Scottish Land Court approves resumption of common grazings for Harris Outdoor Hub

The Scottish Land Court has reaffirmed that the resumption powers under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 remain available to enable community-led developments, even where only a small number of crofting interests are directly affected.

Under section 20 of the 1993 Act, a landowner may apply to the Land Court to resume croft land from crofting tenure, either permanently or temporarily. Resumption can only be authorised if the Court is satisfied that the land is required for a reasonable purpose, such as public or community benefit or development, and that suitable alternative grazing or compensation is provided to affected crofters.

In North Harris Trust v Donald N M MacDonald [2025] SLC 11, the Court authorised the resumption of part of a common grazing in the Township of Ardvourlie, Isle of Harris, to facilitate the development of an Outdoor Hub aimed at enhancing visitor infrastructure and promoting responsible outdoor recreation.

Background:

The application was brought by The North Harris Trust, a community landowner, under sections 20 and 21 of the 1993 Act. The Trust sought to resume 3,180 square metres of common grazing for the construction of a community-focused facility comprising a café and retail space to support mountain biking.

Planning permission had been granted and preliminary works, including service installation and groundworks, had commenced in 2023.

However, the application was opposed by one of the two crofters having a shareholding in the common grazings, who raised multiple objections.

Ground of opposition:

The crofter claimed that:

Planning permission had expired in July 2024, rendering the application as retrospective.
The application was premature due to uncertainty over funding and completion timelines.
The proposed facilities were unnecessary, given existing provision in the area.
The Applicant had not clarified who would operate the facilities.
There were broader concerns about the use of common grazings and the conduct of a Trust director.
The proposed £250 compensation was inadequate, citing a separate valuation of £65,000.

Decision of the Court:

The Land Court authorised the resumption in principle, concluding that:

Planning permission remained valid, with development having commenced appropriately.
The development constituted a reasonable purpose and served the public interest, satisfying the statutory test in Section 20 of the 1993 Act.
The land was not actively grazed, and sufficient alternative grazing was available.
The lack of fixed timescales or a named operator did not render the application premature.
Broader concerns about unrelated land use and individual conduct were not relevant to the statutory test.
The crofter’s market valuation was not reliable, as it assumed planning permissions and land uses not applicable to the actual development.

The Land Court found the proposed development likely to deliver economic and social benefits to the local area, and that it aligned with the objectives of community land ownership. However, the court reserved its position on compensation and value share, citing a lack of adequate information.

A further hearing will be scheduled to determine any sums due under Section 21 of the 1993 Act, including whether or not the crofter is entitled to a share of any uplift in the land’s value.

Key Takeaways:

This decision by the Court reinforces the flexibility of the resumption provisions in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, particularly in support of community-led initiatives. Valid planning consent and early works may be sufficient to defeat objections based on timing or procedural grounds.

Objections not tied to the statutory test are unlikely to succeed, and claims for compensation and value share under Section 21 must be supported by robust and relevant evidence.

Where crofting land is not actively used, the Court may be more willing to permit resumption if the public or estate benefit is clear.

If you require further information on this or another related matter, please contact a member of our Rural Disputes team.

This article was co-authored by Trainee Eva Curran.

Contributors: