Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: business and regulatory impact assessment

Annex B

Scottish Firms Impact Assessment

As part of the Scottish Firms Impact Assessment 17 businesses were interviewed between October 2023 and December 2023. The questionnaire shown above in Annex A, was developed in consultation with RESAS, and was used accordance to the relevance of proposals to the individual for example small landholders were asked small landholding related questions only. Of the 17 businesses interviewed: 8 were landlords/ land owners, 6 were agricultural tenants, and 3 were small landholders.

Interviewee	Type	Detail
1	Landlord/ landowner	Island based community land owner/ landlord
2	Landlord/ landowner	Private land owner/ landlord
3	Landlord/ landowner	Charitable land owner organisation/ landlord
4	Landlord/ landowner	Charitable land owner organisation/ landlord
5	Landlord/ landowner	Private land owner/ landlord
6	Landlord/ landowner	Private land owner/ landlord
7	Landlord/ landowner	Community land owner/ landlord
8	Landlord/ landowner	Private land owner/ landlord
9	Agricultural tenant	Secure and short term leases, beef, arable and farm shop diversification
10	Agricultural tenant	Secure lease, beef and arable
11	Agricultural tenant	Fixed term lease only, beef and sheep
12	Agricultural tenant	Secure lease, hill sheep and beef.
13	Agricultural tenant	Island, secure lease, mixed farm with diversifications.
14	Agricultural tenant	Island, secure and fixed term leases, beef, sheep & diversifications
15	Small landholder	Island based
16	Small landholder	Island based
17	Small landholder	Island based

Land Use Tenancy

Respondent 1 Existing commercial leases are for extraction purposes, e.g. sand extraction, preventing coastal erosion, and utilities. These leases have impacts on crofts. Protections for crofters are not built into some existing leases and payments have needed to be made to some crofters. Recouping the costs can be challenging. One recent example cost £12k plus legal costs.

Respondent 1 if there was an accepted template for a land use tenancy agreement then this could save time and money.

Respondent 1 would seek legal advice before entering into an agreement. Costs incurred by engaging a legal firm/solicitor for advice and the price of the agreement. Bespoke arrangements are more costly and time consuming. Some companies will pay an early entry fee but this can make it difficult to enforce leases (e.g. restoration of land).

Respondent 1 considerable staff time resource goes into identifying appropriate guidance for tenancy arrangements. Any guidance would help to limit time spent looking for appropriate guidance and reduce costs.

Respondent 2 the land use tenancy would be of interest if it can be guaranteed that the landowner can benefit from any forestry activity or peatland restoration, e.g. through carbon credits. Importance of a partnership between a landlord and tenant, where both need to benefit.

Respondent 2 costs associated with new tenancy agreements tend to be quite high, with need to get everything right, find a new tenant and comply with legislation. Isn’t a guarantee that the landowner will still want the tenant in time or that the agreement won’ need adapting.

Respondent 2 in terms of costs, using a recent lease to the neighbouring golf club as an example – recent lease agreed for 99 years, incurring approximately £5000 in legal fees for mapping and reorganisation of boundaries etc.

Respondent 2 potentially cost benefits to having guidance, with fewer disputes as all parties know what they’re agreeing to.

Respondent 2 guidance is good,but would look for something less prescriptive in terms of guidance for this proposed tenancy as neither party needs a prescriptive model given levels of current support for tenants.

Respondent 3 it would reduce costs. RSPB are happy to look at the proposal in more detail and are interested in the proposed new tenancy. Currently have a lot of grazing lets, and longer agreements with grazing tenants would be helpful. Existing grazing lets are often for grazing for conservation purposes, and so the terms of them need to be enforceable.

Respondent 3 If it provided the intended benefits, than it would be beneficial over time. It could reduce staff costs and time spent on agreements, including by allowing agreements to run for longer periods than they are currently set up for.

Respondent 4 is Supportive of proposal and would see as additional rather than replacing.

Respondent 4 No positive or negative financial impact from proposal, it would depend on what was in the detail. If template is prescriptive, then more difficult to work with, if it is available to be modified, then may be more readily applied.

Respondent 4 Example of Private Residential Tenancy, where users are bound to the material terms. Noted that the Property Standardisation Group (psglegal.co.uk/) is already producing standard contracts that can be taken and built on.

Respondent 7 At the moment ‘no’ because it is not something they have discussed as part of the organisation. Gut reaction is that it is a nature reserve – if it were something they were looking at. Joint approach may be more satisfying. Sort out problems before they arise. Template lease drawn up – same lease for a smaller area. They think about getting it checked - as a document it is relatively straight forward if it is getting any more technical with lawyers then it adds to costs and time. Clear templates – private rented tenancies for housing. ScotGov website (equivalent of that). Hope that the Tenant Farming Commissioner would save costs and time.

Respondent 8 Commercial leases are more expensive than agricultural leases. Gave the example of a recent lease of building where rent was £450 but the lease was expected to cost £1000 - £2000. Officials noted that this type of lease was already covered in an existing lease template and that the Land Use Tenancy isn’t the same as an agricultural lease.

Respondent 8 Agricultural lawyers can have high costs, would expect to pay around £450 - £650 an hour for a partner’s time, due to the complexity and high risk nature of the work. Would expect a land agent’s time to cost around £150 - £200 an hour. Would expect additional costs for setting up the lease with a lawyer of around £1000 - £2000.

Respondent 8 Not sure if they would use a land use tenancy. Have a number of different types of agricultural tenancies on estate, including 1991 Act, 1948 Act and pre-1948 Act tenancies. Wouldn’t expect 1991 Act tenants to be interested in using a land use tenancy. Estate likely to look at joint venture contract farming agreements before considering a land use tenancy. If the land came out of tenancy agreement, would likely bring set up in-house or establish a contract farming agreement as it would allow the estate to retain more control, and there is more financial benefit to the estate in taking one of those approaches than retaining a tenancy. From a business perspective, it is better to have the land in-hand and let out the house.

Respondent 9 said that from experience leaving an existing tenancy arrangement and moving into another had cost them approximately £7,000 to quantify end of tenancy compensation and agree a new contract this included the legal fees.

Respondent 9 would get a lawyer to look over the contract.

Respondent 9 would only seek mediation if the term was longer than 1 year.

Respondent 10 said that entering into a tenancy agreement costs approximately £4-£5k in legal fees.

Respondent 10 said that involving the TFC in producing clear guidance would be a big help and cost saving

Respondent 10 said that mediation would the cheapest and most sensible route.

Respondent 11 said that the cost of changing the lease would cost approximately £4,000.

Respondent 11 said that TFC guidance would reduce the cost however, it would ultimately depend on if agents are involved as to whether it would have a cost saving.

Respondent 11 said that if they have had a dispute then they would go to a mediator and each side paying £1,500 depending on the value of the lease is reasonable.

Respondent 12 took legal advice on entering into a 5 year lease and the costs were between £1,400 and £1,500 and that was just to get the paperwork checked.

Respondent 12 thought that the template was a good idea and, if set up by the TFC, it would give a general starting point for the farmer.

Respondent 12 he would like to think you would discuss and try to sort things out. If not could then go to mediation and finally the Land Court. Mediation would be a lot less than going to court. The Codes of Practice produced by the TFC are brilliant bit of kit.

Respondent 13 said there are bound to be significant costs to set these up if they head towards a commercial lease. If there isn’t one, then it will end up in the landlord’s favour. We are always seeking more land to rent. I sought legal advice before I took on my ag holding tenancy. As part of being fair I bought out my parents when I was assigned the tenancy. It cost me £4-5k at that time which was some time ago. Depending on the length of the new land use tenancy it might cost more.

Respondent 13 Anything the TFC has been involved in so far has been a big help to both landlords and tenants. It’s a good approach and prevents a free for all – I’ve used him to help us to come to an understanding with my landlord.. the TFC approached my landlord on my behalf. I get on fine with my landlord it was on the amnesty and it helped us to clear up issues and progress.

Respondent 14 said they legal advice when starting their tenancy and this cost approximately £1,500.

Respondent 14 said that the proposal affects them their tenancy doesn’t allow them to plant trees but does allow them to plant hedges. Trees on their island are not economically viable.

Respondent 14 The economics of islands and trees is more of a millstone around your neck. We’d be more likely to plant broadleaves for 200 years time.

Respondent 14 said the TFC guidance will be important as he has more access to the legal issues etc. As you don’t want to be exposed at the end of the tenancy.

Respondent 14 I don’t think this would be more expensive than a commercial lease and it would be beneficial if the TFC gave out guidance.

Respondent 14 I would go to mediation before court due to costs. We have a good relationship with our landlord but we’ve had differences of opinions with their land agent on occasion.

Agricultural Holdings

Diversification (undertaking non-agricultural activities)

Respondent 2 said importance of ability of landowner to increase the rent due to activities undertaken. For example, if carbon money is created then the landowner should be able to access some of that money.

Respondent 2 would object if the tenant was allowed to undertake new activities without repercussions, leaving the landlord with the changed use at the end of the tenancy.

Respondent 2 would talk to tenant if a notice to diversify is given and would discuss proposal and assess it. Would seek legal advice before responding to any notice, which would have cost implications.

Respondent 3 would seek legal advice before agreeing to any diversification. From experience some are better at conservation activities than others. Any measures would need to prevent environmental damage.

Respondent 4 felt this was difficult to answer as impact will depend on specifics of diversification. However, may be no long-term benefits, but could be a benefit to the tenant, which may be needed to prompt the action in the first place.

Respondent 4 suggested possible tension for NTS and other landowners depending on what the diversification is and how this affects other interests, e.g. landscape, or biodiversity.

Respondent 4 commented that regenerative agriculture is good from an NTS perspective, may not be welcomed by all landowners, depending on the impact on income. May also be a tension with increasing food production.

Respondent 8 Typical costs can be around £4000-£5000 depending on the size of the scheme. Rarely need to use notices as agreement is usually reached through negotiation, focusing on what the tenant is trying to achieve. Concerns about diversification with forestry, as there is no guarantee that there is a market for new crop (e.g. trees) in time. Notes that the land was rented as a farm, not a forestry plantation.

Respondent 8 Risks for landowner with needing to maintain forested area for a lengthy minimum period (e.g. 100 years) if a carbon credit agreement is entered into. If the land is being used for trading and investment there is a tax risk, and trading is preferred to investment.

Respondent 8 Questioned if tenant would need insurance for these kinds of diversification activities, if the action would reduce the value of the land at waygo. Risk the tenant could be declared bankrupt.

Respondent 9 would definitely use a consultant.

Respondent 9 said that additional rent would be justifiable but turnover percentage would not be. Payment based on turnover would be the beginning of the end and deciding what is fair and in terms of rent is key.

Respondent 9 previously did get a lawyer to write a letter on a diversification and this cost £450.

Respondent 10 had only used a consultant for a carbon audit.

Respondent 10 would seek legal advice on serving notice for their experience serving notice associated with the amnesty cost approximately £2/2.5k. The templates produced by the TFC were a cost saver for the amnesty.

Respondent 10 said that that if the landlord was to seek a large amount of rent as a result of the diversification then they wouldn’t bother with the diversification.

Respondent 10 said that the proposal would most likely generate additional income for the tenant and mentioned wind farms and renewable energy as possible income streams.

Respondent 11 said that from their experience serving notice on their landlord would cost between £100- £200 but this would be the cost of legal advice only.

Respondent 11 could imagine that it would cost approximately £650 for half a days work of a consultant so unlikely to be less than £1,000.

Respondent 11 envisaged the main purpose of a diversification being tourism.

Respondent 11 made approximately £12,000 to £13,000 for the renewable turbine.

Respondent 11 also had a diversified wool processing business which made about £5,000 to £6,000 a year after costs.

Respondent 12 said if a project was detrimental to the holding, it would be unlikely that permission would be given.

Respondent 12 said that they would seeking legal advice on serving notice. The cost of serving notice was around £1,800 while another notice cost approximately £1,000.

Respondent 12 said that if he was undertaking a new project of which he had no experience, they would seek advice from a consultant as they had done for environmental schemes.

Respondent 12 had received an income stream of approximately £10,000 per annum from their diversification.

Respondent 12 said that tourism and farm to fork are good examples of diversifications (farm shops) along with coffee shops. At the end of the day these could be a major asset for the landlord.

Respondent 13 Before I did a diversification I would research if it was viable. I would get someone to check I served the notice properly. I wouldn’t use a consultation to prep the diversification. I would draw on legal advice if needed. I used legal advice before for my amnesty. It cost me roughly £2-2.5k it wasn’t much work doesn’t take much to get to that price. You need a specialist I wouldn’t bother with the diversification if there was too many demands from my landlord I would do it on non tenanted land.

Respondent 13 Every farm is different and every diversification is different – its hard to attract the public up to more hilly locations for diversifications as that is not a great place for the public. A diversification has to be income generating.

Respondent 14 I think we bring 2-3k per week from holiday accommodation (3 glamping pods) but there are also outgoings e.g. cleaning costs

Respondent 14 We didn’t need legal advice to proceed with our diversification we approached the landlord and took it from there.

Respondent 14 We would seek a consultant when we enter into the environmental diversification area. It would depend on the issue if we went to a lawyer . the issue of paying compensation to our landlord for land lost as a result of trees puts me off applying for that.

Respondent 14 Consultant fees – 1-3k.

Respondent 14 The big unknown is carbon capture will we be able to participate in this – we’ve been advised not to do this yet. We’ve started an organic conversion process. We’re selling more meat direct to the consumer via the butcher to increase the value of the product.

Respondent 14 If a diversification is done sensibly then it should not negatively impact the farm.

Agricultural Improvements (Schedule 5 amendments)

Respondent 2 not sure if sustainable farming would have a benefit in terms of value. May be benefits in terms of value if receiving carbon payments due to practices, e.g. minimal tilling of soil.

Respondent 2 some activities which are of benefit to an existing tenant may not benefit an incoming one, e.g. one may convert to organics but the incoming tenant may not wish to farm that way. This can generate additional costs.

Respondent 3 Sustainable and regenerative agriculture could add value. There is value in delivering for conservation. Key concern is on the impact of activities.

Respondent 8 The economic benefit of improvements depends on the subsidy regime that applies. Costs often recorded as off-balance sheet debt, which is the money to pay tenants if the lease was terminated – risk liabilities could exceed assets. Waygo is typically not applied to 1991 Act tenancies, and so mainly risks associated with SLDTs and MLDTs.

Respondent 9 believed that sustainable and regenerative agricultural activities would be profitable.

Respondent 9 believed that their lease would affect the range of activities they are able to undertake.

Respondent 10 believed that this proposal would help the tenancy to become more profitable and encourage tenant to undertake these improvements.

Respondent 10 said that modern agriculture requires flexibility and must take account of modern improvements so as to add value to the holding.

Respondent 10 said that sustainable and regenerative practices in schedule 5 are bound to improve the farm and soil health while adding value to an incoming tenant farmer.

Respondent 11 said that serving their improvement notice on the landlord cost approximately £1,000

Respondent 11 said that they didn’t know whether sustainable and regenerative activities would add value. There is not enough common knowledge about the economic benefits of these yet.

Respondent 11 said tree planting is tricky as the outgoing tenant could be liable for replanting the previously agricultural managed field.

Respondent 11 to get tenants to plant trees there needs to be more significant legal changes.

Respondent 11 said that there could be other costs if regenerative impacts the income generation of the farm and this could impact the rental value of the farm. My rent has been based on so much per cow or sheep. Will a landlord give me a 25% reduction in rent if the subsidy regime requires me to reduce my volume of stock by 25%.

Respondent 12 said that the proposals could make things more profitable.

Respondent 12 said that species rich grassland was a disappearing asset.

Respondent 12 said that improvements under schedule 5 could be of value if giving an income to the farm. Then again, the extra income could impact on the rent.

Respondent 12 said it is difficult to say if sustainable and regenerative farming would have value. If a scheme was still running it could be of value. It could impact the business but that would depend on the payments.

Respondent 12 said that sustainable and regenerative agricultural activities would have an impact on lots of businesses and they would have to change their way of working. There is always room for improvement but would wait to see if there was profitability in it.

Respondent 13 My landlord knew it was an improvement but he wasn’t keen to agree that it was on paper. The schedule needs to take account of modern farming practices so it needs to happen.

Respondent 13 Hypothetically, organics could provide a value to an incoming tenant – it depends how the incoming tenant wants to farm. Its bound to improve the health of the soil

It needs to cover regenerative practices and on farm renewables

Respondent 14 I would think so, this would encourage us to look at more and different diversification like an environmental thing e.g. species rich grassland or a silvo pastural option. It would be good if that was looked on as a tenant’s improvement. This would deal with the dog kennel issue we faced before.

Respondent 14 For our conversion to organics we’ve not put it through as anything. The landlord has been very encouraging towards organics over the past decade. We’ve told the landlord what we’re doing and they’re being encouraging. We are in year x of the 5 year conversion to organics.

Respondent 14 Income generation for organic modelling – we had been heading down regenerative management and we had already reduced the amount of fertilzer and pest inputs (we don’t grow crops) that showed profits going up. Organic farming seemed to be the next step for us and in selling organic livestock. Generally our way of evaluating things is to look a other businesses.

Good Husbandry and Estate Management Rules

Respondent 2 Haven’t experienced any disputes in relation to good husbandry. Important that the tenant is able to pay rent and the farm is in a good condition.

Respondent 8 Bad husbandry certificate process is challenging, particularly with 1991 Act tenants. Considers rules are reasonable though.

Respondent 9 believed that changing single farm payments are changing and allowing these activities is key.

Respondent 9 believed that regenerative activities are subjective and used the example of ragwort as to whether allowing this to go would be ‘right’.

Respondent 10 believed that without this amendment then they may be excluded from some schemes in the future.

Respondent 11 The rules need to come in line with GAEC. Their landlord clear felled a wood and we are now left with dealing with all the ragwort from the landlord’s land which is directly impacting us. It needs to be fair on both sides. This won’t impact subsidy rules it will just bring it all in line.

Respondent 12 said that these changes could make it more difficult to issue a certificate of bad husbandry.

Respondent 12 said that they would like to think that you could be sustainable and regenerative and still be a good traditional farmer.

Respondent 13 This is a good idea; if it doesn’t get updated we could be excluded from one of the future funding schemes. However, depending on the size of the holding etc. there could be issues – I used up all my available areas of land to access the agri-environment scheme and I didn’t have any more land to enable me to engage in more agri-environment

Respondent 14 This would be a good thing to put in. We doubled our profit as a result of regenerative farming. we are reducing our feed costs by 60-70% as a result of this.

Respondent 14 Its hard just now for a landlord to issue a certification but it would be good to have regenerative and biodiversity elements expressed.

Waygo

Respondent 2 Existing waygo system is too complicated with some things needing permission, others needing notification and some things not needing anything at all. If it can be demonstrated that money has been spent then you should be able to get compensation.

Respondent 2 Waygo could be different in the future as sustainable farming and carbon management could change practices, which makes the costs of some things more subjective.

Respondent 2 a single valuer would save time and money and reduce disputes.

Respondent 2 previous waygo cost approximately £2000 in legal fees in 2010. A later waygo with fewer improvements to address only cost £1000. The cost depends on what is being claimed and any disputes.

Respondent 4 probably helpful and potential savings, but would this be obligatory? What valuations would be applied and what evidence drawn on?

Respondent 4 Waygo is difficult to be scientific, often the tenancy has petered out, due to internal (personal) or external (economic) changes.

Respondent 4 could potentially also create a mini-industry for providing evidence to official valuer.

Respondent 8 Would want to use own valuer in waygo process, but no issue with timelines. Concern that fixtures and improvements at amnesty were not properly considered.

Respondent 9 said that their waygo process had previously cost £3-4k in legal fees but didn’t appoint a valuer.

Respondent 9 would use the TFC to appoint a valuer and that it would be fairer to get an external body.

Respondent 9 believed that in terms of stress it the proposal would have wellbeing savings.

Respondent 9 would take the valuers assessment without seeing recourse to the Lands Tribunal.

Respondent 10 said that they knew people who had a terrible time getting compensation and the proposal would definitely help in terms of cost and time.

Respondent 10 would apply to the TFC to appoint a valuer.

Respondent 10 would potentially appeal a valuer’s decision

Respondent 10 said that there must be a clear timescale and consequence if this is not adhered to.

Respondent 10 said that they do not want to be getting close to retirement without knowing what compensation they may be entitled to.

Respondent 11 agree that the valuation needs to be before the tenancy ends. They have been strongly advised to appoint a valuer. This proposal would give cost savings for both parties.

Respondent 11 said that it had cost approximately £1,000 for an incoming valuer.

Respondent 11 said that their mortgage was retracted because they didn’t have waygo so had to rent a house.

Respondent 12 said that they would probably need to get an independent valuer . You would probably get your own before you entered into the whole situation. . You could then go to a neutral valuer. He would only appeal if the valuations were quite different.

Respondent 12 said there could be cost savings with the timetable. If a tenant farmer is retiring, he only wants to have enough for his retirement.

Respondent 13 I’ve not used a proper valuer for a proper valuation process.

A colleague of mine has used one for the new entrant starter farmer – they had a terrible time getting compensation for when the tenancy ended. Its taken them 2 years even though it was proper valuation process.

Respondent 13 There are issues around what a valuer values the improvements at versus what you may value them at.

Respondent 13 This process will help. The TFC will help in this too

Respondent 13 Statutory codes where it has to be adhered to are helpful. What incentives are there to go with the codes – there needs to be a timescale and penalty if a landlord goes over the set timescale.

Respondent 13 It needs not to hold up your retirement you need not be relying on that compensation – you almost need to know what you are going to get for your retirement. The negotiations need to start earlier.

Respondent 14 has not experienced waygo but heard of the problems faced.

Respondent 14 A process before the end of the tenancy will help resolve this. The timescale was the biggest issue to get to an agreement – leading to it going 2 or 3 months beyond. This will help to settle claims quicker.

Respondent 14 I would appoint my own one to start with then see what the landlord’s side come up with then go to TFC to get mediation or appoint someone to mediate

Respondent 14 doubt it I don’t think I’d apply to the Lands Tribunal given you’d used an independent valuer.

Amendments to the Rent Review System

Respondent 2 Little cost currently to issuing rent notices. If there are issues, would just re-issue a notice the following year. Proposals unlikely to impact the estate. Landowner should be able to benefit from increases in tenant’s income.

Respondent 2 Different elements go into rent considerations. Would be better if advice was ‘this is what you should consider’ rather ‘than this is the way you should calculate it’.

Respondent 4 could potentially complicate situation. Focus on productive potential could conflict with other measures in bill, e.g. regenerative agriculture or diversification.

Respondent 4 three-year period, view that operators can often be pessimistic about prospects (weather, past sales, disease, etc.), as farming does have many uncertainties.

Respondent 4 NTS approach has been to base upon market prices plus inflation.

Respondent 4 Tenant Farming Commissioner code of practice is already very helpful.

Respondent 8 Nine tenanted farms on landholding, not covering a significant area. When notices are served the methodology used for the rent review is not included. Focus on working out agreement between landlord and tenantand shouldn’t have to be concerned about small legal costs. Costs can increase when there are minor errors to the letters served, as they need to be corrected.

Respondent 8 A code of practice would be helpful and could be enclosed with the letters. Trying to put together a tenant management pack to make it more clear what is being valued.

Respondent 9 went through a rent review process 3 years ago and it was very difficult to get comparable rents due to GDPR concerns.

Respondent 9 said that their landlord shared rents without context and you need to know what you are comparing it to.

Respondent 9 believed that it was beneficial to keep as many factors in as possible.

Respondent 9 said that TFC guidance was amazing.

Respondent 9 would seek mediation if they failed to agree rent as a first step and only as a last resort would apply to the Land Court.

Respondent 10 said they had never been given enough comparable evidence to make the current legislation work.

Respondent 10 said that the landlord tried to put the rent up, but this was not based on anything meaningful and sometimes wouldn’t include the fixed equipment.

Respondent 10 said that in theory this proposal looks a good idea and should be a fairer assessment for everyone.

Respondent 10 said that the forward-looking element was difficult to quantify.

Respondent 10 said that a TFC code of practice was bound to help.

Respondent 11 said that for a comparable rent you need to see a comparable lease with comparable inputs. However, people are very shy over telling you what they are paying for rent.

Respondent 11 was concerned if there would be stocking density reduction how this would be treated in the rent calculation.

Respondent 11 said that a TFC code of practice would help people save money.

Respondent 11 would only go to the Land Court as an absolute last resort.

Respondent 12 said that the rental amount can’t exceed the amount I can make a living out of, but I also need to generate enough income to be able to farm the ground in a way that it needs to be farmed. Would prefer it to be indexed to margins.

Respondent 13 Open market comparables need to be on a like for like status. I know there are no 1991 act tenancies on the market.

Respondent 13 I’ve never been given enough details for my rent review so I can trust the comparables. My landlord has tried to use unsuitable comparables to increase my rent but it was a lot of work for me – it was a 40 page counter proposal from me and my landlord didn’t know what to do with it

Respondent 13 The 3^rd element of the comparables on the economic condition will enable us to look forward more closely.

Respondent 13 I would only go to the Land Court if I needed to get a reasonable amount.

Respondent 14 Using productive capacity would help and profitability would help in the future.

Respondent 14 current we negotiate based on what we have paid previously, adjust what we can afford to pay. A rent review is not a great fear for us. We are making good profits due to our ability as good farmers. Our estate has not come every 3 years for our rent review its been 5,6 or more since the last one. In the past 30 years we’ve had 6 rent increases.

Respondent 14 this would give us the ability to argue about the productive capacity and profitability of the land. It would help us set out our case on that basis.

Respondent 14 It could take longer to reach an agreement, but the land agents just now are more aware of the TFC process - we got 13 months notice prior to the rent review. This process will help, it will extend the negotiation but that will be to our benefit.

Respondent 14 The TFC code of practice will help. We would go to the TFC to mediate before the Land Court. The last place we would want to go is the Land Court because of the costs but also because of the stress. As an absolute last resort, we would apply to the Land Court if it was totally unfair.

Resumption

Respondent 2 costs in resuming land largely due to reduction in rent and lawyer’s letters.

Respondent 2 notes that notice period for resumption should be at least 12 months, unless there’s an emergency reason for the resumption. On the proposals to modernise compensation, it would be up to the tenant to suggest the impact of compensation.

Respondent 8 Proposals are fair. Resumption needs to be easier for landlords as well. Process needs to be fair and compensate for losses.

Respondent 9 believed that they would be entitled to more compensation as a result of this proposal.

Respondent 9 said that a lot had been resumed and sold off to mitigate the right to buy.

Respondent 9 said that they received £1250 for 14.14 acres and woodland strips. The landlord allowed them to occupy the land for another year so they weren’t entitled to disturbance costs.

Respondent 10 had a field resumed for housing. Where a large area of land is resumed it significantly impacts the business. Compensation needs to be able to put tenant in a position where they can try and find more land. They received £500 for 3 acres of the tenancy. Rent was approximately £40 per acre.

Respondent 11 had approximately 600 square meters resumed for a wind farm which took 5 years of negotiation with a £4,000 bill. They received a £50-60 rent adjustment as a result of this resumption.

Respondent 11 said it would be fairer for a tenant to be given a small percentage of the value of the resumption.

Respondent 12 had experienced the resumption of 3 pieces of land for tree planting and game compensation didn’t cover the losses to the farm.

Respondent 13 The statutory payment was three times the rent. We were due £360 we got £500 of compensation for a 3 acre field. We are struggling to find more land to rent or buy. If you got a share in the uplift in the value for a non-agricultural diversification it might help a tenant to put down a deposit for other land.

Respondent 13 We were never going to fight it. It was in the terms of the lease that they can resume it. A tenant farmer should be entitled to more compensation, it needs to be fairer.

Respondent 13 It should be based on something similar to relinquishment as a valuation. You won’t get enough value to enable you to let elsewhere.

Respondent 14 We didn’t get compensation for the resumption, but we got a small reduction in rent. The resumption was less than 1 ha. It was old farm buildings. The rent reduction was £250 a nominal amount. We took the view that it wasn’t worth fighting and we had hoped to get the tenant’s compensation for improvements. It would have caused too much stress and legal fees to fight it.

Respondent 14 We used a lawyer it cost us £3k and a valuer and their fees were £1500 and the landlord gave us £5k. The main issue with the resumption is that its too close to the main steading and it impact upon the farm. We were given over a year’s notice for it.

Respondent 14 The proposal would enable us to get additional compensation. It would be nice to get a tenant’s element on the proportion of the value of the improvement. I’m aware of farms on the mainland where land is being taken away for forestry and the tenants are not being fairly treated. The compensation for these is very little and these are significant areas of land. They are getting a small rent reduction based on the agricultural value of them, I’m not sure the length of time that they were served notice for.

Respondent 14 Getting served with a notice for non-agricultural use can affect your long-term plans for your business especially if it’s a large area of land.

Compensation for Game Damage

Respondent 4 No specific impact on NTS, as not operating game shoots. From past experience, would normally be part of a negotiation with a tenant.

Respondent 8 Challenge of deer and crops – need a stalker on estate to handle deer. Need to know when damage happens to properly assess – not after activity has taken place (e.g. the field has been ploughed). No issues providing compensation where evidence shows damage. Easier to see impacts of damage pre-harvest.

Respondent 9 had not experienced game damage.

Respondent 10 said that if there is a procedure to follow and it can be recognised by both landlord and tenant then it would encourage a tenant to put in a claim and calculate the amount.

Respondent 11 said that there is quite a lot of displaced red deer approximately between 300 and 400 and they were approximately 25% short over a five year period. This would cost about £70-80 an acre if it was kale.

Respondent 11 said that deer had damaged the fence costing £7 - £10 a meter plus retentioning costs.

Respondent 11 said that measuring damage is hard. Grass damage is hard to assess but fodder crops are easier to assess for kale/rape.

Respondent 11 said that the shooting rights had been let to a small family shoot where they were expected to manage 10-20 deer per year and they were having to manage over 100 deer and were lacking the knowledge to do so. In the end the shooting tenant ended their tenancy.

Respondent 11 said that training for landlords, land agents, and tenants similar to the goose model would be helpful to manage the impacts.

Respondent 12 said that they used to grow high value seed potatoes that used to produce £350 pt when lifted. This resulted in a damage claim of around £10k. The landlord didn’t believe them, but the factor got factual info confirming the damage loss.

Respondent 12 said that they had 9 acres destroyed/ flattened that was not combinable due to game bird damage then they submitted a claim for damage to barley. It was between 15-20% loss on the barley left standing and the area of flattened as well so they had compensation for both elements of this.

Respondent 12 said that In 2015 they lost 16 calves out of 68 cows. They also had spyridia and I was drive close to the edge. I was tubing cows on a regular basis then spending 5-6 days thinking it was getting better 60-70% of cows were affect by cryto. A PHD student undertook research on cyrpto sporidium issue, we thought it was feeding/water vector. report showed the vector that the game birds present and the level of damage from cyrpto.

Respondent 12 said that there are 14,000 pheasants and 8,000 partridge on just under 700 acres. They also have avian flu so chickens are getting closed in and game birds are still being imported from the EU and transferred around the UK,.

Respondent 13 Examples where there is big deer damage will be easier to quantify. If fields are shaded by trees, then the rent should reflect that so when the game push the grain flat then that may be an easier approach to manage.

Respondent 13 If there is a procedure to follow and you can both recognise the procedure then that would enable tenants to put in a claim.

Respondent 14 The red deer roam in herds and we have had a field of forage crops decimated, some of the silage crops are also affected we are losing production from those too. If we allow the grass to grow, we get deer and goose damage. How you evaluate it is difficult. The deer roaming around also cause damage. Not sure how you quantify the goose damage per acre.

Respondent 14 I think I’ve lost somewhere between 2-5k pa as there are generally 20 deer roaming around closer to the rough areas but the grass doesn’t grow very well in those areas due to deer. I think that’s a conservative estimate

Respondent 14 I think the proposals would help to get compensation. Very often the landlords’ agents are minimising the game damage. Something more prescriptive methodology would be good.

Respondent 14 It would be useful if there was guidance on assessing damage. It would also be helpful if there was training we could get on how to assess the damage.

Respondent 14 It would also be good for rent review considerations. – link to the productive capacity of the holding

Small Landholdings

Right to Buy

Respondent 4 is supportive of this.

Respondent 15 said they were unlikely to be able to afford the right to buy but it would encourage them to invest in their holding. Mentioned wanting to put up a shed and would consider doing this on the small landholding or secure tenancy that they held.

Respondent 15 said that there was no issue with the boundaries and that it was quite clear given the sea boundary at the end.

Respondent 15 said that it would depend how big a difference was over the boundaries of the tenancy. They said that they wouldn’t be paying for that area of land so may not challenge it. But if the difference was big then they would go to mediation before the Land Court.

Respondent 15 would speak to landlord prior to mediation or Land Court

Respondent 17 said it would work well for them but he knows the landlord would be reluctant and unlikely to sell. He has a good relationship with the landlord. When asked about market value he did not think it would have an impact but unsure. He was 100% for the Right to Buy and would definitely buy if the opportunity arose.

Respondent 17 definitely would invest more and do a lot more on the holding.

Respondent 17 sees this as a benefit to the community. It could mean that the next generation could keep farming and would also help in people remaining on the island.

Respondent 17 on the question of boundaries, he said there were no issues with the holding which is all properly fenced. He also has two seasonal lets as well at present. If he had the right to buy, he would give up these fields.

Respondent 17 in disputes, he said he has had dealings with the factor but thinks he would be okay. Would want to reach some agreement before considering the Land Court.

Respondent 17 On mediation, he thought it was a high cost for 60 acres. He thought that he could come to an agreement with the landlord in the past.

Respondent 17 On the appointment of a valuer, he thought the cost of around £1,000 was affordable. There could be issues if the landlord was reluctant to give up land. Thinks there could be an opportunity if the factor was running the estate for the landlord. Respondent 17 did not think the price would be higher because he lived on Arran as the location of the holding was in a zone out with Brodick and the higher prices of land on the island.

Diversification

Respondent 15 was not in an immediate position to diversify but felt the proposal would be of help if they decided to do so in the future to help with additional income.

Respondent 17 has not diversified. He only has sheep and is quite traditional. He would be interested and would encourage his children if they wanted to do something with the holding. Possibly get better production.

Respondent 17 would speak to a consultant on diversification to get the take on it but not aware of the costs for it. He said he would need to weight up the cost against benefit and how long it would take to recover costs before he would consider it.

Respondent 17 thought the negotiation period would be beneficial to help sort out any difficulties and would prefer the opportunity to negotiate, which could have a cost saving benefit.

Respondent 17 commercial and environmental diversification, he said they were not big enough to allow tree planting. Due to the geography, they are limited in what they can do possibly could do something like deer farming. And he did think a diversification could lead to a rent increase.

Succession and Assignation

Responded 15 had no children and was relatively new to farming so had not really thought about succession or assigning the holding.

Respondent 17 thought this was a great idea for small landholders. It could help young people stay on the island and gave an example of what could happen to the holding in those circumstances. It would encourage people to further invest in their holding knowing that someone would come behind you and continue with the holding.

Respondent 17 when asked whether this would benefit the 59 small landholders, said it was more important to have residents on the island. He hoped it would encourage people to invest in their holding.

Umbrella body

Respondent 15 felt that any guidance on responsibilities would be helpful and asked about improvements and whether there was any difference in terms of how they would be treated between secure 1991 Act tenancies and small landholdings.

Respondent 17 thought the TFC would be up to date with legislation and be able to give advice on rights and responsibilities. He could clarify things which could make life a bit easier.