Review of the Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement: analysis of consultation responses

Vision and principles

The current Statement comprises a vision and six principles and is supported by advisory notes and case study examples.

Vision

As the consultation paper notes, the Scottish Government is legally committed to ensuring a just transition to achieving net zero carbon emissions. It is also committed to ensuring increased responsible investment in our natural capital, so that local communities and wider society share in the benefits. In reviewing the Statement, the Scottish Government is considering whether these objectives should be reflected in the vision.

A suggestion for a revised vision – with additions highlighted in bold – is:

"A Scotland with a strong and dynamic relationship between its land and people, where all land contributes to a modern and successful country and supports a just transition to net zero, and where rights and responsibilities in relation to land and natural capital are fully recognised and fulfilled."

Question 1 –Do you think that the revised vision reflects the outcomes that we need to achieve?

Responses by respondent type are set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Do you think that the revised vision reflects the outcomes that we need to achieve?
	Yes	To some extent	No	I don't know	I don't have enough information	Not Answered	Total
Organisations:
Community organisations and their representative bodies	1	4					5
Government and NDPB	2	4				1	7
National non-governmental organisations	1	6	1			1	9
Private landowners and their representative bodies	1	3	1				5
Total organisations	5	17	2	0	0	2	26
% of organisations answering	21%	71%	8%	0%	0%
Individuals	11	11	3	1	1	2	29
% of individuals answering	41%	41%	11%	4%	4%
All respondents	16	28	5	1	1	4	55
% of all respondents	29%	51%	9%	2%	2%	7%
% of all those answering	31%	55%	10%	2%	2%

In some instances percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A small majority of respondents – 55% of those answering the question – thought that the revised vision reflects the outcomes that we need to achieve to some extent. This rose to 71% of organisations answering the question.

Of the remaining respondents, 31% thought the vision does reflect the outcomes we need to achieve, 10% that it does not and 2% respectively either did not know or felt that they did not have enough information to take a view.

Question 2 – If you have answered 'no' or 'to some extent', what key changes would you like to see to the vision?

Thirty-six respondents commented at Question 2. Of these, 28 of those commenting thought that the revised vision reflects the outcomes that we need to achieve to some extent. Five respondents thought it did not, two did not know, one thought it did reflect the outcomes we need to achieve, and one did not answer Question 1.

The comments made by those who answered 'To some extent' or 'No' at Question 1 tended to raise similar issues and a single, thematic analysis is presented below. This approach has also been adopted for the analysis of comments on the principles.

In addition to general comments, some respondents suggested alternative wording for either the vision or one or more of the principles. The relevant Scottish Government team has access to all the suggestions made.

Just transition to net zero

Respondents who commented were generally supportive of the proposal to reference a just transition to net zero. Reasons given included that the proposal recognises the pressing need to address the climate crisis and the crucial role that the ownership, use and management of land has in mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Just transition

Some of those offering support for the reference to the 'just transition' went on to suggest how the reference could be clarified or strengthened. Comments included that there should be explicit reference to:

• The common good. It was noted that the final report of the Land Reform Review Group referred to 'a comprehensive and complex concept which brings into its embrace questions of social justice, human rights, democracy, citizenship, stewardship and economic development'.
• Community wealth building. There was also a suggestion that 'community wealth building' should be referenced, including as a possible alternative to 'the common good'. Further comments included that the five core principles of community wealth building, especially that of 'socially just use of land and property', resonate strongly with the vision's aspirations. It was suggested that referencing community wealth building would highlight its importance to the exercise of land rights and responsibilities while also reinforcing links to the net zero and natural capital ambitions.
• Alleviating poverty. An up-front recognition of the importance of reducing poverty was seen as a demonstration that the Scottish Government is seeking to use all relevant policy levers at its disposal to address poverty, while simultaneously progressing climate change commitments.

There were also references to ensuring that different communities or types of area benefit from the just transition. Suggestions included that it should be backed up with legislation that ensures the transition is just for communities impacted by wind farms.

Net zero

Other comments focused on the reference to net zero and some noted that it is problematic because of the links to carbon offsetting. A connected concern was that - while carbon offsetting may have a role - this role should not be over-emphasised and could not be a substitute for curbing emissions

Picking up on a theme relating to biodiversity (discussed further below) there was a concern that 'net zero' gives an inaccurate impression that climate heating and carbon emissions are the only factors that need to be reversed in order to avoid a climate catastrophe. It was suggested that the vision should be revised to include the 'protection, revival and enhancement of the natural environment' or 'to put in place the processes that will enable and enhance the revival of complex natural ecosystems'.

Natural capital

There was also support for introducing a reference to natural capital, although again respondents sometimes went on to suggest how the reference could be strengthened. One suggestion was that the vision referring to 'land and its natural capital' would recognise that natural capital derives from the land.

Other suggestions as to how the reference to natural capital should be developed or expanded included that there should be explicit reference to biodiversity. It was noted that there is a statutory duty on all public bodies in Scotland to further the conservation of biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

A different perspective was that the vision should refer to biodiversity instead of natural capital. It was suggested that the latter arguably continues a paradigm which evaluates elements of the environment in terms of their economic contribution rather than their intrinsic value.

Other themes to include

It was also suggested that there should be:

• Recognition of the value of natural, social, human and economic capital,^[1] but that this might be more appropriately done through the principles rather than being specifically stated in the vision.
• Reference to meeting future food production needs, as far as possible from our own land.
• More emphasis on individuals and families, as opposed to community groups.

Other suggested edits or clarifications

Other suggestions included:

• Giving a sense of greater urgency by referring to 'hastening' rather than 'supporting' a just transition.
• Removing references to 'modern'. With reference to modernity, it was suggested that the Scottish Government should not make it easier to interfere with natural resources or habits.
• Focusing on sustainability and on Scotland being a sustainable country.
• Referring to an 'equitable' rather than a 'strong and dynamic' relationship between Scotland's land and its people.

In terms of points to be clarified, some respondents suggested that it would be helpful to set out:

• What is meant by 'a strong and dynamic relationship between its land and people'.
• That 'all land' refers to both private and public land within Scotland.
• Whether 'land under water' includes the seabed and, specifically, the seabed out to territorial limits.

Reframing of the vision

Some respondents were looking for a more fundamental review and/or reframing of the vision. Further comments included that:

• The proposed vision is not accessible. The 'National non-governmental organisation' respondent raising this issue reported that their members struggled to understand what it meant for them. Reasons cited for this included that members were not clear about what is meant by either 'natural capital' or 'just transition'.
• References to a just transition and natural capital offer only a partial updating of policy developments since the point at which the current Statement was drafted. Other key policy developments referred to included: promoting inclusive growth; community wealth creation; the progressive realisation of human rights; achieving greater social justice; and community empowerment.

In terms of the type of vision required, comments included that it should:

• Be inspiring and motivating to encourage buy-in.
• Reflect the key overarching principles of the Statement.
• Relate to the Land Use Strategy and the implementation of the pilot Regional Land Use Partnerships.

In terms of the specific wording of the vision, suggestions included that it should:

• Reflect a human rights approach to the ownership, use and management of land.
• Reference the range of rights - environmental, social, economic, and cultural - that the Statement covers. There was also a reference to reflecting the sense of fairness which comes from the principles, and that this could be achieved by amending the vision to read 'A Scotland with a strong, dynamic and equitable relationship...'.
• Acknowledge the limits to the exercise of rights. It was suggested that as it currently stands the Statement reads as being unilateral.
• Recognise the need to balance public and private interests in land; a 'Government and NDPB' respondent suggested that the need to balance interests is not as well recognised in the vision as it is in the principles.

On a similar theme, a 'Private landowners and their representative bodies' respondent commented that, on occasion, there will need to be a trade-off between certain objectives. Examples given included that we will need to invest in new towns and settlements and that vacant and derelict land is not always capable of effective, efficient and economic reuse.

A final suggestion was that the vision could be supported by a set of values; it was thought that these could empower landowners, managers and users to make values-led decisions about how to realise land rights and responsibilities in different contexts.

Retain the existing vision

A minority position, taken by a 'Private landowners and their representative bodies' respondent, was that the vision does not need to be changed. They considered that the transition to net zero is already implicit in both the vision and Principle 1. They had an associated concern that specific reference to the transition to net zero could be seen as deprioritising the more economic and socially focused public policy objectives set out in the vision.

Principles

Questions 3 and 4 covered the six principles set out in the current Statement. In each case, respondents were asked whether the principle is still relevant and then to suggest potential improvements.

Question 3 – Do you think that the principles are still relevant to current Scottish land issues?

Question 4 – If you think that the principles could be made more relevant, or that there are any issues that they do not address, please outline this.

Principle 1:

The overall framework of land rights, responsibilities and public policies should promote, fulfil and respect relevant human rights in relation to land, contribute to public interest and wellbeing, and balance public and private interests. The framework should support sustainable economic development, protect and enhance the environment, help achieve social justice and build a fairer society.

Table 3

Do you think that Principle 1 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues?
	Yes	No	Not Answered	Total
Organisations:
Community organisations and their representative bodies	5			5
Government and NDPB	6		1	7
National non-governmental organisations	6	2	1	9
Private landowners and their representative bodies	3	2		5
Total organisations	20	4	2	26
% of organisations answering	83%	17%
Individuals	22	5	2	29
% of individuals answering	81%	19%
All respondents	42	9	4	55
% of all respondents	76%	16%	7%
% of all those answering	82%	18%

In some instances percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority of respondents – 82% of those answering the question – thought that Principle 1 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues.

Twenty respondents commented on Principle 1.

Principle 1 (along with Principle 2) was described as having vital foundational significance for the Statement. Other aspects of the principle that respondents particularly welcomed included: the continued reference to human rights in relation to land; and the assertion of both public and private rights and responsibilities.

However, other general observations about this principle included that it is difficult to understand and implement. Reasons given included that:

• It is complex and wide ranging, and is trying to do too much.
• The language used is inaccessible.
• It is not clear what "relevant human rights in relation to land" refers to.

It was suggested that it should be simplified, with one suggestion that Principle 1 could be streamlined if:

• The role of land in fulfilling human rights and achieving public benefit was covered in the vision; and
• Principle 1 was then focused on recognising the role of public policies in achieving the objectives of the Statement.

Another suggestion was that the current principle should be split into two, with one principle focused on balancing public and private rights and the other on the fulfilment of human rights.

In terms of other themes that respondents wanted to see covered or given greater emphasis under Principle 1, some of these reflected themes that are covered in the vision – such as natural capital – or that respondents were also looking to have covered in the vision, such as the concept of the common good. It was also suggested that the emphasis on achieving social justice and building a fairer society should be placed at the beginning of the principle.

Other themes that respondents wished to see reflected in Principle 1 were:

• Community interests, which should be included alongside public and private interests.
• Community resilience.
• Property rights, to be included alongside public and private interests.
• Equality and diversity issues. Specifically, seeking to influence decision making to ensure all sectors of the population are given meaningful opportunities to own or lease land, to benefit from land, and to be involved in decision making.
• Support for the Gaelic language should be considered as part of the responsibility that comes with land ownership. The 'Government and NDPB' respondent raising this issue went on to report that the position of the SLC is that the Gaelic language is an intrinsic part of land issues in Scotland.
• Encouraging public bodies and policy makers to proactively further land rights and responsibilities and ensure alignment and consistency in public policy, funding and action.
• Responsibilities to support and enable healthy ecosystems.

Other suggested amendments or changes to Principle 1 were

• Removing 'economic' so that the principle reads '... support sustainable development, ...'. It was suggested that referencing sustainable development would be consistent with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.^[2]
• Clarifying that human rights in relation to land does not only mean the protection of property.

Principle 2:

There should be a more diverse pattern of land ownership and tenure, with more opportunities for citizens to own, lease and have access to land.

Table 4

Do you think that Principle 2 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues?
	Yes	No	Not Answered	Total
Organisations:
Community organisations and their representative bodies	5			5
Government and NDPB	6		1	7
National non-governmental organisations	7	1	1	9
Private landowners and their representative bodies	3	2		5
Total organisations	21	3	2	26
% of organisations answering	88%	13%
Individuals	21	6	2	29
% of individuals answering	78%	22%
All respondents	42	9	4	55
% of all respondents	76%	16%	7%
% of all those answering	82%	18%

In some instances percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority of respondents – 82% of those answering the question – thought that Principle 2 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues.

Twenty-one respondents commented on Principle 2.

There was support for retaining the wording of Principle 2 as it currently reads, including because, along with Principle 1, it provides a foundation for the whole Statement. Further comments in support of Principle 2 included that access to open land - as embedded in Principle 2 – is critically important.

Points that respondents wished to note in connection to Principle 2 included that it has different applications in urban or rural situations and appears to be more firmly directed towards the rural policy space. Other comments were:

• Private citizens already have plenty of opportunity to buy land, but given the price of land and inequalities in wealth, creating more opportunities for private citizens to own land could just entrench inequality by enabling wealthy individuals to acquire even more land. To be meaningful, it would be better to replace 'citizens' with something like 'people of all backgrounds'.
• On a similar theme, it was suggested that diverse land tenure and ownership should not be enabled by allowing land to be sold to the highest bidder, often outwith Scotland, in an unregulated market economy.
• There should be scrutiny of land tenure intentions by bidders for land purchase. The 'Individual' respondent raising this issue went on to comment that this would be particularly relevant on purchase of tenanted land and to suggest that there could be a legally required test for compatibility of intentions with local and national plans.
• The community right to buy should be extended, with what is considered 'sustainable development' related to the community right to buy sharpened and with other means of compulsory purchase by the public considered.

However, there was also a concern that calls for more diverse ownership disregard evidence showing that fragmented ownership is not necessary to deliver the outcomes referred to in the vision and Principle 1. The 'Private landowners and their representative bodies' respondent raising this concern expressed a view that diversity of ownership should not be an end in itself and should not be pursued as a policy objective. They were looking for Principle 2 to be changed to refer to an increase in access to land and assets to assist in the delivery of national and local aspirations and need.

Other comments also addressed use of land and included that more should be done to promote community access to land and assets by means of alternative tenures, which can also assist in delivering local and national outcomes. It was suggested that expanding on this within Principle 2 should remove the need for Principle 3.

Finally, it was suggested that Principles 2 and 3 could perhaps be combined. Reasons given included that they cover similar themes – relating to a more diverse pattern of land ownership – and that having communities covered under the separate Principle 3 increases the perceived gap between individuals and communities.

Principle 3:

More local communities should have the opportunity to own, lease or use buildings and land which can contribute to their community's wellbeing and future development.

Table 5

Do you think that Principle 3 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues?
	Yes	No	Not Answered	Total
Organisations:
Community organisations and their representative bodies	4	1		5
Government and NDPB	6		1	7
National non-governmental organisations	7	1	1	9
Private landowners and their representative bodies	3	2		5
Total organisations	20	4	2	26
% of organisations answering	83%	17%
Individuals	21	6	2	29
% of individuals answering	78%	22%
All respondents	41	10	4	55
% of all respondents	75%	18%	7%
% of all those answering	80%	20%

A majority of respondents – 80% of those answering the question – thought that Principle 3 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues.

Twenty-one respondents commented on Principle 3.

A number of respondents suggested Principle 3 should be retained with its current wording. Further supporting comments included a 'Government and NDPB' respondent reporting that, since the introduction of the existing Statement, they have published an Asset Transfer Policy Statement and Guidance and are committed to facilitating asset transfer where it will bring benefits to communities and secure positive outcomes for the historic environment.

Other comments also addressed the delivery of Principle 3 and included that community ownership, leasing or use of land and buildings should be a normal, designed part of community planning, development and regeneration.^[3] The 'Government and NDPB' respondent making this point was amongst those respondents who suggested changes or additions to Principle 3. Suggestions included that Principle 3 (or the Statement more widely) should:

• Ensure there is a supportive policy environment and practical support for communities to build capacity and explore suitable opportunities.
• Articulate the outcomes that community ownership delivers, recognising that it is not an end but a means to delivering wider development and regeneration outcomes, including community sustainability. It should recognise the role of community ownership, use and lease of land in supporting community wealth building and delivering inclusive growth.
• Establish a presumption that negotiated transactions between a willing seller and willing buyer is the norm, with statutory rights to buy or asset transfer being used only where this is not possible.
• (Alternatively) include a compulsory right to buy for communities, without any limiting provisions.
• Set out rights for communities to use vacant or derelict land for community benefit.

Other points made by some respondents included that:

• There may be conflicts with alternative projects from either the public or private sector, or community bodies. If pursued legally or via planning objections, these conflicts would have the potential to frustrate and delay much needed investment and delivery of new homes, businesses and public facilities.
• Delivery of this principle is often frustrated by government 'fiddling' with market forces. If holdings legislation was properly structured there would be greater opportunity to lease land.

Other themes that respondents wished to see added or emphasised included:

• The need for a just transition and addressing climate change.
• Reference to the natural environment or natural capital.

Principle 4:

The holders of land rights should exercise these rights in ways that take account of their responsibilities to meet high standards of land ownership, management and use. Acting as the stewards of Scotland's land resource for future generations they contribute to sustainable growth and a modern, successful country.

Table 6

Do you think that Principle 4 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues?
	Yes	No	Not Answered	Total
Organisations:
Community organisations and their representative bodies	4	1		5
Government and NDPB	6		1	7
National non-governmental organisations	6	2	1	9
Private landowners and their representative bodies	5			5
Total organisations	21	3	2	26
% of organisations answering	88%	13%
Individuals	21	7	1	29
% of individuals answering	75%	25%
All respondents	42	10	3	55
% of all respondents	76%	18%	5%
% of all those answering	81%	19%

In some instances percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority of respondents – 81% of those answering the question – thought that Principle 4 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues.

Twenty-four respondents commented on Principle 4.

Although most were supportive of its basic premise, a small number of respondents had fundamental concerns about Principle 4. These included that:

• The Scottish Government should be upholding the rights of landowners. It was suggested that people have managed land and access for hundreds of years without any interference and there is no need for the Scottish Government to create any further damage to land or the relationship the Scottish people have with it.
• Land needs protecting from Government, development and the habitual harvesting of its natural resources.

Others were supportive of the overall position set out, but also wanted to see other themes covered under Principle 4, suggestions included:

• Being explicit that the holders of land rights have both environmental and social responsibilities to their local communities.
• Greater recognition of the value of place, possibly connected to cultural values, natural beauty and the historic built environment.
• Focusing on the economic and social dimensions of land management by referencing the wider economic and social components of high standards of land ownership, management and use. A connected suggestion was that there could be a case for having separate principles covering the economic and social components.
• Referring to public standards that all landowners must adhere to. These standards must be set by the Scottish Government.

Other suggested changes or amendments to Principle 4 included:

• Making the distinction between those who own/lease land and those who exercise rights over land.
• Reframing the principle so it does not sustain rent seeking i.e. receiving rents for privately owned property.
• Adding a specific focus on urban land.

There were a number of other comments relating to sustainable growth or sustainability. Proposed changes to Principle 4 included:

• Amending the principle to recognise that growth needs to be inclusive as well as sustainable.
• Removing the reference to 'sustainable growth and a modern, successful country', and referring instead to a 'sustainable society' or 'sustainable advancement'.
• Not implying that 'growth' is a requirement or desirable.

The level of subjectivity which might be applied to different interpretations of contributing to sustainable growth, or successful land management and use, was also noted. An associated concern was that, if the Statement is placed on a statutory basis, that subjectivity and the potential for interpretation of its policies and intentions could well lead to significant legal dispute, conflict and delay.

Finally, a 'Government and NDPB' respondent commented that – reflecting how wide-ranging Principle 4 is – the SLC's Protocol on Good Stewardship relating to this principle is the most complex of their Protocol documents. They went on to suggest that it can be difficult for those applying this principle to understand its core objective because it encompasses several significant responsibilities that landowners and managers have. They proposed separating this principle into two, with:

• One principle expanding on the environmental aspects of decision making, including the management of natural capital and how decisions should include consideration of environmental, social and cultural benefits that could be delivered, even when these are not the primary motivation for managing the land or buildings; and
• The other principle focusing on the delivery of other forms of public benefit through land management, covering social and cultural impacts, productive use, a community wealth building approach, and access to green space. This principle could be strengthened through the concept of 'active stewardship'.

Principle 5:

There should be improved transparency of information about the ownership, use and management of land, and this should be publicly available, clear and contain relevant detail.

Table 7

Do you think that Principle 5 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues?
	Yes	No	Not Answered	Total
Organisations:
Community organisations and their representative bodies	5			5
Government and NDPB	6		1	7
National non-governmental organisations	8		1	9
Private landowners and their representative bodies	5			5
Total organisations	24	0	2	26
% of organisations answering	100%	0%
Individuals	24	3	2	29
% of individuals answering	89%	11%
All respondents	48	3	4	55
% of all respondents	87%	5%	7%
% of all those answering	94%	6%

In some instances percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A substantial majority of respondents – 94% of those answering the question – thought that Principle 5 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues.

Fourteen respondents commented on Principle 5.

A number of the comments addressed the issue of transparency, with comments including that 'improved' should be removed as the objective should be to achieve transparency rather than an improvement. Another suggestion was that 'full' should replace 'improved'.

However, it was also suggested that the government should be clear in any new initiative about the purpose of 'improved transparency' measures. For example, would it apply to information about the occupier, the owners or investors, or possibly an individual property or asset manager? The 'Private landowners and their representative bodies' respondent raising this issue commented that, depending on the answer, there could be privacy issues.

Other comments on the type of information required and how it should be recorded included that:

• Efforts should be made to codify and bring together the different forms of land and property information that are already public ‑ including the Registers of Scotland, the valuation roll and Companies House information that is already open to the public.
• Land Management Plans can be beneficial to both the land manager and the local community by providing an overview of the objectives for the land and providing a mechanism for community engagement where relevant.
• The Land Register is a good tool, although has loopholes and opportunities to mask transaction prices, which should be closed. It was suggested that the scale and cost of land registration should not be underestimated, and it was noted that Registers of Scotland do provide support to landowners who may not know where to start with this process. It was suggested that the SLC's Good Practice Advisory Group casework service could encompass supporting landowners in registering ownership as part of its responsible landownership messaging.
• Information on land and croft houses sold by community trusts should be freely available.

Principle 6:

There should be greater collaboration and community engagement in decisions about land.

Table 8

Do you think that Principle 6 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues?
	Yes	No	Not Answered	Total
Organisations:
Community organisations and their representative bodies	4	1		5
Government and NDPB	6		1	7
National non-governmental organisations	7	1	1	9
Private landowners and their representative bodies	5			5
Total organisations	22	2	2	26
% of organisations answering	92%	8%
Individuals	20	8	1	29
% of individuals answering	71%	29%
All respondents	42	10	3	55
% of all respondents	76%	18%	5%
% of all those answering	81%	19%

In some instances percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority of respondents – 81% of those answering the question – thought that Principle 6 is still relevant to current Scottish land issues.

Twenty respondents commented on Principle 6, with a 'Government and NDPB' respondent suggesting that open and honest collaboration between landowners, managers and those in the public, private and third sectors is critical in seeing progress against the Statement, in achieving wider benefits and in addressing significant local and national challenges. A 'National non-governmental organisations' respondent reported that, whilst on paper there is collaboration and community engagement, in practice, the power is in the hands of the landowners who have forged relationships with local authorities to their benefit. They went on to suggest that Principle 6 needs to be made stronger to make it clear that collaboration and community engagement are essential.

In terms of other themes that respondents wanted to see explored under Principle 6, some related to further detail or greater clarity. For example, a 'Private landowners and their representative bodies' respondent commented that the reference to 'decisions about land' is extremely wide and could include anything from day-to-day decisions to significant changes about the use of land.

In terms of bringing more clarity, there were calls for:

• A more explicit reference to ensuring that all sectors of the population are given meaningful opportunities to own or lease land, to benefit from land, and to be involved in decision making.
• Explanation of what is covered by greater collaboration and community engagement. There could be reference to inclusive practice for community engagement.
• The benefits of participation to be emphasised, along with a more balanced narrative between engagement, collaboration and participation.

There was also a call for a focus on 'meaningful' rather than 'greater' collaboration, and for a reference to inclusive practice for community engagement. A 'Government and NDPB' respondent reported that when setting out the principles and policies for decision making that affects the historic environment, they took account of the objectives of the Statement, the Scottish Government's Guidance on Engaging Communities in Decisions Relating to Land and the SLC's Protocols. Another 'Government and NDPB' respondent suggested that Principle 6 could do more to recognise the value of wider collaboration between interested parties and that such an approach would bring greater alignment with other policy such as Regional Land Use Partnerships and the Land Use Strategy.

However, there was a concern that Principle 6 does not recognise the difference between encouraging effective community collaboration to shape and inform decisions about land use, and communities having the right to decide on land use where they themselves do not own it. The 'Private landowners and their representative bodies' respondent raising this concern went on suggest that a balance needs to be struck, especially where communities have not expressed any interest in engaging with the landowner, despite efforts from that owner to reach out through various means.

There was also a concern that Principle 6 does not recognise or account for the reality of conflicting interests among communities. In relation to potentially competing or conflicting interests, one suggestion was that the principle should include a right for community councils to appeal to the Scottish Government against local authority decisions to allow developments, in the same way that developers are allowed to appeal to the Scottish Government to appeal against local authority decisions to refuse developments.

Other comments included:

• The role of Local Place Plans should be referred to in the accompanying Advisory Notes.
• Addressing existing land use issues, which it was suggested often need to be resolved before the Statement principles can be applied. It was reported that historical issues can have a direct negative impact on the local community or environment and that this issue is of particular relevance in light of the introduction of Part 3A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to provide communities a right to buy abandoned, neglected and detrimental land.

General issues about the principles

In addition to comments relating to specific principles, there were also a small number of more general observations about the principles overall. These included that it is difficult to comment on how the existing principles should be changed until the new vision is decided upon. Others were looking for a greater emphasis or acknowledgement of certain themes or issues across the revised principles. Themes identified included:

• The vision's references to net zero and natural capital being emphasised throughout the principles.
• The responsibilities of all land users, including members of the public using the land for leisure or recreational purposes.
• The impact of an unregulated land market and the high prices of land. It was suggested that the revised Statement could reflect or acknowledge this context more explicitly.

There were also suggestions for new or additional principles relating to:

• Addressing natural capital in the context of the climate and nature emergencies and a just transition.
• Land which comes with significant environmental or historical burdens.
• The productive reuse of land. It was suggested that this could be framed positively in terms of the 'productive reuse of land' as per the SLC's The Case for Change: A New Approach to Assessing the Benefits of the Productive Reuse of Land.