Responses to the consultation on community right to buy

The Scottish Government has published its analysis of responses to the Community Rights to Buy Consultation (“the Consultation”). In our first blog, we looked at the proposed changes to Community Rights to Buy (“CRTB”), and we now turn to consider the Consultation responses. The Consultation, which was open between July and October 2025, covered eight topics in relation to CRTB. 62 responses were received - 37 from organisations and 25 from individuals, with opinions somewhat divided but overall showing support for most proposals.

Combining Existing Rights to Buy

The Consultation considered whether the three existing compulsory rights (whereby a landowner must sell to the holder of the registered right, rather than just being prohibited from selling to another party) should be merged, and if so, whether the newly merged rights should be based on the condition of the land or the owner’s use of it.

• On the question of merging the rights, 39% were in favour, 31% were against, and 30% were unsure.
• Themes from further information provided focussed on: the need to simplify the current complex process, with some respondents suggesting simplification can be achieved without merging the rights; keeping the crofting right separate from the other two compulsory rights due to its uniqueness; standardised definitions and guidance needed for merged rights; and concerns that the unique functions of each right may be diluted if merged.
• Currently, different criteria are applied for different rights when considering applications. For example, in relation to the compulsory rights, the Right to Buy Abandoned, Neglected or Detrimental Land is based on the condition of the land, whereas the Right to Buy Land to Further Sustainable Development is based on the proposed use. In response to the Consultation question on what the basis of any newly merged rights should be, 13% favoured condition, 35% favoured use, and 52% chose ‘other’, with many suggesting a combination of the two should be considered.

Amending the Definition of ‘Community Body Structures’

Questions relating to community body structures sought views on reducing the residence and voting eligibility requirement and amending the ratio of members required to attend AGMs.

• 60% of respondents were in support of reducing the eligibility requirement from 75% to over 50% of members being resident in the community, 26% disagreed, and 14% were unsure.
• • Those who were not in support of a +50% requirement were split across favouring a figure around 80-90%, 60-65% and 10-25%. Further comments noted difficulties securing participation in urban and remote areas, suggesting it may be suitable to have different requirements for different environments.
• • 38% of respondents were in support of amending the ratio of members required to attend AGMs from the current 10%, 38% were against a change, and 24% were unsure.
• • Those in support mostly considered there should be an increase to around 25% to ensure legitimacy and credibility. Those against commented that an increase would be too difficult for progress to be made, being an unnecessary burden as support is measured in other ways. Others considered there should also be requirement for a minimum number of attendees, being 10 or 20 members. Again, suggestions were made for urban and remote areas having different requirements to account for their differences.

Petitions and ballots

Currently, to succeed in registering a non-compulsory right to buy (i.e. the original community right to buy, known as a ‘Part 2 Right to Buy’ or the “pre-emptive right to buy”), community support must be evidenced through a petition. Timeous applications must show at least 10% of the community support the proposal, while late applications require a higher level of support – currently treated in practice as 15%.

In contrast, compulsory rights – or cases where the non-compulsory right is triggered – require support to be evidenced through a community-wide ballot. For a ballot to be valid, at least half of the community must vote, and at least half of those votes must be cast in favour of acquisition (i.e. 25% of the community must be in support).

The Consultation queried whether these thresholds should be changed.

• 62% considered some levels of community support and turnout required could be reduced and still sufficiently show support for proposals, 28% disagreed and 10% were unsure.
• 43% thought support for the ballot should solely be based on the percentage of community support with no minimum required turnout (e.g. a 25% threshold could be met by a 50% turnout and 50% support—or a 25% turnout and 100% support); 43% disagreed and 14% were unsure.
• 68% considered the percentage of those against proposals should also be considered if a ballot were based solely on the percentage of community support with no minimum turnout, 19%disagreed and 13% were unsure.
  

Late applications

Late applications relate to the non-compulsory ‘Part 2 Right’. A late application is one submitted after steps have been taken transfer the property. The Scottish Ministers will exercise their discretion in each individual case; however, a late application will not be granted where missives or an option agreement have been signed. It is for the owner to show what steps were taken and when, and for the community group to show they had already taken steps towards making an application.

The owner must pause the transfer until the Scottish Ministers make a decision. If rejected, the sale can continue; if approved, the asset must be sold to the community body unless the owner chooses not to sell the asset at all.

• Views were invited on the level of community support required for a late application to be accepted. Responses generally agreed that the current level of community support (15%) is sufficient. Some thought this should be closer to the 10% required for a timeous application.
• 59% thought late applications should only be accepted where community groups can show they were compliant with Right to Buy requirements (e.g. as a registered community body with a governing document defining the community and setting out that the body can exercise its Part 2 Right, among other provisions) before the owner took any steps to transfer; 37% disagreed, and 4% were unsure.
• 41% considered community groups should still show they have taken steps to acquire the land before the owner has taken any steps to dispose of it, 50% disagreed, and 9% were unsure.
• 44% agreed that a late application should contain a detailed business plan for the asset, with the amount of detail required being defined, 51% disagreed, and 5% were unsure.
• 50% thought the owner should be prohibited from removing the asset from sale if the late application is approved, 28% were against, and 22% were unsure.
  

Third-party purchasers

The Right to Buy Land to Further Sustainable Development allows a community group to nominate, in its application, a third party to carry out the purchase on their behalf. This is intended to support communities that lack the expertise to deliver projects such as affordable housing themselves. There is no requirement for the nominated purchaser to follow any particular structure, have a formal agreement with the community group, or provide a business case for the asset’s future use.

• 46% agreed that third-party purchasers should remain an option under the compulsory rights to buy, 27% disagreed, and 27% were unsure.
• 72% agreed that third-party purchasers should have required structures to be eligible, in line with community group applicant requirements, 9%disagreed, and 19% were unsure.
• 85% agreed that applications with an appointed third-party purchaser should include an agreement with the community body showing their future relationship and any business plan they have for the asset, 4% disagreed, and 11%were unsure.
  

Option agreements

Option agreements are contracts between the owner of property and a third party which grant the third-party rights that may be exercised in future – for example, the right to be granted a lease of land for the purposes of a renewable energy development. A right to buy application must be refused if an option agreement is in place as these cannot be overridden. Such agreements are not publicly recorded, so community groups often don’t know about them before making an application.

• 89%considered the fact that option agreements exist should be made known to community groups that have made a CRTB application, 4% disagreed, and 7%were unsure.
• 74%thought applications should be assessed and, if approved, apply if the option is not taken up, 4% disagreed, and 22% were unsure.
• 55% agreed that the types of option agreements that can cause an application to be declined should be limited, 9% disagreed, and 36% were unsure. Supporters noted that agreements between family members or connected companies should not block the right to buy, while others raised concerns about option agreements being used to frustrate CRTB.
  

Appeals

Views were sought on changing the length of time given to appeal against the rejection of a CRTB application.

• 60% agreed that the submission period should be extended to provide time to make a more informed decision on whether to appeal, 29% disagreed, and 11% were unsure.
• Most respondents considered an increase to 8 weeks from the current 28 days is appropriate. Other suggestions included 3 and 6 months. Those who opposed the bill considered no change should be made to ensure consistency across other, non-CRTB appeal periods.
  

Registration period

• 57%were in favour of extending the current five-year registration period, 34%were against and 9% were unsure.
  

CRTB Review

Although there is overall support for the proposals, many don’t have a strong majority and may not result in changes to the CRTB. A final set of proposals (originally expected by December 2025) will now be produced for consideration by the Scottish Ministers. For further information or advice, please get in touch with your usual Brodies contact.