Scottish Estates: Land Management Plans

Fundamental to the Bill is the proposition that too few people own the land in rural Scotland (although no-one ever articulates the “correct” number of owners). As the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, Mairi Gougeon MSP, put it: “Scotland’s concentrated patterns of ownership developed over centuries, with ownership and control of our nation’s land in the hands of the few for too long…This [Bill] is an important step in our land reform journey…” Cheerleaders for the Bill include the Chair of the Scottish Land Commission (“SLC”) and the REVIVE Coalition (“RC”). Given that the Bill will establish a new Land and Communities Commissioner (“LCC”), within the SLC, the omens are obvious. As for RC, which includes the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, it campaigns for major grouse moor reform. 

Readers should be in no doubt that the Bill is far from being “finished business” in terms of Scottish land reform, at least in the minds of land reform advocates. But the precise shape of any further Scottish land reform is of course unknown. In the meantime, this article discusses one aspect of the Bill: Land Management Plans (“LMPs”).  

Land Management Plans

Technically, much of the Bill modifies the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. For example, it inserts a new section 44A into the 2016 Act, giving Scottish Ministers power, by regulations, to impose obligations on landowners “for the purpose of promoting community engagement in relation to the land.” 

This rather nebulous purpose is made clearer in the new sections which follow. Section 44B makes it plain that any regulations made under section 44A must require the owner of land to ensure that there is a publicly available LMP in relation to the land.

Moreover, the owner of land must engage with communities and tenants (including any crofters) on the development of the LMP as well as any significant changes to it. It does not stop there. Every LMP must be reviewed (and, where appropriate, revised) no later than five years after being made publicly available.

But the regulations (which will almost inevitably follow enactment of the Bill) will not be limited to the imposition of these obligations. They must also set out the information that a LMP is to contain. This information will include, at the very least: details of the land in question; the ownership structure; the owner’s long-term vision and objectives for managing the land (including its potential sale); the steps taken by the owner to engage with communities and tenants in relation to the development of the LMP (and how that influenced it); how the owner is complying with or intends to comply with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and any operative deer management plan; how the owner is managing or intends to manage the land in a way that contributes towards achieving the specified net-zero emissions target, adapting to climate change and increasing biodiversity; and how the owner is having regard to, or intends to have regard to, any registered local place plan in relation to the land. 

Quite a list. What is more, the new section 44B(4)(a) clearly foreshadows an obligation whereby all LMPs are ultimately published on a single website.

There will be statutory guidance about the obligations imposed by the regulations. The Scottish Ministers must consult the LCC before issuing the guidance (pause here to recall that the LCC will be within the SLC, whose Chair enthusiastically welcomed the Bill) and, additionally, any report of an alleged breach of an obligation imposed by the regulations is to be submitted to the LCC. A whole raft of bodies and persons (including local authorities, National Park authorities, the Crofting Commission, grazings committees, grazings constables, community councils, Historic Environment Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage) are empowered to submit such reports, not all of whom must have a connection with the area of the land in question. 

The LCC’s ultimate sanction for a breach of an obligation imposed by the regulations is the imposition of a fine of up to £40,000 on the person that committed the breach (backed by a power to serve an enforcement notice and impose a further fine of up to £40,000). There are provisions for appeals to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.  

Applicable land

The context for all the above is a less than straightforward definition of land in relation to which the various LMP obligations may be imposed. In short, they apply to “a single or composite holding that exceeds 1,000 hectares”. But the legislation includes a range of nuances as to this definition, including contiguous land, ownership by a “set of persons”, connected owners, a holding boundary within 250m of another holding boundary, foreshore and land covered by water (except the seabed). Any landowner pondering whether the obligations will apply to their own land may be forgiven for reaching for some combination of an OS map, a ruler, a dictionary, their lawyer’s telephone number or a stiff drink (or all five). The complexities help account for the “junk law” description given to the Bill by Sarah-Jane Laing, Chief Executive of Scottish Land & Estates. As for LMPs, Ms Laing is reported as having said that, “no other business type is being asked to justify its activities in such a way.”  

LMP implications

Once the legal niceties have been attended to, LMPs will become obligatory for Scottish land in question. Owners will have to engage with communities and tenants in the process of producing, reviewing and revising LMPs. The LMPs will doubtless be publicly available. Matters which many owners of large land holdings have hitherto regarded as private and personal matters, such as the ownership structure, how exactly the land is being managed and any future sale potential will soon be exposed to the glare of publicity. It is not difficult to envisage friction during the community engagement process, heightened monitoring of large land holdings by members of the local community and reports of alleged breaches of the obligations imposed by the legislation once in force. It is likewise not difficult to imagine the reaction in some quarters if and when large fines for breaches are imposed. 

Other

The Bill ranges far and wide. As well as LMPs, it includes provisions covering such matters as community right to buy, lotting of large land holdings, model leases, small holdings and agricultural holdings. Section 20 modifies the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, whereby the provision governing “compensation for damage by game” becomes a provision governing “compensation for damage by game or game management” as well as widening the range of circumstances in which compensation is payable. All those owning or managing land in Scotland would be well-advised to familiarise themselves with the Bill and its implications.

Conclusion

The day when owners of large land holdings in Scotland are obliged to make public their structures, management operations and intentions is nigh. LMPs are an integral aspect of this obligation. It is to be hoped that this article will alert those not presently alerted, and that it further enlightens the semi-enlightened as to the nature of LMPs and the potential risks of non-compliance.  

This article was taken from the joint JM Osborne Rural & Sporting and William Powell Sporting Winter Newsletter. To read or download a copy of the newsletter please click here.

Article written by Stephen Whale

*At the time of writing, 17^th November 2025, Royal Assent and the consequential regulations/guidance are awaited.