Community rights to buy review

Topics that formed part of the formal public consultation on community rights to buy

Topic 1: Combining the existing rights to buy

Pre-consultation background

There are currently four separate community rights to buy in Scotland, each with different eligibility criteria based on land type, condition, and whether the purchase is voluntary or compulsory. They are informally known as:

• Part 2 – this community right to buy allows communities to apply to register a community interest in land or buildings, and to be given the first right of refusal should the landowner decide to put the land up for sale.
• Part 3 - this gives crofting communities the right to acquire and control the croft land where they live and work. This is a compulsory purchase right.
• Part 3A - this allows communities to apply to Scottish Ministers for consent to exercise a compulsory purchase of land or a building, which is wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected, or where the use or management of the land is causing harm to the environmental wellbeing of the community.
• Part 5 - this allows communities to apply for the compulsory purchase of land or buildings for the purposes of furthering the achievement of sustainable development.

This choice of options can make it difficult for community groups to determine which best applies to their situation. We consulted on a proposal to simplify things by merging the four rights into two: one compulsory right (instead of the existing three) and one non-compulsory right, while ensuring that protections for crofting communities remain intact. Each of the three existing compulsory rights require different criteria to be satisfied, reflecting their different purposes, and the unique status of crofting.

The crofting community right to buy requires that the purchase be in the public interest and support sustainable development. The right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land includes additional conditions, such as proving harm to the community and showing that regulators have been asked to intervene. This right seeks to address issues communities face with land that is in poor condition and not being properly managed by the owner. Under the right to buy land to further sustainable development, the community must demonstrate that they could use assets in a much more sustainable and beneficial way than they are currently being used.

If these rights were to be merged in some way then the requirements under this new right (or rights) will need to be carefully defined to reflect the differing objectives and the varying levels of impact on landowners. In particular, the crofting community right to buy protects the interests of crofters by ensuring that, for any application, they would need both the support of the crofting community and the support of the majority of crofters in that crofting community.

Merging the rights also raises the question as to whether the newly merged rights should be based on the condition of the land (as is the case for Part 3A) or its use (as in Part 5).

What the consultation told us

The most popular preference expressed in the consultation was to support the partial combining of the rights. However, many respondents were unsure and, through the free text box, expressed their preference for compulsory and non-compulsory rights to be kept separate. There was also a very strong preference that the crofting community right to buy should not be merged due to the specific and unique nature of crofting communities and of the crofting community right to buy.

In terms of condition or use, the general sentiment expressed in the consultation was that both should be taken into consideration. If a choice had to be made, then “use” was the more popular option but there were concerns it could be subjective and location specific, with many therefore preferring to retain both in any future merged right.

Recommendations

- Combine Part 3A and Part 5 community rights to buy while retaining both “condition” and “use” as factors.

- Keep the Part 2 right to buy separate as it is non-compulsory.

- Keep Part 3 crofting rights separate due to the specific needs and circumstances of crofting communities but make improvements to the existing rights, such as amending the definition of a crofting community to make it more understandable, as well as ensuring that there is consistency with the other rights were possible. More detail on the format of the changes will come from further discussions with crofting stakeholders but this right will be kept distinct and will not be merged.

- Standardise and simplify, as far as possible, definitions and terminology across all of the rights.

Topic 2: Community body structures

Pre-consultation background

To be eligible to apply under any of the community rights to buy, community groups must meet specific criteria, including defining a geographic community, having at least 10 members, and ensuring that 75% of those members are resident in the community and are eligible local voters (Ordinary Members) who control the organisation. These rules are designed to ensure that decision-making power remains with people who live in the area. However, some groups have found the 75% threshold difficult to meet. As a result, the consultation proposed lowering the requirement to being over 50%, to make the process more accessible while maintaining local control. The consultation also asked for views on the percentage of members required to attend general meetings of the community body and whether this should be amended from the current 10%.

What the consultation told us

A clear majority of respondents supported lowering the residence and voting eligibility threshold to anything over 50% of the community.

There was less agreement on the second question relating to attendance at general meetings. Respondents, in general, supported some change but were divided as to whether it should be lowered to make the process easier for community groups, or raised in order to demonstrate more community support and engagement with the process. The consultation findings painted a complex picture indicating differences between urban and rural settings, and raising questions as to whether attendance at meetings is the best way of gauging community support, or whether there might be other ways of demonstrating that there is indeed support in the community.

Recommendations

- Explore lowering the residence and voting eligibility to being anything over 50% of the community, subject to wider consideration of unintended consequences.

- Make no changes to annual meeting attendance requirements given the lack of support and the ongoing need to ensure demonstrable community support.

Topic 3: Petitions and ballots

Pre-consultation background

In order to use community rights to buy processes, it is essential to provide proof that the local community supports the application. For the non-compulsory Part 2 right, to register an interest, the proof required is a petition, while compulsory rights or triggered Part 2 applications require a full community ballot.

Currently, a petition must show at least 10% support for standard applications, and 15% for late applications. Ballots require at least 50% voter turnout, with half of those voting in favour, meaning at least 25% of the community must support the proposal. Many stakeholders have fed back that these thresholds can be hard for community groups to meet and so the consultation asked whether these thresholds could be lowered while still remaining high enough to demonstrate strong community backing.

What the consultation told us

A majority of respondents were clear in their support for reducing some of the thresholds for demonstrating community support and turnout, for reasons such as consistency with democratic norms, and to assist urban community groups in particular (due to urban communities tending to have larger population densities). Where caution was expressed, it related to the need to be able to demonstrate community support, not only in the right to buy process but also when seeking to secure funding.

The second issue explored in this area was in relation to ballots and minimum turnout thresholds. Here there was less agreement, with respondents recognising the importance of balancing the need to be able to show strong broad-based support amongst a community while setting achievable thresholds.

There was strong support for taking into account the votes of those against a proposal.

Recommendations

- Consider the thresholds for ballots, noting in particular the desire to remove the turnout requirement.

- Adjust the criteria to take into account those voting against a proposal.

- Retain the existing thresholds for petitions since there is no clear support for change.

Topic 4: Late applications

Pre-consultation background

A Part 2 community right to buy application is considered "late" if it is submitted after the landowner has taken an action to transfer the land but before missives are concluded, or an option to acquire is granted. Ministers must decline the application if it is received after the date of conclusion of missives or after an option to acquire the land has been conferred. Once a late application is submitted, the owner must pause the sale process until Scottish Ministers decide whether to approve it. Note that since this is a Part 2 registration, not a compulsory purchase, owners can withdraw from the sale at any time, even after approval, though the community’s right to buy remains registered for up to five years (and can be extended beyond that).

Up to 1 April 2025, 62 of the 268 Part 2 applications received since 2003 have been late, with 26 of those approved. Approval rates for late applications have declined over time, with none approved in the last five years. Stakeholders have raised concerns that the current late application process hasn’t adapted to shifts in the market. As a result, the consultation asked a number of questions aimed at updating the process.

What the consultation told us

A majority of consultation respondents supported only accepting late applications from compliant groups. The most common reason given was that being a compliant group shows that the group is organised and capable, which is especially important given the impact on an ongoing transaction of a late application. Concerns focussed on the nature of late applications and the limited time available to communities to organise an application.

There was also support for prohibiting an owner from removing the asset from sale.

Although the majority was small, consultation respondents did not favour requiring a community group to demonstrate that they had carried out work or taken steps towards acquiring the land before owner has taken action to dispose of it.

The consultation also asked whether a detailed business plan should be a requirement of a late application, and if so, should the level of detail be defined. Although a slight majority opposed this, there was a common sentiment amongst respondents - both those supportive and those opposed - that some form of business plan should be provided with suggestions that it could, for example, be high level at first and then be fleshed out according to a set timescale. Reflecting a common theme throughout the consultation, concerns about the pressure this could place on community groups was countered by a recognition of the need to ensure groups are sufficiently organised and capable.

Finally, there was a consensus that the current level of community support for a late application is appropriate i.e. 15%.

Recommendations

- Retain the current requirement that only compliant groups can make late Part 2 applications.

- Consider how to streamline that process to reduce the burden on community groups (some improvements we will make with this in mind are contained within the annex to this document).

- Retain the requirement that a community group must demonstrate they had carried out work or taken steps toward acquiring the land before the owner has taken action to dispose of it, but further clarify what constitutes ‘relevant work’ and ‘relevant steps’ to make it clearer for both owners and community groups.

- Remove the requirement for a detailed business plan at the point that a late application is made but explore setting a timeline for when one needs to be provided.

- Make no changes to the current rules allowing an owner to remove an asset from sale once a late application is made. We recognise the slight majority in favour of prohibiting this but note that this would effectively make a late application under Part 2 a compulsory purchase which is not consistent with our recommendation to keep these two types of right separate.

- Clarify what happens to a pending late application if an owner chooses to remove an asset from sale.

- Retain the current 15% threshold for the level of community support required for a late application.

Topic 5: Third-party purchasers

Pre-consultation background

The right to buy land to further sustainable development allows community groups to nominate a third-party purchaser, such as a housing association, to carry out projects they may not have the expertise to deliver themselves. There are, however, currently no requirements for that third party to have a formal structure, agreement with the community, or a business plan for the asset.

What the consultation told us

The consultation results were strongly in favour of third-party purchasers remaining an option and there was strong support for some form of requirement around structure and compliance. Likewise, there was strong support requiring some form of agreement between the community group and third-party purchasers.

Recommendations

- Third-party purchasers should remain an option but additional safeguards are needed to ensure the overall intent of the legislation to support communities to purchase assets is preserved.

Topic 6: Option agreements

Pre-consultation background

Option agreements are private legal contracts between an asset owner and a third party that, if in place, automatically invalidate any community right to buy application for that asset. Since these agreements are not publicly recorded, the third party often secures the obligations of the agreement with a standard security. Other than this “flag” on the title, community groups often have no way of knowing about the existence of an option agreement before applying.

What the consultation told us

There was strong support for more information on option agreements, even if that was no more than confirmation of the existence of an option agreement, rather than its details.

There was also strong support for an approved community right to buy registration being ranked in second place to an option agreement, should it subsequently fall. This would mean an application being assessed for approval as opposed to being automatically declined in cases where an option agreement exists.

Finally, a majority of respondents supported placing limits on the types of option agreement that would cause an application to be declined e.g. to only those between family members or linked companies.

On the other hand, important points were made in relation to existing legal and commercial considerations that could prevent changes being made and which need further investigation. The Scottish Law Commission, for example, is currently reviewing the law of heritable securities. As mentioned above, an option agreement is usually backed by a standard security in favour of the option holder, so the proposals for reform could influence the mechanics of option agreements in general.

Recommendation

- Acknowledging both the strong support for more information on option agreements and the legal complexities in play, we recommend exploring in more detail whether community right to buy reform is the most appropriate mechanism by which to increase transparency.

Topic 7: Appeals

Pre-consultation background

After a Ministerial decision is made on a community right to buy application, interested parties have 28 days to appeal under section 61 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Appeals—typically from community groups after a rejection or asset owners after an approval—are heard by the local Sheriff Court, and the Sheriff’s decision is final.

What the consultation told us

There was majority support for extending the period allowed to submit an appeal. Suggestions for how long the period should be, ranged from around 8 weeks to 3 months. Although in a minority, those opposed made important points that included ensuring the appeals process does not unduly impact on the sale process as well as ensuring the time period is consistent with other periods for appeals.

Recommendation

The Scottish Government recognises that a majority of respondents would like to see a longer period to submit an appeal. However, since the consultation took place, the Land Reform Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament and is now the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025. It contains similar provisions in respect of appeals, with the same timescale, as for community right to buy. It was also commented during the consultation that the current 28-day timescale aligns with other similar appeals processes. Therefore, on balance, the Scottish Government will not pursue extending the appeals timescale for community right to buy appeals in order to maintain the current alignment across similar appeals processes.

Topic 8: Registration

Pre-consultation background

Once a non-compulsory (Part 2) application is approved, the owner is prohibited from selling the asset for five years without first offering it to the community group at market value. The owner may still rent or develop the asset. Some stakeholders suggested extending this five-year registration period to reduce the burden on community groups, as reapplying can be time-consuming and complex.

What the consultation told us

A majority of respondents favoured increasing the registration period from the current five years. Various suggestions were made although ten years was a common suggestion. Some respondents suggested that the period could remain at five years, but that re-registration could be made simpler.

Recommendation

- Extend the registration period from the current five years.