Community right to buy: review

The consultation questions are included here for your reference. Please click 'Begin consultation' at the bottom of this page to proceed.

1.       Do you think that the three existing compulsory rights should be merged? If so, given that each of the existing ones provide a different level of rights to communities, in what way should they be merged?

2.       Should the newly merged compulsory rights be based on the condition of the land or on the owner's use of the land? For example, the existing Part 3A rights are based on the condition of the land, whereas Part 5 rights are based on how it is being used

3.       Do you support the Scottish Government recommendation that the residence and voting eligibility requirement is reduced to being anything over 50% of the community? What ratio of ordinary members should be required of a community body to ensure that control of community-owned assets remains with local members of the community?

4.       Should the ratio of members required to attend be amended from the current 10%? If so, what proportion do you think would still ensure that the local community is fairly represented at general meetings of the company?

5a.      Could some of these levels of community support and turnout required be reduced while still providing sufficient evidence that the proposals have community support? If so, which ones?

5b.      Should the demonstration of support in a ballot be solely based on the percentage of the community in support (i.e. with no separate minimum turnout requirement)—so for example a 25% threshold could be met by a 50% turnout and 50% support—or a 25% turnout and 100% support?

5c.      If a ballot were based solely on the percentage of community support, with no minimum turnout, should the percentage of those against the proposals be considered, instead of just those in favour?

6.       What level of community support should be required for a late application to be accepted? The legislation requires it to be “significantly greater” than the 10% required for a timeous application. In practice, this has been taken to be 15%.

7.       Should late applications only be accepted from community groups that can demonstrate that they are compliant with the Right to Buy provisions, prior to the owner taking steps to transfer (and should we define what is considered to be a step to transfer)?

8.       Should late applications still require a community group to demonstrate that they had taken steps towards acquiring the land before the owner has taken steps to dispose of it? Further details will be developed on what those steps should be as part of the review.

9.       Should it be a requirement of a late application that a detailed business plan for the asset be included, and should we define how much detail is required?

10.      If a late application is approved, should the owner be prohibited from removing the asset from sale (given that they were already in the process of selling it)?

11.      Should third party purchasers remain an option under the compulsory rights to buy?

12.      If third party purchasers remain an option, should requirements be placed on the structure of the third party purchaser for it to be eligible, for example in line with the compliance requirements placed on community group applicants?

13.      Should the third-party purchaser be required to have an agreement in place with the community body that shows the future relationship between the two and any business plan in place for the asset, as part of the application?

14.      Should the existence of option agreements (although not their details) be something that an asset owner must make known to community groups that have applied for a right to buy the asset?

15.      Rather than automatically requiring that an application is declined, should an application for a right to buy proceed through assessment, and then, if approved, take second place to the option agreement, meaning that if the option is not taken up, then the community body right to buy will apply?

16.      Should there be a limitation on the types of option agreement that cause an application to be declined. For example, should they only be relevant if not between members of the same family, or companies within the same group?

17.      Should the period allowed to submit an appeal be extended to allow both parties to make a more informed decision on whether to appeal? If so, how long should it be, given that the asset is free to be sold if the application is rejected?

18.      Should the registration period be extended from the current five-year period?

19.      Do you wish to make any other comments in relation to the matters raised by this consultation and which you feel have not been covered by any of the earlier questions?