Machrihanish Airbase Community Buy-out

[Bitter End]

What a f--k up ! http://www.andywightman.com/docs/rtb%20 ... 100811.pdf - when you play with the profesionals you learn the rules BEFORE you step on the field ! Interesting reading KFN ?. quite alarming really !

[Dunc R]

Not good reading. If MACC can not get this right what chance have they got of running a sucessful business.

[Mary G]

To what extent was the Community Land Unit within Highland & Islands Enterprise involved? Have they been helping the MACC team in general terms, or in advising with the running of the ballot? I had thought that this is one of their responsibilities.

[mary]

Thought this might be of interest - Andy Wightman's latest blog on this subject

Machrihanish II
August 23rd, 2010
Having had time to digest the recent decision to refuse the right to buy to the Machrihanish Airbase Community Company (see post of 13th August) I am astounded at both the decision and the implications. It has become very evident that over the course of the past 6 years, applications to register an interest in land by communities under the community right to buy provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, have been thwarted in too many cases by a systematic bias in the way civil servants have discharged their duties. Put simply, if there is even a hint that a landowner might challenge a registration, then every effort is made to pore over the application and reject it on a technicality. Where such concerns do not arise on the other hand, no such thing happens and applications which are in many cases technically invalid end up being registered.

In the case of Machrihanish we now have the same logic applied to the actual right to buy process. The Machrihanish Airbase Community Company decided to proceed with the right to buy when the MoD put the airbase outside Campbeltown up for sale earlier this year. It then held a ballot of 5945 electors who voted 97.4% YES on a 67.35% turnout to proceed with the buyout. So what happened?

Well, Scottish Ministers decided that such enthusiastic support was to be quashed by refusing to consent to the right to buy on the basis that there had been technical breaches in the ballot. These are spelt out at length in the Refusal Notice. They are, frankly, bizarre. For example, the fourth point is that the community body failed to ask an accurate ballot question since it suggested that the “people of Kintyre” were being given the opportunity to acquire the airbase. Wrong…! As the land reform police at Victoria Quay are quick to point out it is not the community that is being given the right to buy it is the community body - Machrihanish Airbase Community Company. The distinction is of course important but also utterly irrelevant.

But the fiasco does not stop there. Disappointing as this is for the community in Kintyre, the decision reveals an aspect of the Act that has as yet escaped my attention and which renders the law something of an ass.

If a commmunity is given the right to buy (sorry, I must remember that communities cannot be given the right to buy - it is community bodies) and fails for whatever reason to conclude the sale within 6 months, then the right to buy is extinguished and their registration of interest is deleted (section 56). This is quite correct and logical.

If, however, as in the case of Machrihanish, the community body is refused consent to buy then the Act is silent on what happens to their registration. That being the case, therefore, the registered interested remains (since there is no provision in the Act for it to be deleted). But that leads to an interesting and crazy situation where the MoD is prohibited from taking steps to sell the airbase without providing the community body with an opportunity to exercise its right to buy. Having been turned down the first time, let us suppose that the community body decides that it will have another go. It organises another ballot and sends the results of this to Scottish Ministers. They then find that one voter has been omitted from the ballot (echoes of the British Airways cabin crew strike ballot here) and refuse to consent to the right to buy. But the MoD is still prohibited from selling and, when it decides to put it on the market again, the community body decides for a third time to exercise its right to buy. Ministers again refuse.

This could go on forever. Such a situation is, I should stress, particularly unfair on the landowner whoever they might be. It is only reasonable I suggest that a community body be given one chance to acquire land and, if consent is not forthcoming from Scottish Ministers, the landowner should be free to sell. Instead we have a situation of potential stalemate.

The case emphasises once again why, as many have argued, there should be a thorough review of how the community right to buy is being implemented. Scottish Ministers have consistently refused to agree to this. Might this be because such a review would expose the inadequacies and inequities in Ministers’ own decision making processes?

[Bitter End]

Thank you Mary for the clear explanation of the situation with the airbase.
Really do like your final question !
"The case emphasises once again why, as many have argued, there should be a thorough review of how the community right to buy is being implemented. Scottish Ministers have consistently refused to agree to this. Might this be because such a review would expose the inadequacies and inequities in Ministers’ own decision making processes?"

[mary]

Just to clarify my previous post, the entire blog was pasted and the question was Andy Wightman's and not my own. Andy is very knowledgeable about right to buy issues and I thought his views on the proceedings would be of interest to the community and might stimulate useful debate

[Mary G]

This is illuminating. I also gather, from the content here and the report in the Courier, that the ballot had to be organised within 28 days of the valuation. This is a pretty tall order for any organisation. That barely allowed any time to secure the support of the HIE Community Land Unit. And in any case, they may well not have had the resources to respond in that sort of time-scale.

Would that be a correct interpretation?

[MACC]

‘Bias’ thwarts community bids to buy land, claims campaigner


Andy Wightman says the Act is unfair to landowners as well as to community bids
Exclusive: David Ross, Highland Correspondent

1 Sep 2010
A land reform expert has accused Scottish Government civil servants of “systematic bias” against some communities’ attempts to take over property.

Andy Wightman expressed his anger after the recent refusal by officials to approve the community bid to take over the former RAF base on Kintyre. He also believes the episode has exposed a major weakness in Holyrood’s Land Reform Act which urgently requires review.

Mr Wightman criticised the treatment of the bid to take over the former RAF Machrihanish, despite a ballot with 97.4% support on a 67.35% turnout.

The Machrihanish Airbase Community Company wants to use the land to attract new businesses and industries, with a view to reducing the carbon footprint in the area. One of its more ambitious ideas is a duty-free port for air freight to all parts of Europe and the UK, as the base lies on the flight path to North America.

But civil servants found fault with the way the community pursued the bid.

Writing on his blog, Mr Wightman said: “It has become very evident that over the course of the past six years, applications to register an interest in land by communities under the community right to buy provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, have been thwarted in too many cases by a systematic bias in the way civil servants have discharged their duties.

“Put simply, if there is even a hint that a land-owner might challenge a registration, then every effort is made to pore over the application and reject it on a technicality. Where such concerns do not arise, on the other hand, no such thing happens and applications which are in many cases technically invalid end up being registered.”

But he also claimed the Act was unfair to sellers. It allowed communities six months to prepare a bid, but did not anticipate the community being refused permission to proceed with the sale, despite having registered an interest in the property.

“That being the case, therefore, the registered interest remains, since there is no provision in the Act for it to be deleted. But that leads to an interesting and crazy situation where the Ministry of Defence is prohibited from taking steps to sell the airbase without providing the community body with an opportunity to exercise its right to buy. So the whole exercise could be repeated again and again.

“This could go on forever. Such a situation is, I should stress, particularly unfair on the landowner, whoever they might be.”

A Government spokeswoman said the ballot over RAF Machrihanish was  automatically “extinguished” as it failed to comply with the Act’s legal requirements.

“The community will have a further opportunity to exert its right to buy if and when the Defence Estates decide to proceed with the sale.”

She added that the Government’s rural affairs and environment committee had commissioned research into the operation of the Act, and its right to buy provisions, as part of its post-legislative scrutiny.