The Scottish Government’s proposals to end business rates exemption for sporting estates and to place these estates on the negative list for support through the Common Agricultural Policy will create a minefield of uncertainty for sporting businesses and mixed estates.
As Scotland’s leading independent rural consultancy, CKD Galbraith is calling for much greater clarity on these proposals which could jeopardise the viability of businesses that make a significant contribution to rural Scotland.
Tim Kirkwood, Chief Executive of CKD Galbraith says: ‘The overarching issue with these proposals is what the definition of a sporting estate will be and how that asset is valued in terms of the farming/amenity mix and then in terms of rating, we fear an entirely different approach.
‘The vast majority of estates are integrated rural businesses involved in range of activities including farming, forestry, energy provision, tourism as well as sporting.
‘Estates pay business rates where they fall due and there are often areas where one activity overlaps with another. The reintroduction of sporting rates will require the assessment of the sporting value of all rural land in Scotland ranging from larger estates to farms, crofts and smallholdings. Furthermore, there will need to be much greater clarity on how these proposals fit in with the Scottish Government’s own objectives in terms of deer management, fishery control and general biodiversity, all of which are invested in by estates.’
CKD Galbraith is also highlighting the potential impact on estates following the Scottish Government’s decision to place sporting estates on the CAP negative list.
Tim Kirkwood says: ‘In this area the definition of ‘sporting’ is all important. As it stands, the definition is so broad that many perfectly legitimate farming operations may not qualify for support and there needs to be much greater clarity. It is even possible that farmers may even end up paying rates on farmland.
‘These measures will unquestionably come into force in one shape or another and those who occupy land will have to be prepared to navigate a minefield of uncertainty and mitigate the impact within the parameters of the forthcoming legislation.’
Distinct from the Scottish Government’s political agenda in these matter is the sheer stupidity of the short sightedness of the wilful – and unnecessary – penalty placed upon sporting estates in putting them on the ‘negative’ list for CAP support.
Consider the situation of a community acquisition of a sporting estate where it is in the community owners’ interests to continue to run that particular business.
But, regardless of ownership., that estate would not qualify for CAP support because it had been placed on the negative list by the Scottish Government.
It is inconceivable that the Scottish Government would not wish a community-owned sporting estate to be able to benefit from CAP support in such an operation.
The irony of being dogmatically, irrationally and punitively partisan is that it can lead you into crippling those you least wish to harm.
