning of rural land use at local level.

Make provision of public assistance conditional on rural land use being consistent with rural development strategies.

Would depend in each case on whether the relevant legislative basis of the public assistance scheme allowed for such a condition to be attached. It is probable that secondary legislation would be needed in most cases to alter the scheme rules. The rules of some EC-funded schemes would not allow such conditions to be applied; for others, appropriate criteria would have to be negotiated with the EC.

The rules of each of the relevant public assistance schemes would require to be altered to include this condition. Applicants for this assistance would require access to rural development strategies, and possibly an explanation of their content. Mechanisms would be required for checking compliance and for handling appeals.

The inclusion of compliance-checking and the work of handling appeals would add to the costs of scheme administration. Private sector (applicants’) compliance costs would depend on the terms of the rural development strategies.

• Would be an effective way of ensuring compliance with rural development strategies, and taking account of ‘community’ opinion.
• A fair approach: quid pro quo conditions attached to public assistance.

• Would not ensure compliance with rural development strategies where no public funding was received.
• Legislation would be required to give effect to the change for each relevant scheme, and this might take significant time to implement.
• Additional administration costs.

Probably yes so far as possible: but undertaken on a scheme by scheme basis.

More integrated planning of rural land use at local level.

Extend planning control to agricultural, forestry, sporting and conservation-related developments. The spectrum of possible change ranges widely: at the minimum level, control might be extended to new or altered farm/forestry buildings; while at its fullest extent all land use operations not presently subject to the planning processes might be controlled. Intermediate options could include engineering/excavation operations and/or changes to land cover which impact on neighbouring holdings or the rural landscape. In determining the scope of change, it would be necessary to target specific types of development/activity where such control might help to deliver sustainable development in a more integrated way and was practicable.

Amendment to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, to reduce the existing permitted development rights. However, a change to primary legislation (the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) would be required if more planning control over the use of agricultural and forestry land was sought; and the Forestry Act 1967 might require amendment regarding felling controls.

Would affect planning authorities (PAs) covering the rural areas of Scotland, and the Forestry Commission. Direction and support would be required regarding consistent use of the new provisions. Would increase the planning caseload for the PAs concerned, with implications in terms of staff resources, and training to cover some of the more technical aspects. Would need to ensure integration of relevant existing arrangements, eg the UK Forestry Standard and Indicative Forestry Strategies (IFS).

The inclusion of these developments within the planning system would add to the cost of the planning function; but would reduce considerably if control was only extended to certain specified operations. Landowners and farmers might face some delay in undertaking development, with attendant financial implications. But overall, private sector cost implications should be of a low-to-medium order, as against current controls.

• More developments appropriate to control through planning regulations would be brought into the democratic planning system, removing what some regard as a gap in the current statutory arrangements.
• Control of urban and rural development would be put on a par - though perhaps with some modification in the countryside.
• A wider application of planning control would facilitate a more strategic approach.

• Some farm/forestry developments are already covered by the planning system and Prior Notification arrangements, while forestry planting aspects are covered by measures including Environmental Impact Assessments and IFS.
• New task for the PAs, with administration and possible compensation costs; and new requirements upon landowners and farmers.

Probably yes: but would require careful consideration of the scope and definition of development to be brought within the planning system, and of the implications of change.

More integrated planning of rural land use at local level.

Provide for stronger enforcement of deer control measures.

If undertaken by legislation, would need to amend and strengthen the relevant powers in Part II of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 or, alternatively, simplify the legislative procedures for introducing Compulsory Control Schemes.

Extra administration would be required of the Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS) in using the new legislative powers to enforce control of deer numbers on estates. Mechanisms for penalties/cost recovery, and for considering appeals would be needed also.

To supplement these arrangements - or in place of new statutory controls - additional resources (up to about £250,000 per annum) would require to be provided to the DCS to support expenditure on enforcement activity. The cost to private landowners affected by the measures would probably be of a low/medium order, depending directly on existing levels of management in each case.

• Deer numbers would be controlled more effectively, meeting an identified need for this action.
• Such a move would be welcomed by those who consider stronger control is needed to benefit the natural heritage.

• Additional administration costs for the DCS.
• Additional pressure on landowners to take further action; with a requirement to meet attendant costs.

Probably yes: the potential environmental benefits outweigh the costs involved.

More community involvement in decisions about rural land use.

Require all public land owners to develop land management plans in consultation with the local community.

Would probably be preferable to promote the preparation of land management plans and local consultation by public land owners administratively, rather than by legislative means.

Readily effected by Ministerial letters to all relevant public bodies, with necessary adjustment to framework documents including corporate plans. Appropriate mechanisms would be needed for achieving community consultation and ongoing liaison, which might be time-consuming and carry resource implications for the public bodies. If effected by legislative means, mechanisms for handling complaints and appeals would be needed. Could only apply to devolved public bodies owning land.

The new costs should not be significant.

• Would promote dialogue between public land owners and local community interests.
• Consultation would help to ensure an integrated approach to sustainable rural development in the public bodies’ land management plans.
• Would address some current criticism of public bodies.

• Additional resource implications for public bodies.
• Might slow down decision-making.

Probably yes: if effected administratively.

More community involvement in decisions about rural land use.

Make provision of public assistance to landowners/tenants conditional on them consulting the community about the activities for which they are seeking assistance. It might be more practicable to include only certain categories of assisted activity - defined by type or scale - in such arrangements; and for this a robust legal definition would be required.

Would depend on whether the legislative basis of each public assistance scheme allowed for such conditions to be attached. It is likely that secondary legislation at least would be needed to alter the scheme rules. The rules of some EC-funded schemes would not allow such conditions to be applied; for others, appropriate criteria would have to be negotiated with the EC.

The rules of each of the various public assistance schemes would need to be altered to include this condition; and mechanisms for checking compliance and handling appeals would be required. Applicants would need to develop appropriate liaison arrangements for achieving community consultation.

The inclusion of compliance-checking and appeals machinery would add to the cost of administering the schemes in question. Costs for landowners/tenants would vary, but should usually be of a low order.

• The attaching of conditions to public assistance represents a reasonable quid pro quo.
• Would send a strong message.
• Would promote dialogue between landowners, tenants and local communities.

• Would not affect landowners and tenants not in receipt of public assistance.
• Legislation to introduce the change would need to cover a wide range of different schemes and would therefore take time to effect.
• Additional administration costs.

Probably yes so far as possible: but scheme by scheme action would be necessary.