Community Rights to Buy: consultation analysis

1: Executive summary

This summary presents the key findings from the public consultation on proposed changes to community rights to buy which took place between July and October 2025. A total of 62 valid consultation responses were received, with 37 (60%) coming from organisations and 25 (40%) from individuals.

Combining the existing rights to buy

Respondents were asked for their views on merging the three compulsory rights and opinions were divided on this. Specifically, 36% supported a merger, 29% were opposed and 27% were unsure. Respondents’ hesitation focussed on which of the rights would be merged, especially in relation to crofting.

Response themes:

• Simplification: many respondents saw merging as a way to simplify a complex process, though some felt simplification could be achieved without merging.
• Crofting rights: strong sentiment to keep crofting community rights separate due to their unique nature.
• Compulsory versus non-compulsory: calls to maintain a clear distinction between these categories.
• Common definitions: merger should include standardised definitions and guidance.
• Distinct purposes: concerns that merging could obscure the unique functions of each right.

Respondents were separately asked whether, if the rights were merged, should the newly merged right focus on the condition of the land or its intended use. Fifty-two percent of respondents selected “other,” with many commenting that they think that both land condition and use should be considered. Between condition and use as stand-alone options, 35% favoured use and 13% favoured condition.

Response themes:

• Dual relevance: many felt both factors are essential, especially under a public interest test.
• Subjectivity of “use”: concerns about the subjective nature of the value of different land uses and its potential for conflict.
• “Condition” needs contextualising: acceptability of land condition varies by location (e.g. urban versus rural).
• “Use” as the primary factor: “use” was seen as more aligned with community benefit and sustainable development.

Community body structures

Respondents were asked for views on the proposition that the residence and voting eligibility requirement be reduced to anything over 50% of the community. Sixty percent supported this proposal, citing difficulties in securing participation, especially in urban and remote areas. The remaining respondents were split between no change, an increase (e.g. to around 80-90%), and reduction to 25% or lower.

Response themes:

• Flexibility: suggestions for differentiated thresholds for urban and rural communities.
• Democratic balance: some preferred maintaining or increasing the threshold to ensure strong local control.
• Inclusivity: recognition of demographic challenges and the need for broader participation.

Respondents were also asked if the percentage of members required to attend general meetings should be amended from the current 10%. Responses were split between amending the current ratio and keeping it the same (38% for each option). Twenty-three percent were unsure.

Response themes:

• Legitimacy vs practicality: higher thresholds seen as enhancing legitimacy; lower ones as more realistic.
• Online participation: digital tools could support engagement.
• Flexibility: calls for minimum numbers or context-sensitive thresholds.

Petitions and ballots

Three questions probed the topic of community support and ballots. In response to the first question asking if some levels of community support and turnout could be reduced, most respondents (62%) supported a reduction. There was likewise strong support for taking into consideration the votes of those against proposals (68%). However, opinions varied on implementation, particularly in respect of minimum turnout requirements where the “yes” and “no” votes attracted 43% each.

Response themes:

• Democratic comparisons: thresholds seen as high compared to other elections.
• Flexibility: support for adaptable thresholds based on community size and type.
• Consideration of opposition: majority agreed that votes against proposals should be considered to ensure fairness.

Late applications

This topic was addressed across five questions. Mixed views were expressed on requirements for late applications, including support levels, compliance, business plans, and sale prohibitions.

Response themes across the five questions:

• Support thresholds: this question asked for free text comments only and, across the comments, the current figure of 15% was seen as reasonable, though some queried why it isn’t aligned with timeous applications.
• Compliance: a majority (59%) felt that groups should be compliant at the point of a late application.
• Steps to purchase by a group (i.e. steps taken before disposal by owner): a majority (50%) felt that steps to purchase before the owner has taken steps to dispose of an asset should not be a requirement for late applications.
• Business plans: a majority (51%) opposed requiring detailed plans upfront but supported high-level outlines.
• Sale prohibition: a majority (50%) were supportive of preventing owners from withdrawing assets post-application in order to protect community efforts, but some respondents were more cautious, concerned that this could turn a late application into a compulsory right to buy.

Third-party purchasers

There were three questions on this topic. Respondents were generally supportive of allowing third-party purchasers under compulsory rights (47% support compared with 27% in opposition) but placed a strong emphasis on safeguards.

Response themes:

• Third party purchase: support for this as an option but concerns about the nature and role of the community in this process, and that the process could be used as a means to an end by private interests.
• Requirements on structure and compliance: 72% of respondents supported enhanced requirements for third parties, in line with those placed on community groups.
• Agreements and business plans: 85% support for requiring these.

Option agreements

This topic was addressed across three questions. The first asked whether the existence of option agreements should be made known to community groups as part of the community right to buy process and a large majority (89%) favoured this. A large majority (74%) also favoured community right to buy taking second place to an option agreement if the application is accepted (as opposed to being automatically declined, as at present). There was also support (55%) for limiting the types of option agreements that could prevent a right to buy (for example citing those between family members or linked companies), but important legal concerns were also noted.

Response themes:

• Disclosure: majority favoured public registers of option agreements.
• Second in line rights: broad support for community applications to remain valid if options are not exercised.
• Limitations: support for restricting the types of option agreements that impact on community right to buy, but legal concerns were also noted.

Appeals

Sixty percent of respondents supported extending the appeal period. Suggested extensions ranged from 28 days to 6 months, to allow for informed decisions.

Registration Period

Fifty-seven percent of respondents favoured extending the registration period for registrations under Part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 from the current five-year period. A large number favoured increasing from 5 to 10 years, with some suggesting simplifications could be made for renewals if it was not extended.