Community right to buy: review

Annex A

Uncontentious non-legislative and minor technical improvements to rights to buy which we propose to take forward

Guidance and Information

1. We will set up and hold a publicly available register of compliant community bodies.  This will allow anyone to see if a group exists in their area.
2. We will improve the guidance available for community groups, owners, and relevant parties, taking into account comments received during the review.  We will make the guidance clearer, easier to follow, and update it as the review progresses.  There are several areas that we will expand on the guidance, including (but not limited to):
   1. Compensation claim process for owners
   2. What is meant by ‘sustainable development’
   3. What is meant by ‘the public interest test’
   4. What ’abandoned and neglected land’ refers to
   5. For late applications, what ‘relevant work’ or ‘reasonable work’ mean, and what else we would expect to see from such an application. 
   6. What exactly is a “late application”
   7. How much detail is needed in any business plans
   8. The appeal processes.
3. Resources permitting, we will endeavour to increase the engagement with community groups and stakeholders, which had declined since COVID.  This may involve more roadshows, attendance at community meetings and other stakeholder events.

Petitions and Ballots

4. We will no longer require community bodies to check the eligibility of residents in the community to take part in petitions or ballots that are part of the process.  Checks will continue to be done by the Scottish Government’s Community Land Team. This may result in a small increase in rejected applications, if our checks show insufficient levels of support, but it will remove a step that is regarded as burdensome by community groups. 
5. We will extend the validity of petitions and ballots from 6 months to a year.

Applications

6. We will take account of any plans that a community group already have in place in any local place plans, if signalled as part of their application.  This will avoid duplicating work for community groups, by allowing them to refer to relevant sections of the local place plan.
7. We will amend the application form to make it more user friendly and to make it clearer what is required in each section.
8. We will refine the criteria that we use to determine that a group has demonstrated a connection with the land which forms the basis for the application.

Compliance

9. We will simplify the guidance on what the compliance requirements are, making it easier for groups to understand what is required.
10. We will remove the requirement for a community group to provide a map of their community and accept a definition only.  The Community Land Team will check that definition for compliance and refer to the group on any issues.

Consistency

11. We will amend the Right to Buy Land to Further Sustainable Development to ensure that there is an end date for a Ministerial Decision (it currently provides a date before which a decision cannot be made).
12. We will ensure consistency across the various compulsory rights to remove confusion.

Late Applications

13.  We will allow evidence of steps taken to negotiate a transfer of land to be a relevant consideration in a late application, rather than only steps taken by the community group to submit an application.  This means that community groups who are focussed on negotiating with an owner are not disadvantaged due to negotiations breaking down.
14. Amend timescales for a late application to provide a more realistic expectation of the process required.

Annex B

Suggestions that we do not consider suitable for consultation

A number of stakeholders have made suggestions that we will not be taking forward as part of this review. The reasons for this are set out below. While these issues will not be taken forward in the consultation, they will each be addressed in the final review report.

Suggestions not to be taken forward

1. Could Community Body resources be taken into account when submitting an application (i.e. more time allowed, or some form of assistance provided)?
2. Could grants be made available for Community Bodies to enable them to carry out the work for submitting an application?
3. Timelines of events within a community that trigger the discussion of a community right to buy application do not always fit with the timescales of the process (i.e. sudden sale means group has no time to become compliant and then submit an application)
4. Consider how Part 3A interacts with Compulsory Sales Orders.
5. Remove need to see certificate of incorporation in the application
6. Can appeals be held without need for lawyers
7. Upfront ballot costs to be paid by Ministers.
8. Better method for accepting large files that come with applications
9. Ensure timescales are more compatible between the Scottish Land Fund and Community Right to Buy.  That may mean an extension of overall community right to buy timescales but needs to be balanced with ECHR rights of the landowner.
10. Treat successful Community Body applications as a resource and compensate them for their time and expertise when provided to other potential applicants
11. Increase awareness of place planning principles
12. Provide training for advisors and Local Authority officers who deal with the sale or transfer of assets.
13. Add other types of bodies to Community Asset Transfer process (e.g. Church of Scotland)
14. Remove ability to apply if an owner is unknown.
15. Allow a simplified application in the event of an unknown owner (along the lines of the King’s and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer scheme?)
16. To not allow late applications
17. If a petition has already shown community support, there should be no need for a ballot as well.
18. Allow Community Body access to full electoral register electronically
19. Only require a ballot after approval of an application, not as part of the application itself (Part 3A and Part 5).
20. Remove need for a ballot and replace with a further petition with higher approve rate required.
21. Remove requirement for new petition at re-registration stage
22. Use other source of information for an application (e.g. business plan for a Scottish Land Fund application) to avoid repetition by groups.
23. Remove requirement for a business plan
24. Allow Scottish Government officials to access full electoral register electronically to assist with checking validity of ballots and petitions
25. Do away with salmon fishing and mineral right sections
26. Either promote the option to have a mediator more or remove it.
27. Include an offer to the owner under Part 2 (in the same way as 3A and 5), as a starting point in the process.
28. Introduce a preliminary “pre-registration” phase to make the rights more accessible to groups.
29. Allow communities of interest to apply
30. Remove need for a petition at registration stage
31. Lower percentage of petition for urban areas
32. Could the time between offer and application be amended depending on whether the owner wishes to discuss with the group.  If they don’t, keep it shorter.
33. Remove option allowing owner to remedy a site after a Part 3A or Part 5 application is received and before a decision is made.
34. If including a simplified pre-registration stage, this should last 5 years, but full registration should be extended to 20 years
35. Don’t allow late registration if within x weeks/days of disposal
36. If an application is timeous, any compensation is payable by ministers, but if it’s a late application, it’s payable by the Community Body.

Summary of reasons for not taking forward

Government Neutrality and Impartiality

In some cases, the Scottish Government must take care to remain neutral in application decisions (e.g. points 2 and 7).

Scope and Limitations of the Review

Informal engagement to date has led us to focus on what we consider to be the most important issues in need of addressing or that would require a broader process that goes outside of community right to buy, thus taking resources away from the core purpose of the review. (e.g. points 6, 10-13 and 18)

Practicality and Feasibility

Several of the above points raise concerns about practical implementation, resource constraints, or administrative burden, including unintended impacts on community groups (e.g. points 1, 28, 34 and 36).