The Scottish Office (Back)
 
Land Reform Policy Group:
Identifying the Problems (February 1998)
 
9. What do you think?
9.1 There follows a list of key issues on which views are sought under each topic covered by the previous Chapters. The Group asks respondents, in commenting on any proposed reform, to explain: what problems would be resolved by the reform; and the cost, legislative and administrative implications.
  • What specific examples are there of problems due to private ownership, and what would be suitable remedies (paragraph 3.2)?
  • Is there a strong enough case to justify pursuing a prohibition on corporate ownership (paragraph 3.3)?
  • Does it really matter whether the owner of land is foreign or a Scot (paragraph 3.4)?
  • Does it really matter whether the owner is absent (paragraph 3.5)?
  • Should public bodies reduce their holdings, and, if so, on what basis (paragraph 3.6)?
  • Should the Scottish Executive press for change to the remit of the Crown Estate Commission to strike a better balance between income generation and development (paragraph 3.7)?
  • How can landowning non-Governmental organisations best contribute to rural development (paragraph 3.9)?
  • Are new powers needed to tackle problems faced by those considering community ownership (paragraph 3.10)?
  • How do current tax policies affect the price of land, and thus the objectives of achieving sustainable development in rural areas (paragraph 3.12)?
  • What are the barriers to acquiring small units of land in rural areas for housing and development (paragraph 3.13)?
  • To what extent are existing compulsory purchase powers defective and in need of amendment or replacement (paragraph 3.14)?
  • Is there a case for saying that current arrangements do not allow time for the assessment of the public interest in major sales (paragraph 3.15)? How to define such major sales (paragraph 3.16)?
  • To what extent is the 1991 Act inhibiting access for young would-be farmers; and could the existing system be adapted to create new types of tenancy and to encourage new agricultural tenancies (paragraph 4.3)?
  • Could there be changes to current arrangements for resolving disputes (paragraph 4.4)?
  • Should there be changes to make it easier for tenants and crofters to plant and harvest trees (paragraph 4.6)?
  • Should there be changes to encourage tenant farmers to involve themselves fully in conservation of the natural and cultural heritage (paragraph 4.7)?
  • Should steps be taken to encourage tenant farmers to develop the sporting interest of their holdings as part of broader land use businesses (paragraph 4.8)?
  • Should greater encouragement be given to small scale mineral developments of all kinds as part of rural enterprises (paragraph 4.9)?
  • How best to ensure that all crofts are actively occupied (paragraph 5.2)?
  • Should decrofting be discouraged and land kept in crofting tenure wherever possible (paragraph 5.3)?
  • Could the creation of new crofts or smallholdings be worth considering for specified areas if it would help stem or reverse population loss in remote rural areas through the encouragement of self-sustaining economic activity (paragraph 5.4)?
  • Should current right to buy legislation be amended and, if so, how (paragraph 5.5)?
  • Would it make sense to look at ways to bring all other crofting communities into a single simplified procedure for acquiring community ownership (paragraph 5.6)?
  • Is crofting administration part of the problem (paragraph 5.7)?
  • Is part of the solution to focus and integrate existing grant and other schemes better to promote desirable land use (paragraph 6.2)?
  • How far can the Government continue to rely on a voluntary approach, supported by advice and information, as a way of achieving good management of land (paragraph 6.3)?
  • Could conditions on grants help (paragraph 6.3)?
  • How best to discourage undesirable land use if the normal operation of market forces plus the present range of Government incentives and controls fail to deliver the desired outcome in terms of sustainable development (paragraph 6.6)?
  • To what extent do the existing exemptions of agricultural and forestry-related developments from planning control cause problems, and could changes to the land use planning system help (paragraph 6.7)?
  • Could new financial penalties for undesirable land use be justified (paragraph 6.8)?
  • Might there need to be a new power of compulsory purchase in the event of undesirable land use which cannot be tackled otherwise (paragraph 6.9)?
  • Could a strengthening of public rights over the foreshore be justified (paragraph 6.11)?
  • Could the creation of significant new public rights in the name of the Crown be justified and, if so, what would be achieved, and how would such a system be implemented (paragraph 7.3)?
  • Is it worth £25m to speed up transfer of data to the new Register by the year 2000 (paragraph 8.4)?
  • Is it worth £300m for a Register listing all land; or between £5-15m for a Register listing all holdings over 1,000 acres (paragraph 8.5)?
  • Could introducing a duty to disclose information on beneficial owners be justified, and how might enforcement be achieved (paragraph 8.6)?
  • How much would publication of data on recipients of agricultural grants and subsidies (to the extent permitted under EU legislation) help (paragraph 8.7)?
9.2 Please send your comments by 30 April 1998 to:

Mrs Angela Saunders
Secretary to the Land Reform Policy Group
Pentland House
47 Robb’s Loan
EDINBURGH EH14 1TY
Telephone 0131 244 6003
Fax 0131 244 6259
E-mail angela.saunders@so076.scotoff.gov.uk
Following usual practice, copies of replies received will be made available to the public on request, unless respondents indicate that all or part of their response is confidential. Such confidentiality will of course be strictly respected.