Prudent succession planning and professional advice will be crucial in minimising IHT liabilities.
Reporting on the increase in marginal land values in Scotland over the past 5 years.
A market update on the farming year across the country from our regional experts.
framework
Anticipated adoption of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in England.
As I write thousands of British farmers have joined a protest in London against changes to inheritance tax made in the budget.
The reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief mean that from April 2026, landowners will be subject to inheritance tax of 20 per cent on assets valued above £1 million which they wish to pass on to their family.
This comes at a time when farmgate prices have dropped and costs have risen sharply in the past five years.
We know that the UK only produces around 60 per cent of the food it needs and margins are already paper thin for food producers.
The huge publicity surrounding the demonstration has perhaps ensured better understanding among politicians of the realities of farming and the need for fiscal stability to enable investment.
At a time when society seems to be demanding more and more from its land, we would argue that land management has to involve better coordination between policymakers and farmers.
The exact circumstances of each farm or estate are different but the variety of avenues of opportunity for landowners is a source of comfort.
The articles in this edition will help to frame the debate and enable a constructive way forward. n
Ian Hope 07968 209 543 ian.hope@galbraithgroup.com Head of our Rural Department
Galbraith is a leading independent property consultancy. Drawing on a century of experience in land and property management the firm is progressive and dynamic employing over 200 people in offices throughout Scotland and the North of England. We provide a full range of property consulting services across the commercial, residential, rural and energy sectors. Galbraith provides a personal service, listening to clients and delivering advice to suit their particular opportunities and circumstances.
Fiscal events are eagerly anticipated events in the political calendar, particularly after a general election and a change of government.
The Chancellor’s Budget announcement on 30th October was widely expected to unveil a number of significant changes that would affect the rural property market, specifically changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) and Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and their associated reliefs. This speculation was demonstrated by the spike in valuations sought by clients seeking to transfer assets internally before the Budget, prompted by concerns over potential rises in CGT rates.
Whilst the Budget unveiled a change to the main rates of CGT (specifically raising the 10% threshold to 18% and the 20% threshold to 24% for assets other than residential property),
speculation over CGT rates increasing to a level comparable with Income Tax did not materialise. In England and Wales, the increase in the Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) surcharge for second-homes from 2% to 5% may influence buying decisions, and is likely to disproportionately affect those regions where second home ownership is more prevalent.
However, the most consequential changes were those made to the thresholds for Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) payable as IHT. In summary, from 6th April 2026, the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets will continue to
attract no IHT, whereas for assets over £1 million, IHT will apply with 50% relief at an effective rate of 20%. This new cap will also apply to trusts holding assets which qualify for these reliefs.
This represents a major change for the rural sector and has been met with fierce opposition from industry bodies, such as the National Farmers Union (NFU). Whilst the Government has stated that the vast majority of family farms will not be affected by the new cap, it is likely that a significant number of farming businesses will be affected owing to high land values across much of the UK. For those businesses likely to be impacted by the changes, prudent succession
planning and professional advice will be crucial in minimising IHT liabilities which could otherwise have substantial financial implications.
Whilst the changes are not scheduled to come into effect until April 2026 and further consultation is due to take place, it is possible that the new IHT regime will have a significant effect on the rural property market. Although it is too early to predict the full effects of these changes, it possible that a number of farming businesses could be required to sell land at short notice in order to raise the capital needed to pay IHT charges. These changes may also lead to a decrease in the average
...Farming businesses could be required to sell land at short notice in order to raise the capital needed to pay IHT charges. Ian Hope
age at which succession takes place within family farming businesses, which could accelerate changes in the way these businesses are operated as younger family members take over decision making control. Furthermore, while many rural estates now combine BPR and APR claims to encompass the full value of their business in accordance with the Balfour case, it is possible that the new cap may restrict their ability to do this.
Property owners who are likely to be affected will need to give careful consideration to future planning ahead of the implementation of the legislation in April 2026. However, these
announcements have also generated considerable debate concerning the future of UK agricultural policy to a wider audience in the national media and politics, an area where the rural sector is often marginalised. Whilst the impact of these changes on the rural property market remains to be seen, it is clear that this in an issue of national significance that will continue to be debated in the future. n
Ian Hope
07968 209 543 ian.hope@galbraithgroup.com
Edward Fletcher 07990 130 753
edward.fletcher@galbraithgroup.com
What can we learn from the first farmers?
An insight into Early Farmers’ impact on the land and biodiversity and lessons for today.
Recent research by University of York, using pollen analysis shows that humans can increase biodiversity, providing lessons for the rewilding movement, conservation and regenerative farming alike.
Farming became an alternative to full time hunter-gathering around 4,000 years ago during the Neolithic period. Known today as Early Farmers, these stone age crofters swept aside their traditional huntergatherer lifestyle in favour of permanent settlements and a reliable food source. By 3,500 BC, many parts of Britain were converted into farmland, and settlements and civilizations grew because crops and animals could now be farmed to meet demand.. After the last ice age, the climate warmed, leading to wetter conditions and the expansion of forests across newly thawed areas, especially in the northern hemisphere. In these early-Holocene forests, significant connection can be observed between the growing human presence and the rise in plant diversity in once forested landscapes. The first movement occurred around 9,000 years ago, when Neolithic farming populations began migrating north and west from the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East into Europe.
It is believed that these newcomers in Europe cleared some, though not all, of the forests to accommodate livestock, crops, and their homesteads. As a result, grasses and other plants that thrive in disturbed areas would have taken root, creating a diverse landscape with various patches of vegetation. Creating a patchy forest is more feasible than establishing a patchy open grassland, as it's simpler to fell trees and allow open-ground plants to occupy the gaps. This ease of creating patchiness in forests would create a mosaic of interacting habitats and increase biodiversity in a landscape.
Biodiversity is what makes every environment on Earth unique and
has played a crucial role in agriculture since its inception. Early Farmers harnessed genetic diversity by domesticating edible plants and animals.
Biodiversity continues to form a critical part of agriculture. Regenerative practices are bringing back into focus the power of agriculture working with nature to enhance soil health, livestock systems, rescue inputs and reap local and landscape benefits.
Many people today promote the idea of enhancing biodiversity by reducing human impact on landscapes. This often takes the form of rewilding, a movement that seeks to "let nature take charge”. However, findings indicate that in many areas—though not all— minimally human-modified landscapes exhibited fewer plant types, with stable stage climax vegetation such as forest proliferating. This is seen by some as the perfect ecological baseline, a state which is highly desirable and
should be sought at all costs. In recent cases, we have seen this pushing the removal of humans and reducing land management.
The research highlighted that through pollen analysis, formally wooded environments achieved increased biodiversity when Early Farmers arrived and began manipulating the landscape. In many cases, human disturbances actually increased biodiversity rather than diminish it.
Today, rewilding, regenerative farming and forestry are often seen as completing land uses.
Biodiversity is what makes every environment on Earth unique and has played a crucial role in agriculture since its inception. Early Farmers harnessed genetic diversity by domesticating edible plants and animals.
A rewilding ethos is often raised as being the ideal situation for nature, but this research shows that in Britian, human intervention is a critical element of biodiversity. We are after all not removed from nature and the landscapes in which we live. The benefits of including multiple land uses in a landscape is clear and considering biodiversity on a landscape scale can bring additional benefits to the rewilding approach. Under regenerative farming and forestry, different habitats are created to suit the needs of humans through provisioning, and it is satisfying to know that these landscapes create habitats which benefit overall biodiversity. This demonstrates the importance of provisioning activities working with nature to increase biodiversity and that if undertaken in a careful and considerate manner, these approaches can provide resources for society as well as benefiting nature.
At Galbraith, we have been working with a number of projects where multiple landowners are involved in nature restoration at landscape scale and with single landowners looking to create mosaics and increase biodiversity on land they own. n
Eilidh Hunter 07770 413 243 eilidh.hunter@galbraithgroup.com
Dr Eleanor Harris 07585 900 870 eleanor.harris@galbraithgroup.com
Since its launch in 2012, the Defra Statutory Biodiversity Metric has gained recognition and trust among ecologists and businesses as a tool for measuring biodiversity gain.
The Metric was used to underpin financial transactions in England even before its use in development became statutory in February 2024, and its track record and flexibility means it is also already being used in Scotland, where a free market in biodiversity is developing.
NatureScot consulted on amendments to the metric for a Scottish context. Galbraith fed into this consultation based on our experience on the ground. An all-purpose metric It is important that NatureScot recognise that the metric is likely to be used
more widely than for its designed purpose within the planning system. For example it can be used to measure bundled habitat benefit within a carbon or water project, or to measure ‘inset’ benefit in farm or forestry supply chains.
Once one metric has credibility, it is difficult for alternatives to gain momentum as they tend to be more expensive for project developers and ecologists to use; and not recognised in the corporate world. The review process should assess the risks of unintended negative consequences if it is used beyond the specific purpose
for which it was designed, and the value of ensuring that metric is flexible enough to be used as the generalpurpose biodiversity metric which its name implies.
An issue which NatureScot have already identified is that the most distinctive habitats – such as peatland or some woodlands – should be scoreable in the Scottish Metric. In the English Metric these were excluded on the basis that developers should not be destroying these at all. However, this means that landowners cannot be paid under the Metric to improve these. Galbraith would support this change which would benefit projects we are developing.
However, another issue with the English metric which NatureScot have not yet proposed to consider, is that farm and forestry cropland habitats, gardens, and other highly managed habitats, are also excluded from the Metric, although a network of features such as margins and hedgerows may run through them.
The consultation paper proposes developing speciesbased metrics as well as the habitat-based ones used in the Defra metric. Measuring wading birds, invertebrates, songbirds would be valuable enrichment to the metric, and draw on techniques already being used by project developers such as audio birdsong monitoring or eDNA sampling. However, developing these before launch would delay a metric which is urgently needed. We proposed branding the initial metric a habitat metric, with a view to developing a companion wildlife metric in future, as two parts of a complete Scottish biodiversity metric.
The risk of Leakage Galbraith’s response highlights an important risk factor missing from the English metric: leakage. Taking farm or forestry cropland out of production to create low-distinctiveness biodiversity habitat could have a detrimental effect on biodiversity if it pushed production onto irreplaceable habitat globally.
The metric should quantify this by looking at quantity of crop produced, trends in global demand, and risk of biodiversity impact elsewhere due to displaced production.
Start – and keep going Since the English Metric is already in use in Scotland, the urgent priority is to address elements unique to Scottish ecology, such as the distinction between a commercial conifer plantation and an ancient Caledonian pine forest.
This means any work by farmers to build soil quality and invertebrate populations, or by foresters to improve structural diversity and deadwood, counts for nothing, although the biodiversity benefits of such actions are widely recognised and can enhance the whole site. Without these, biodiversity credits cannot underpin the transformational funding needed to deliver holistic, regenerative, change on land which meets our material needs. Instead, biodiversity and production are mapped and conceptualised as fundamentally opposed. All habitats, from best to worst, and wildest to most human, should be included in the metric to maxmise its application and put all land managers on a level playing field of opportunity.
However, it will be a missed opportunity if the revision process does not schedule in addressing the significant limitations and risks of the English Metric, which could give Scotland a functioning, practical, trusted, holistic and change-making biodiversity metric in a fraction of the 12 years it has taken to develop the system in England. n
biodiversity loss and climate change.
In line with global efforts, Scotland implemented its policies by publishing and abiding by the
Biodiversity Loss is a pressing concern worldwide, driving global policies including the UN Sustainable Goals, the ‘United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’ (CBD), and the ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ (UNFCCC).
In line with global efforts, Scotland implemented its policies by publishing and abiding by the ‘Scottish Biodiversity Strategy’, a plan created with the goal of safeguarding and restoring Scotland’s biodiversity in line with the 2030 national targets –achieving a reduction of emissions by 75%. Scotland’s Farmers are particularly vulnerable to policies driven by the concern of climate change and biodiversity.
Navigating and adapting to these demands is challenging.
Farmers play a crucial role, in that “70% of Scotland’s land is utilised for agricultural enterprises”. The measures that farmers will be expected to take will need to account for a changing climate. Unpredictable or extreme weather patterns limit the effectiveness of biodiversity-focused practices. For example, planting diverse crop types, or conserving or restoring native habitats and species becomes harder to plan and implement for when these conditions decimate efforts. As Climate Change pushes native species out of their habitats, farmers must adapt to ecological dynamics that may clash with conventional land management strategies.
Further complicating this domain is the uncertainty of long term funding and future government support. Many government subsidies and financial facilitations encourage sustainable practices within the sector. However, as policies have shifted distinctively post-Brexit, Scotland’s rural sector face a lack of clarity on long term funding regarding biodiversity initiatives. Change has started recently, with RP&S requiring a biodiversity audit as one of the requirement options to access BPS. Future environmental schemes, which state they are designed to balance agricultural productivity and biodiversity preservation may alter, leaving farmers uncertain as to which pursuits will be supported.
To achieve significant biodiversity conservation and mitigate the impact of climate change, there is a pressing need for clear government policies, dependable funding, and guidance to support the future of the industry. Scottish farmers can play a crucial role in protecting biodiversity; however, they require support to manage this, in addition to climate adaptation, and output or productivity demands. Balancing these needs is essential to the sustainability of Scotland’s agriculture sector, whilst prioritising our diverse ecological heritage. n
Emma Newlands 01224 86 0710
emma.newlands@galbraithgroup.com
The increase in marginal land values in Scotland over the past 5 years or so has primarily been driven by the demand for land for afforestation purposes, whether that be native woodland creation for carbon offsetting or commercial afforestation.
This has particularly applied to pasture with land grades of Grade 4(1) and poorer, and hill ground, but the increase in demand for this type of land has also affected prices across the board.
The profile of the purchasers had also changed during that period with the value of land often being driven by a number of large financial institutions coming into the market, looking to make a return on the land for their investors in the longer term. This is a new trend within the land market and it can have a significant impact for some transactions. It involves a different valuation methodology, whereby the value of land is assessed much like any other development (such as housing) and the cash flows put through a Discounted Cash Flow to arrive at an Internal Rate of Return. When institutions and purchasers did this it often became apparent that agricultural land and rural estates capable of woodland creation, were fundamentally undervalued because of woodland creation grants and some vague assumptions regarding the future value of carbon.
As Registered Valuers, Galbraith’s agents are increasingly asked how they approach Natural Capital within valuations due to its growing focus within the industry. It is fair to say that there is a huge amount of risk associated with valuing Natural Capital due to there not yet being a defined methodology for valuations of this nature.
As valuers, we widely use the comparable method of valuation which takes little regard to agricultural/financial
productivity, and there is an inherent lag with comparable evidence. It is important that any valuation methodology takes account of emerging environmental and market factors, which the current valuation methodology could be said to not properly consider. For these assets, there needs to be consideration of their future potential which can be very difficult to evaluate and is not currently catered for within the methods of valuation. As we know, government policy decisions and incentives can have an enormous impact on farming, and on the value of land and property. There is a risk of either over or undervaluing assets based on one site inspection and not taking account of future policy or potential values. If valuing natural capital assets using this method, there is a risk that decision making may not be accurate or reflect future potential. Is it time for a new valuation method to take account of these assets?
In terms of Natural Capital Opportunities beyond carbon, it is difficult to attribute any hope value in valuations, as the land market has primarily been driven by carbon, not biodiversity, flood water management or any other service. This is because, in Scotland at least, it is not a tangible thing. Carbon, is tangible in England, as is BNG, however it is still an emerging concept here in Scotland. We await with interest more clarity and more defined policy to be brought forward by the Scottish Government. n
Rose Nash 07342 053 317 rose.nash@galbraithgroup.com
Biodiversity markets have significantly advanced over the last five years in England. This has been driven by Britain’s exit from the EU, which has facilitated alternative methods of monetising biodiversity improvement.
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), made mandatory in England in February 2024, provides landowners with an alternative to the existing agricultural subsidy regime.
Landowners, particularly those located in Local Planning Authorities that contain urban centres with significant volumes of house building projects, have benefitted from the opportunity to enter agreements with the private sector for biodiversity improvement. Under BNG, Landowners can ‘sell’ their registered biodiversity improvement units to aggregated habitat banks or developers, who are required under new regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the predevelopment biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. Whilst implementing BNG has not been without its challenges, such as local planning authorities (LPAs) each having their own variation of a Section 106 agreement, it has largely been received positively on
the landowner side. BNG gives opportunities for landowners to negotiate payments for placing land into 30-year management covenants. The advantage of the BNG framework is that it can provide economic opportunities for land that is unproductive from an agricultural perspective. Many farmers have found that improving biodiversity, particularly invertebrate numbers, has had a positive impact on the remainder of their holding. Furthermore, one of the most beneficial aspects of England’s BNG is that it provides a structured comprehensive framework for this new market, unlike in Scotland where the framework is less developed.
The National Planning Framework (NPF4) in Scotland sets out requirements for biodiversity enhancement for most developments. It stipulates a requirement for biodiversity enhancement, however, NPF4 does not specify how enhancement should be delivered by developers. This
agents are well placed to advise landowners through the entire process, from initial discussions about prospective biodiversity projects... James Lighton market trends
ambiguity over delivery methods, combined with the lack of a standardised metric to calculate biodiversity enhancement means that it is up to planning officers’ discretion to determine whether biodiversity enhancement has been achieved by developers. The result is that landowners are not benefitting from the market for BNG to the same extent as those south of the border. However, this could be changing soon. Scottish housebuilders have described two key transactions being undertaken when new housing projects are proposed; the first refers to ‘buying’ the favour of local communities to smooth the process of attaining planning permission, with the second being the final sale of the house to a prospective purchaser. BNG provides developers with a positive mechanism for obtaining ‘buy-in’ from local communities, particularly those located in countryside areas that have a strong desire to retain landscapes with environmental & amenity value which would usually be lost as part of large scale infrastructure development. There are opportunities arising for wellplaced landowners to enter into private agreements with housebuilders to provide that biodiversity enhancement when it cannot be provided in situ. The primary advantage of entering into a private contractual agreement with a developer, rather than an agricultural subsidy scheme is that it can operate on mutually agreeable terms that can work with existing farming enterprises. Biodiversity uplift projects are usually covered by a 30-year covenant requiring the landowner to manage the habitat which has been created. This mirrors the same obligations as would be required under statutory BNG in England.
Biodiversity net gain in Scotland is still a nascent market, with the price per habitat unit being determined through negotiation. Compared to public sector agricultural subsidy schemes, private agreements are a trade-off between the known variables of public grant funding and the flexibility provided by private contracts.
Galbraith’s agents are well-placed to advise landowners through the entire process, from initial discussions about prospective biodiversity projects, selecting the appropriate biodiversity metrics to create a valuable bundle to measure improvement, seeking out financial partners who will ‘invest’ in the project and getting an agreement signed which matches the landowners’ intentions. n
James Lighton
07342 093 469
james.Lighton@galbraithgroup.com
Carbon auditing is currently an area that many farmers and landowners are talking about.
We at Galbraith are busy collecting data and writing up mitigation reports. The drive for Carbon audits is due to new requirements as part of the whole farm plan for farmers and landowners to access basic payment scheme, to gain payment from 2025 they must complete two from the following 5 options, these are Carbon Audit, Soil analysis, Animal health and welfare plan, Integrated pest management plan or a biodiversity audit.
The main driver for completing carbon audits currently is the PSF (Preparing for Sustainable Farming) or FAS (Farm Advisory Service) grant funding that is available to be claimed against the cost of completing a carbon audit with the report being written up by a FBASS accredited advisor. The funding is currently between £500-660 for the first carbon audit completed by the business, with funding of £250-330 available for each audit after that.
Each carbon audit has a life span of 5 years, if the business changes their farming system, then a new carbon audit must be completed. The carbon calculator that is used has to align with PAS 2050 standards, the four recognised calculators are Agrecalc, Farm carbon
calculator, Cool farm tool, and Solagro carbon calculator. Ourselves at Galbraith use Agrecalc as our carbon calculator.
Our carbon audit reports are tailored to each individual client, we give feed back that is relevant to the farm as we get to know the needs and limitations of each farm. Many of our meetings with farmers or landowners can also lead to discussions on further schemes that can benefit the farm or estate.
It is important to note that many of our clients are using the two-step funding approach that is available, once a carbon audit is completed then there is access to funding for soil analysis through PSF. The funding available is for whole farm testing or for 20% of the farm each year for the next 5 years, the maximum that can be claimed is to the value of £600. There is also £250 available for development time, if any farmer or landowner would like to further investigate soil sampling and nutrient management. n
Calum
In past issues of rural matters we have considered the basics of natural capital and the Scottish Government’s scene for building private funding (FIRNS). See Rural Matters, Spring 2024 “Nature – ready, set, go!” and Rural Matters, winter 2021, “The route to Natural Capital”.
Natural Capital is an area’s stock of natural assets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things.
Under FIRNS (The Facility for Nature Ready Investment Scotland), a range of projects linked to funding nature recovery have been supported and are currently in the second phase. The range of supported projects is broad and includes creation of urban gardens, river restoration projects, and a farm cluster governance project.
Many of these projects focus on the role that private finance can play in funding nature recovery.
Conservation projects have traditionally been funded through public grants and charity support, but private funding offers potential for a more creative model and funding to meet project specific needs.
Galbraith have been working on a number of projects and have considered how private funding might be arranged, contracted and split between multiple landowners.
Many projects have the potential to make use of the more developed carbon markets through peatland restoration and woodland planting. After 13 years of development, the Woodland Carbon Code is now running successfully with trade, verification of units and increasing values for carbon units and contracts for trading being developed.
In some projects there is no obvious carbon credit creation but there is still verifiable natural capital enhancement potential. This may be reconnecting a river with its floodplain and reducing flooding, enhancing community wellness through engagement with nature and events, or increasing biodiversity.
The market for support of these enhancements to further corporate ESG (environmental, social and governance) requirements is still in its infancy and it is therefore challenging to place a value on these improvements.
These projects have obvious benefits for communities, society, and nature, but how can we put a value on this natural capital?
The baseline value of a project may be the cost of making the nature recovery sustainable and covering the costs of landuse changes, but with such a new market there is minimal evidence for a ‘market value’. In providing this baseline value, corporates can support a project to be undertaken in much the same way as grants have traditionally been used in conservation, but support can be individualised to suit the project.
In this way, there is an opportunity to avoid many of the pitfalls which have beset the carbon codes and allow for flexibility to maximise nature recovery and restoration. n
Georgina Weston
07909 978 645
georgina.weston@galbraithgroup.com
Landlords, whether they manage residential properties themselves or engage a third party to assist in managing their property portfolio on their behalf, will have heard horror stories of problematic tenants. Some of these horror stories could result in significant time and expense to the landlord, that may have not been required in some cases, if more time had been spent at the beginning of the process undertaking more in-depth due diligence on applicants.
Since the start of the pandemic there has been a huge rise in demand for rental properties and limited supply to the market. The reasons for this increase can be put down to a number of factors such as people having sold their house and being unable to find a suitable property to purchase, therefore looking for short term rental accommodation; or people who can't afford to buy or choose not to purchase a property for a variety of reasons.
Due to the rise in demand from tenants, we feel it is even more important to carry out these checks to understand why someone is searching for a rental property and to make sure the tenant’s circumstances are in line with the landlord’s aims and objectives. If this is not carried out with due diligence this may lead to further complications such as a tenant failing to pay rent or not willing to vacate the property after notice has been served. The landlord will then be required to instruct a solicitor to start court proceedings to remove the tenant if all other avenues have been explored. Percy Hughes & Roberts Solicitors claim that this process can be a long drawn-out affair
and the typical cost can range between £1,300 to £3,000. However, we are aware of a number of cases that are significantly above this cost and have taken over a year to get the tenant removed, a rather daunting prospect for the landlord.
On top of this, The Renters Rights Bill, introduced by the government to Parliament in September 2024, might add another layer of complication for landlords in England’s private rental sector. This is due to the fact that the Bill is likely to introduce measures to strengthen tenants’ position with added provisions such as abolishing section 21 notices, more commonly called no fault evictions. Introducing this change may result in more cases ending up in court for landlords to regain possession of their property. There are other measures being introduced under this Bill which are ending rental bidding wars, applying decent home standards to the private rented sector, creating a digital private rental database with key information for landlords, tenants and councils; introducing a new Ombudsman service and making it illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants in receipt of benefits, or with children, when choosing to let their property.
Therefore, it is crucial for landlords to find the right people for their properties in order to reduce cost, time and stress before offering a tenancy. n
William Blair 07584 383 864
william.blair@Galbraithgroup.com
My chosen dissertation topic was ‘An investigation into the key challenges and opportunities for the Scottish dairy industry and how these will affect the future of dairying in Scotland?’
I interviewed five dairy farmers from across Scotland with different milk contracts and circumstances.
From undertaking this study, it was clear that dairy farmers have constant challenges to contend with and are pulled in different directions as to how best to plan and reinvest with the attempt of future proofing their business. Overall, all the participants agreed that the biggest challenges were going to be weather, governmental impact and location of the farm from the milk processing plant. Participants did however note that all of them plan to continue dairy farming, as long as the market remains stable as they see a bright future ahead as long as technology and innovation is embraced.
Although the bulk of this research has been focused on the challenges faced by the dairy industry the interviews confirm
that there are also opportunities arising in Scotland, the policy changes on milk contacts indicate a recognition by government that dairy is a valuable industry within Scotland which requires additional protects from fluctuations in the market. Due to the nature of the businesses and the generally high asset worth structure it can become essential to plan for the future however it is very difficult to plan for the future when there is a constant level of uncertainly. During the interviews participants were positive about the future opportunities within dairying, despite the number of challenges being faced. The advancements in technology and automation were discussed as providing an opportunity for dairy farms to use data to analyse output and quality to target areas to be improved, it was noted however that some of this technology can be difficult
My chosen dissertation topic was ‘A Study on the Amended Policies Surrounding Deer Management in Scotland.’
to get used to. More than one interviewee felt that there is a huge opportunity for farmers to produce local food and to reduce the reliance on imports and support from subsidies. However, it was also noted that in order to maximise production, government policy needs to be in line with this goal and not focus on environmental practices but have the aim of increasing output on farms for efficiency.
The general consensus was that dairy is a valuable industry within Scotland due to the climatic conditions coupled with big opportunities for future alternative income streams from diversification, renewables and natural capital projects which will be across all agricultural sectors, not limited to dairying.
Christina Smith 01292 268 181 christina.smith@galbraithgroup.com
I interviewed 13 people within Scotland’s deer industry from gamekeepers and deer managers to contract stalkers, landowners, and land agents. It is clear from carrying out this study that there are number of challenges surrounding deer management across Scotland and professionals involved have to face different challenges to find ways to ensure the welfare of deer is still at the heart of the job whilst complying with the amended policies. The amendments being made to policy stem from the high deer number across Scotland and the total number of deer in Scotland is also a hot topic of discussion
British farmers are fighting battles on multiple fronts as they are required to meet national food demands, alter their practices to limit environmental degradation, and maintain their livelihoods all during a period of subsidy uncertainty.
Farm diversification may seem a silver bullet, offering the opportunity to limit reliance on traditional agriculture while utilizing farm assets.
To assess the drivers & challenges of diversification, along with how location has an influence, I conducted interviews with 10 diversified farmers in the North East of Fife. The findings outlined that income generation, utilizing existing resources, a determined personality, career fulfilment, past experience in non farming sectors, and entrepreneurial parents all led to/facilitated diversification.
The key challenges were a lack of time, excessive bureaucracy / regulatory compliance, and learning new skills. Grants were observed to facilitate diversification, however came with substantial challenges
due to some inaccuracies which have been pointed out in reports from the likes of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association. Although deer numbers do need to come down for many reasons, are the changes being made the right ones?
My dissertation focused on the changes introduced to the deer seasons, the use of night shooting with light intensifying equipment, and deer management qualifications. Overall, it was clear from my findings that ethics play a big part in deer management especially when it comes to the changes in the open deer seasons and when using equipment for stalking deer at night. The changes introduced by the Scottish government mean that all
around areas such as absorbing money and time, along with directing the enterprise in an undesired direction just to meet the criteria, and overall were deemed to be more of a hindrance than a benefit. Proximity to key towns and cities were found to have a generally positive influence, and the variety of landscapes, activities, and places of interest in Fife catered to a large market, thus attracting visitors. It was additionally observed that Fife had a food orientated culture which was of benefit to both producers and providers of farm goods.
What really stuck with me was how driven, innovative, open minded, and at times experimental the farmers were, and the way they outlined that a “traditional” farming mindset acted as a barrier to many others fulfilling their farms full
potential. I think these values are equally applicable for land agency, particularly being flexible as the role continues to evolve. What additionally stuck was how difficult diversification can be, even although it may seem a quick fix.
This was outlined particularly well by one farmer, who stated “It’s just a café, how hard can it be right? But actually, all the rules and regulations have been an absolute nightmare, and for the hospitality side, there is just so much I didn’t know and I’m constantly learning and figuring things out”
James Masson 07990 514 485
james.masson@galbraithgroup.com
male deer species can be shot all year round – there is no closed season. This does not allow male deer time to recover after the rutting season when they are in poor condition and therefore the quality of meat going into the food chain is also of a poor quality. There is also talk of changing some of the female deer seasons to extend them. There has been a lot of push back on this from the gamekeeping community due to ethical reasons of female deer carrying young. Should the season be extended, gamekeepers and deer stalkers will have to gralloch heavily pregnant deer. There are arguments that for the current female deer seasons, a licence can be applied for shooting deer out of season. Some
estates will apply for these licenses to meet their cull numbers if they are struggling. It is argued that if this system is not broken then why fix it? Estates feel under pressure as they must hit a cull number every year in order to have a specified number of deer per square kilometre. However under the Deer Management Nature Restoration Order, if estates do not meet their cull targets, they could be heavily fined and/or sentenced to three months imprisonment. It is clear to see that this issue is putting a lot of pressure on those who work within the deer management sector.
Kayleigh Wood
07824 142 069
kayleigh.wood@galbraithgroup.com
It is now nearly four years since the end of the Tenants’ Improvements Amnesty window, which ran from 13th June 2017 to 12th December 2020. The Amnesty was introduced by Scottish Government to allow tenant farmers the opportunity to catch up with missing paperwork in relation to improvements on their holdings. Tenants with the correct paperwork are entitled to claim compensation for improvements to the holding at the end of their tenancy.
Towards the end of the Amnesty period, where agreements had not been reached between the parties, a significant number of Amnesty Notices were served by tenants on their landlords in order to protect positions.
Some of these Amnesty Notices were endorsed by the Scottish Land Court (SLC)normally when the landlord had objected to the Notice and then agreement was ultimately reached between the parties. However, many Notices were not challenged back in 2020 / 2021, and as time progresses, we are now starting to see disputes involving Tenants’ Amnesties appear in the Land Court. This article provides a whistle-stop tour of a couple of the recent decisions involving Tenants Amnesties.
Decision on Timing of Amnesty Notice
A case was herd by the SLC in relation to the validity of an Amnesty Notice, which was posted by the tenant on the morning of 12th December 2020, with proof of postage being obtained. As the 12th December was the last day of the Amnesty window, and with the delivery date of the letter being legally considered to be the date of delivery under the ordinary course of the post (which would have been the 14th December at best due to the 13th being a Sunday), the Amnesty Notice was found to be invalid by the Court as it was served on the landlord outside of the Amnesty period.
The option available to the tenant in this situation would have been to hand deliver the Amnesty Notice on the 12th December, preferably with a witness to corroborate that the Notice was timeously served.
Decision on Carrying Improvements into a New Lease
The tenant sought approval for around 170 improvements during the Tenants’ Amnesty, many of which were accepted by the landlord. However, the landlord objected to those improvements which were carried out under a previous lease.
The Court heard that the applicant’s tenancy had originally been a Limited Partnership tenancy which had run between November 1989 and November 2003, when notice to terminate the Limited Partnership, by the limited partner (landlord), took effect.
The general partners (tenants) in turn served notice under section 72(6) of the 2003 Act to become tenants under the lease in their own right.
Following a dispute over the general partners’ right to take the tenancy into their own name, the parties agreed a new Limited Duration Tenancy (LDT) which ran for 20 years from November 2003 to November 2023.
The issues in this case were around improvements carried out by the applicant under the original limited partnership tenancy. The 2003 Act allows for a tenant to claim improvements where he has remained in occupation for two or more tenancies. However, in this case, the legal tenant of the original lease was the Limited Partnership, while the tenant in the LDT was the applicant in his own right.
The Court found that due to the fact that the tenant had changed between tenancies, the improvements carried out under the Limited Partnership Tenancy did not carry forward into the LDT lease.
This case highlights the need for tenants transitioning between leases to ensure that their improvements are correctly carried forward, or alternatively in this case, the tenant could have undertaken a way-go and be compensated for improvements at the end of the Limited Partnership tenancy before starting the new lease (although doing this can have implications on the rent payable by the tenant going forward).
Conclusion
It is likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in relation to disputes around tenants’ improvements following the amnesty. As more and more tenants take advantage of the Relinquishment and Assignation provisions of the 2003 Act and Limited Duration Tenancies come to a natural conclusion, Amnesty Notices will come under increasing scrutiny due to the potentially significant value of the improvements.
These cases highlight the importance of taking professional advice at an early stage when dealing with tenancy matters.
As an aside, it is noteworthy that many tenants are going back to their old ways of undertaking improvements to their holding without serving a Tenant’s Improvements Notice – it is unlikely that the sector will see another Tenants’ Amnesty, therefore tenants not serving the correct notices are potentially storing up difficulties for themselves or future generations around compensation for works they have carried out. n
Mike Halliday 01556 505 346 mike.halliday@galbraithgroup.com
As we write following the clocks going back this weekend, we reach one of the tell-tale signs that winter is on its way. 2024 has proved to be a difficult year in farming for some, with weather being the prominent issue with rain not letting up and dry spells being few and far between. Now it is time for us to get a market update on the farming year across the country from our regional experts.
The 2024 Harvest has yielded mixed outcomes for farmers across Scotland. A challenging sowing season categorised by waterlogged soils and persistent rainfall, left many farmers anxious about the potential impact on yields. As the season progressed, unfavourable harvesting conditions –including intermittent rainfall and a lack of sunshine –left a bleak outlook.
Recent data released by the NFUS underscores the mixed results, highlighting the significant influence of weather conditions on both the quality and yield of crops. Farmers reported wide variations between quality and yield. Average results as follows:
•Spring barley, 6.29 t/ha;
•Winter barley, 7.26 t/ha;
•Winter wheat, 8.51 t/ha;
•Winter oats, 7.3 t/ha;
•Spring oats, 6.96 t/ha;
•Oilseed rape, 3.45 t/ha; Comparisons with the five-year average, further highlight mixed performance, with 2022 remaining a
standout year for peak yields, largely attributed to extended periods of sunshine and dry weather.
UK wheat production in 2024 has seen a notable decline, provisional estimates put the crop at 11.1Mt, 4.2% drop from the 2023 crop and 21% below the fiveyear average. Wheat prices, at the time of reporting, have marginally increased ranging between the £184-£189/tonne mark.
Despite global factors such as poor weather in key exporting regions and geopolitical tensions between Russa and Ukraine, markets have weakened as Black Sea exports continue to dominate international trade and the UK remains a small fish in a big pond.
Spring barley production had a significant rise in 2024, with an 8% increase in Scotland compared to 2023, supported by more favourable plating conditions. In contrast, winter barley production struggled, following trends
observed in France, with low sunlight leading to disappointing yields in some cases. The total winter barley crop was down 2.44Mt, a 17% drop in the five-year average. Current feed barley prices in Scotland stand at £159.60/t, reflecting a 4% year-on-year increase.
Malting barley premiums remain under pressure, as markets continue to remain static. Farmers in Scotland also remain under duress following the decision to implement a 10.1% increase on tax of spirits last March, causing a £300m decline according to the Scottish Whisky Association.
Scotland’s Oat production surged in 2024 to 191,000t representing a 21% increase on the year prior, milling oats, however, take an overall a 38% hit falling to £154/t from last year’s £214/t.
OSR
Paris rapeseed futures closed at $495.25/t at the start of October, an increase of $12.50/t driven by a shortage in global supply, rising tensions in the middle east and continued demand. With yields in Scotland down 11% at 3.6t/ha and overall, UK production down, the 2024 crop is expected to be the smallest crop since 1983.
Maize
Following the October USDA report on World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates which reported unnoteworthy differences. An increase in corn yield was noted from 183.6 to 183.8 bpa.
Prices continue to fluctuate as cereals become a buyers-market, with 2022 providing a standout year due to peak yields and high prices as a result of Russia-Ukraine conflicts, as an industry we now navigate to find the new norm.
Senga Barron
07824 591 262
senga.barron@galbraithgroup.com
There are several price increases that are anticipated to help dairy farmers this October including the 1 pence per litre (ppl) rise to 41.25 ppl for the farmgate milk price set by Muller for farms that are part of the Muller Advantage program. It is important to note that this average is based on standard milk price, in reality many producers do not hit the ‘standard litre’ requirements which generally require constituent values of 4.2% butterfat, 3.4% protein and milk volumes over 1 million litres per annum.
The basic manufacturing litre for First Milk is now 42.6ppl, which includes the member premium. Arla has increased by 1.69% for conventional and organic milk. These price increases reflect a stable market with continued demand for milk and dairy products. According to data produced by Defra the UK average milk price for August 2024 was 41.06 ppl up 2.5% from July 2024 (AHDB).
The push for producers to implement regenerative practices and sustainable techniques is continuing which in most cases is being incentivised via a small increase in the ppl received.
Milk contracts are becoming an increasing issue for potential purchasers looking for a dairy unit as milk buyers are very resistant to offer new milk contracts in areas not on established milk routes due to the steady supply of milk availability. Going forward this issue may influence the value of dairy farming units due to the infrastructure being redundant for use if there is no milk contract to supply milk to.
In September 12 Scottish Milk producers based in the South West of Scotland, supplying the Stranraer creamery, were served one-year notices. This further emphasises the lack of certainty even when a milk contract is in place making it very difficult to try and plan for the future. Both the capital intensity of dairying, the impact of increased interest rates and lack of succession also continue to affect the future for the industry. Technology, increasing automation and innovation continues to be critical for all businesses in order to remain competitive.
Christina Smith
01292
268 181
The UK beef market continues to soar with a high demand of production and trade. The UK beef production totalled 76,000 tonnes in September 2024, up 5% on the previous month and 7% on the previous year. Prime cattle going to slaughter grew by 5% to 173,900 head in September with the deadweight cattle prices continuing to rise, regardless of the increase in slaughter numbers. Cull cow slaughter numbers have grown 7% from the previous year, analysts suggesting that this is caused by wet weather driving cattle indoor sooner and the high price per kg.
christina.smith@galbraithgroup.com
Despite the huge amount of beef produced in the UK there is an increase of 5% of imported beef on the previous year. Irish beef is the dominate import having an 76.3% market share, up from 72.7% last year. This is supported by Ireland’s competitive pricing position and the strong UK beef market.
For UK exports, figures are up 10% on the previous year with the EU being the main destination. However, slipping continental price per kilo in the rest of the EU is putting pressure on the strong UK prices to fall back a bit but movement is yet to be made.
High beef production and high kill rates make UK beef a competitive player across the globe, however come 2025 supply issues may arise. The young cattle figures held across the country are down and breeding cow units are continuing to decline. Beef farmers are benefitting from the high prices today, however there is an element of kicking the can down the road with the levels of beef available in the future being reduced.
Beth Dandie 07747 471 715
beth.dandie@galbraithgroup.com
The 2023 prediction of a decline in lamb production in the UK has become a reality with a decrease of approximately 7.8% between January and September of 2024, a reduction 4.8% greater than that of the prediction in 2023 of a 3% decrease. This is likely due to several factors including heightened barriers to entry of the sheep market created through the substantial rise in the price of gimmers in 2023 reaching up to £200 per head.
Furthermore, we have seen an increase in levels of imports of lamb from both Australia and New Zealand. This may have made the proposition of breeding sheep less attractive than in previous years as the market became more costly to enter with the threat of a lower profit margin form the potential of foreign lamb becoming more readily available to consumers.
Deadweight prices did however remain consistently strong within the first half of the year peaking at £8.39 per kilogram in March and £8.93 in late May with prices dropping off as expected through the later months of the year to approximately £6.50 per kilogram, an increase of £1.00
compared to the previous year. These heightened deadweight prices have likely been as a result of the decrease in production of 7.8%, reducing supply to a largely unchanged local demand trend. Furthermore, the value of the great British pound may also be a factor in relation to strong deadweight prices with the value of the pound remaining comparatively lower than
in previous years. The weaker pound increases price competitiveness of British lamb in international markets due to favourable exchange rate for foreign buyers.
John Rodwell 01224 860 710
john.rodwell@galbraithgroup.com
The UK beef market continues to soar with a high demand of production and trade. The UK beef production totalled 76,000 tonnes in September 2024, up 5% on the previous month and 7% on the previous year. Beth Dandie
At the time of writing, the housebuilding sector in England is poised to react to the anticipated adoption of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) following the end of the consultation period on the 24th September.
We have lived with various iterations of NPPF now for over a decade, which has been something of a rollercoaster ride for all involved in the delivery of housing across the country.
The fanfare around its introduction as a panacea to the (not so new) housing crisis in England gave rise to a surge of planning battles as Local Planning Authorities (LPA) routinely crumpled under hostile appeals and a determination by the then Conservative government to be seen to make a difference. The result was the inevitable NIMBY backlash, followed by a significant dilution of the NPPF in the interests of political popularity, which was ultimately futile.
So, the Labour government are aiming to meet their election
pledge to get Britain building again by putting the “teeth” back into the NPPF.
Many of the 233 paragraphs remain unchanged but the ones that have been revised could prove to be a powerful tool in unlocking sites for development. One of the most significant changes surrounds the substitution of calculation methods for determining housing need for a given LPA. The previous standard methodology as based on historical growth is to be replaced with algorithms relating to housing supply numbers. The net result is a radical increase in the stated housing target figures for the vast majority of LPAs. Here in the North East of England we have
seen the targets
Furthermore, the ability for a given LPA to largely ignore
with the process of allocation of sites, as we have so often seen in NPPF will superimpose strong development where LPAs fail to
Many LPAs will be struggling to get close to allocating sufficient land to accommodate such large relying on greenbelt release. This
which might best be regarded as describing land within the greenbelt but which it might be demonstrated is not fully performing the five longestablished tests of effective greenbelt. Essentially, where an LPA fails to allocate sufficient land there is now expected to be a planning presumption that development can happen on grey belt land. However, it is not hard to see that there are many subjective arguments around this topic and with the added assumption that such sites carry a requirement to provide 50% affordable housing we might not be seeing quite the tidal wave of hostile planning applications that some may fear, as viability of such schemes across much of England is seriously in doubt.
A personal view of the next couple of years in the world of housing development includes:-
• Frantic activity among housebuilders to prepare for intense lobbying for inclusion of sites in local plan reviews.
• Under-resourced LPAs struggling to carry out local plan reviews at sufficient pace to avoid falling into the clutches of hostile applications and appeals by developers as the penalty mechanisms in NPPF take effect.
• A rapid increase in the proportion of sites being taken to appeal successfully with LPAs being somewhat impotent to defend ill-considered refusals.
• Overall, a significant increase in the number of sites permitted.
With the current dearth of consented sites on the market the housebuilding industry will be keen for this process to get started, but there is a strong suspicion that the government has overlooked some key issues in assuming their new policy will ramp up housing delivery, such as:-
• Viability – margins are already squeezed and there is strong downward pressure on development land values as build costs remain exceptionally high and more environmental measures are about to add to those costs. The level of affordable housing predicted, and indeed other public planning gains anticipated, are simply not going to be possible. Something will have to give!
• Resources – even at peak building rates in modern times in the UK the industry failed to build more than 270,000 homes in a given year. The NPPF is seeking 370,000, way above current depressed construction levels. There is simply not the skilled labour and materials in the industry now to support this level of construction.
• Infrastructure – in most regions there are critical infrastructure shortages which are well beyond the scope of individual developers to resolve, even if acting collectively. NPPF provides no solution to this and the government has tightened the purse strings. Will the desire for more housing trump the chaos caused to transport services in its wake?
• House prices – if the government believe that greater supply will reduce house prices they are, I believe, mistaken, as without a radical change to the cost of building (only driven by reducing environmental standards or by government grants) the new housing cannot be provided any cheaper.
• Land prices – I believe that the government/LPAs are largely delusional about the minimum prices the “average” landowner will take for development land. It will take a long time, on a generational basis, for even a proportion of landowners to consider dropping their expectation of value to the figure contemplated by the planning world in order to create even part of NPPF requirements. Many sites in the north will simply not be deliverable without a significant change of mindset in this regard, and there are no real signs of this just yet. It will have to come.
Having said all of the above, any landowner who currently has land that might be suitable for development should now be taking action. Without professionally supported promotion of the site, inclusion in the emerging new local plans is highly unlikely. Without allocation/promotion, experience dictates that development will not simply find the land/landowner.
Questions remain to be answered on just how the plethora of new consents will turn into profitable, appealing and delivered sites but the industry has proved itself to be resilient and creative in working to achieve results in the past. This should be no exception.
History dictates that following every surge in building is a backlash from voters and a resulting constraint of development. Missing out now could well mean a very long wait until such an opportunity presents itself again.
The NPPF train is leaving the station and it is going to be moving at some speed. It is time to get on board.
Simon Beeby 07711 739 552
simon.beeby@galbraithgroup.com
Questions remain to be answered on just how the plethora of new consents will turn into profitable, appealing and delivered sites but the industry has proved itself to be resilient...
Simon Beeby
Compulsory powers exist for the various UK water companies to acquire rights in land for the laying replacement and maintenance of water and sewage pipes.
Where sewage pipes are laid, the basis of compensation is normally 50% of agricultural value along the easement width, with additional payments for the placing of surface infrastructure such as manholes, valves etc. This additional compensation was paid to reflect the loss of use of the surface land and additional inconvenience.
With an increasingly ageing infrastructure system struggling to cope with more frequent heavy rain and having to deal with both storm and foul water, the utility companies are under increasing pressure to reduce or eliminate untreated sewage leaks into inland and coastal waterways. Where incidents do occur and third-party liability can be identified, such as damage to manholes, the utility companies will try to recover costs from those third parties.
Where sewer pipes do surcharge on agricultural land utility companies will resist compensation claims unless they can be shown to be negligent,
this position is backed up by case law. Demonstrating negligence where we do not have access to inspection and maintenance records can be difficult.
The manhole for which the utility company will try to pay a small amount of compensation, runs the risk of being an expensive liability where damaged by farming operations, and a convenient release valve when the sewer system is beyond capacity. Our recommendation is to take advice when being asked to accommodate sewers, particularly surface infrastructure, and where you already have sewers on your property, to take an annual photographic record of them, and report any defects to the relevant utility company. n
Roddy Findlay 07718 523 049
roddy.findlay@galbraithgroup.com
When a landowner is approached by a utility provider, it is important to understand what rights the utility provider has and what issues should be addressed prior to any works commencing.
Utility providers have different rights when it comes to installing equipment either on, over or under land. Scottish Water will generally install underground pipes (water or sewerage) under notice or will acquire land in which above ground apparatus will sit. SSE or Scottish Power install their apparatus based on legislation such as wayleaves or servitudes, for which payments are made to the landowner according to their set utility rate.
All landowners have the right to be represented by a land agent for any approach made by a utility provider. The utility provider will be responsible for meeting reasonable legal and surveyors’ fees and it is prudent to get this agreed in a legally
binding document prior to any works commencing.
Prior to a utility provider approaching a landowner, they will no doubt have an ideal route mapped out already for the pipe or cable. However should you as the landowner have a preferred route this can be discussed and rerouted if the new route does not constitute a large change to the work required or the cost.
Timings and work areas need to be confirmed in the early stages and more often than not, contractors usually underestimate the size of area they require to carry out the works and the time which it will take. It is therefore beneficial to agree to a sufficient working area and
temporary laydown area for the works and this can often come in the form of a separate licence between the utility company and the landowner for either a weekly or monthly rent. Should works overrun the initial time frame then we would look to agree to an overrun payment which would be an increase in the agreed weekly/monthly rent for any time over the initial timeframe.
Once all is agreed, you should ensure that the working areas are fenced off to make sure that the contractors stay in their designated area to help prevent losses or damages in other areas.
The start date is also important to discuss. Depending on the project
timescales, a utility provider may be happy to postpone the commencement date of works to suit the landowner, particularly if by delaying the works, it reduces the losses a landowner may suffer and then subsequently claim for. For example, a utility provider may be willing to wait until after harvest has concluded to prevent significant crop losses.
run while works are ongoing and reinstated by your contractor before excavations are backfilled. Most landowners have a preferred drainage contactor and we would recommend that landowners use this contractor to carry out the works. The cost of carrying this out would be met by the developer.
Often, the main compensation element upon the completion of works is drainage repairs, especially if the works are underground works.
Before any works commence, we would request that a record of condition is prepared of the route so that all parties know what condition the ground was in prior to any access being taken and how the land should be reinstated upon the completion of the works. Records of condition help agree compensation at the end of works and prevent any disagreements over losses suffered.
Often, the main compensation element upon the completion of works is drainage repairs, especially if the works are underground works. We would therefore recommend that pre-scheme drainage works are undertaken to ensure that any drains are tied-up and can continue to
After the works are complete and a final walk over has taken place, a compensation claim will more than likely be required to include losses, damages and the landowner’s time. Quite often subsequent claims are required year on year if a landowner is still suffering losses because of the works.
These are the key points to consider but there are others and as such, please do get in touch if you are approached by a utility company. We would be delighted to assist from start to finish. n
How
With a passion for sustainability and a drive to become carbon neutral, second generation farmers, husband and wife team
Tristan and Fiona MacLennan together with their two young sons Ben (10) and Jamie (6), are committed to the environment, where farming and nature live in harmony.
Located in the middle of Glen Orchy, a truly beautiful location in Argyll in the heart of the Scottish Highlands is Glenorchy Farm, where time does not stand still.
When the couple took over the reins of Tristan’s family farm back in 2008, sustainability was the goal. Glenorchy has been home to Tristan since he was four years old and so it became a labour of love. However, in order to make the farm viable and allow the couple to work there full time, they set about a diversification programme.
In 2014 Tristan and Fiona engaged rural advisers Galbraith for advice on AMC funding options and that’s when the idea of installing a Hydro Scheme came about. In 2016 their grand plans turned into reality, and the 100kw hydro scheme became operational. It’s a runoff river scheme that currently feeds into the grid. It provides the water supply for the whole farm including the farmhouse and the new luxury log cabins.
Tristan said: “Building the hydro scheme was a big gamechanger for us and the catalyst for future projects on the farm. Without AMC funding and the invaluable advice from the team at Galbraith, we wouldn’t be where we are today. We simply wouldn’t have had the funding or access to a wealth of agricultural
business know-how to get started.”
Building on the success of the hydro scheme, Tristan and Fiona have gone on to invest further in the farm via additional AMC funding. They have changed the farmhouse from oil central heating to biomass to reduce their impact on the environment and they have joined the carbon coding network allowing the farm to offset its carbon through its growing woodland.
Since 2019, a third of the farmland has been turned into their ‘forever woodlands’ by planting 53,000 native trees in areas around the farm that benefits from such planting but that doesn’t reduce the farming capabilities. The trees will provide shelter and forage for livestock and the trees on higher ground will hopefully improve the fields below by reducing the amount of water running into them. The couple have reintroduced some of the ancient Caledonian Forest that is thought to have surrounded Glen Orchy, and they are delighted that small sections of this extraordinary ancient woodland can be found and visited in the Glen by the public. There are also remnants of the Old Caledonian Pine Forest out with Glen Orchy that people can visit.
Tristan continued: “We are also working with the Woodland Trust and adding hedges between our new fields - this changes the temperature of the field and creates areas with micro-climates, due to the shelter the hedges offer. It also increases forage and protection for the wildlife and livestock.”
Two years ago, the latest project, with funding secured through AMC, came to fruition with the establishment of two luxury holiday log cabins on site. Set within new woodland to ensure they become a part of the Glen, they are fully sustainable and in keeping with responsible tourism, using local tradesmen and wood for the cladding and with an air-to-air source heating system and electric car chargers. All local and organic soap products are provided in refillable bottles and all cleaning products used are environmentally friendly. If that wasn’t enough, all the produce on the farm is sustainably produced too and sold locally. From honey produced by native black bees to beef rich in Omega-3 and outstanding pork from traditional native pig breed Oxford Sandy and Black, which was almost extinct 20 years ago, Tristan and Fiona go above and beyond to ensure livestock and nature live in harmony and flourish.
Fiona said: “Our main aim at Glenorchy Farm is to produce high quality meats from animals that have lived their best lives here at the farm. We are constantly striving to work with the land through regenerative agriculture which uses natural systems to improve the quality of land and the biodiversity within the Glen. By reducing the size of our fields and by rotating the livestock within them, we are improving the quality of the land.”
Regenerative farming techniques have allowed for a significant reduction, and even an eradication in some cases, in the use of chemicals to treat animals. For example, the hens roam free around the fields scraping up the other livestock dung to spread it around the field and eat any bugs in sight. This helps to reduce the worm egg count in the fields which reduces the need to treat the livestock with wormers. All animals on the farm are tested for worm counts prior to worming to stop creating a resistance to the treatment. They also work alongside the farm’s resident guinea fowl to reduce the tick population around the farm without having to use pesticides in doing so.
Fiona continues: “Without our environment we are nothing, we love where we live - the silence, the clear fresh air, the dark skies, the river and the wildlife. Our aim has always to farm alongside nature, and we will always be working on a project or three to continue the farm on its sustainable and carbon neutral journey. Next year we are planning to build a further two cabins as our tourism offering of the business has proved extremely successful.
“It’s a family affair on our farm and we absolutely love living and working here. It’s currently lambing season for us which we start at the end of April, a bit later than most parts of Scotland, so it’s a busy time. It’s all going well, and we’ve been lucky to keep two pet lambs which Ben and Jamie have named Shakira and Pauline. In a couple of years, the boys will be very much hands on and we hope that they will become the next custodians of this beautiful farm, ever evolving and adapting to new regenerative and sustainable farming techniques.”
Galbraith has advised Tristan and Fiona on the availability of AMC funding since 2014 and throughout the years on their many projects to date. They are now in the fortunate position of self-funding their sustainable developments going forward.
AMC has since introduced its Clean Growth Financing Initiative (CGFI) which the couple would have qualified for in relation to their hydro renewable element and tree planting carbon sequestration project, if it had been in place at the time. This would have saved them around 1.5% in set up fees, a considerable saving now available to other farmers. n
Alistair Christie
07500 794 201 alistair.christie@galbraithgroup.com
For advice on AMC’s CGFI funding options available, contact Alistair Christie at Galbraith
For more information on the projects being undertaken at Glenorchy Farm visit www.glenorchyfarm.co.uk
Wildlife Estates Scotland (WES) is a recognised accreditation scheme which acknowledges farms and Estates contributions to biodiversity and their commitment to carrying out best practice in land management.
Over the last few years, there has been an increasing popularity to apply for this accreditation with its recognition also growing. This brings with it, a greater public awareness of how rural landholdings can be effectively managed with increasing biodiversity at the forefront of the management objectives. WES is part of the wider Wildlife Estates (WE) label which is recognised in 19 countries across Europe.
Across Scotland, the nature of land holdings which have gained WES accreditation varies and includes the likes of farms, forestry enterprises, tourism businesses, nature reserves and rural Estates, including those with
hunting interests. Gaining accreditation allows the landowners to showcase their conservation efforts regardless of the activity that takes place on the land.
What are the incentives to a landowner to achieve WES accreditation?
Many land managers get involved with WES to demonstrate their commitment to biodiversity. Following the completion of the accreditation process, they are then left with a complete register of all nature activity on their landholding. With the accompanying habitat management plans produced as part of the application process,
...We are able to support applicants through the process and assist with obtaining and uploading the required data to the WES Information Portal.
Andrew Sanderson
they identify the measures required to enhance this activity further for years to come.
WES has been working closely with NatureScot in recent years so that WES members can be seen as Trusted Operators to the Scottish Government. The goal being that WES accreditation could be a gateway to future farm subsidies, grants and licencing.
There are two levels of accreditation; Level 1 and Level 2, with Level 2 being the more sought after accreditation.
To achieve Level 2, it requires an extensive and detailed data collection exercise of your land holding which will become an invaluable management tool
moving forward. Galbraith are currently assisting some existing Estate management clients from different areas from across Scotland with this process with the objective to achieve the Level 2 accreditation. The data compiled for such clients involves being able to demonstrate the land holdings’ contribution to agriculture, environmental management schemes, sporting management, tourism, community engagement and renewable energy practices. The accreditation is awarded on a scoring basis with a score of 70 achieving the land holding a bronze level WES accreditation. Silver and Gold Awards are also available and awarded to the
Estates who are demonstrating exceptional land management practices.
At Galbraith, we are able to support applicants through the process and assist with obtaining and uploading the required data to the WES Information Portal. Once accreditation has been achieved, the accredited member must go through re-accreditation every five years to retain their WES status. Galbraith can advise on re-accreditation and guide the member through the process. n
Andrew Sanderson
07920 292 826 andrew.sanderson@galbraithgroup.com
The UK’s grouse shooting season runs from 12 August to 10 December.
It is a time of huge importance to upland estates and communities, generating vital revenue from visitors who come in their droves to remote areas of Scotland and the North of England to take part in the iconic sporting discipline.
This year however, the grouse season is severely curtailed, with little or no shooting taking place in many areas.
As I write this in early September, the grouse shooting season would typically be in full swing for most estates. However, this year is different due to a significant crash in grouse populations.
A mild and wet winter, followed by a cool and exceptionally wet Spring, reduced the breeding success of grouse this year.
The wet winter also caused a rapid rise in worm burdens among grouse, killing both young and adult birds which has decimated grouse populations. High worm infestations negatively affect a bird's condition, reducing its breeding success and survival rates.
Hens that managed to survive the winter entered the breeding season in poor condition. Chicks that hatched faced wet and cold weather in May and June, leading to the loss of most broods.
To put it into perspective, one Met Office weather station in Northumberland registered 173.5mm of rainfall in May/June 2024, more than double the figure for the same period in the previous year.
In addition to this, there has been the impact from a surging heather beetle population, which caused significant damage to heather which is a vital food source for grouse.
These factors combined have resulted in one of the worst breeding seasons in recent years.
Red grouse are entirely wild birds, native to our moorlands. As a groundnesting species, grouse are especially vulnerable to inclement weather, disturbance by people or dogs, and predation.
Upland estates endeavour –at significant cost – to retain good stocks of grouse, by managing the heather and carefully controlling the number of predators that predate on grouse eggs and chicks.
In the early Summer, estates begin their official counts, to assess how many red grouse are on the moors and whether there is a surplus that can be harvested.
In a good season, it should be possible to organise a programme of shooting days, always leaving a sustainable surplus of birds on the moor to breed again the following Spring.
It is estimated that this year, around 80 per cent of shoot days in the North of England have been cancelled. Why does this matter, you may ask?
The estates themselves contribute significantly to the local economy, through the creation of permanent and seasonal jobs plus expenditure on a variety of estate activities, which benefits contractors and local businesses all year round.
The total value of sporting shooting in England is £7.8 billion, according to the Value of Shooting report commissioned jointly by 24 rural organisations and published in June by data analysis firm Cognisense.
Most moors employ 30-40 people on average on each shoot day, from gamekeepers to beaters, flankers, pickers-up, drivers, loaders and catering staff.
A University of Northampton survey of 15 estates found that they employ between them 80 gamekeepers and 175 other full-time staff.
Across the North York Moors, the expected loss of income to upland estates this year is estimated at £2.37m. The Moorland Association reports that the absence of grouse shooting could result in the loss of millions of pounds of income for local business such as hotels, restaurants and pubs, due to the reduction in tourism to the area.
Ancillary providers will also feel the impact, from clothing and ammunition suppliers, to taxi firms, butchers and game dealers.
In North Yorkshire, Farndale, Bransdale and Snilesworth Moors jointly host around 120 days of shooting per year on average, of which there are typically 30 grouse shooting days.
The estates have 18 full time staff, while each grouse day employs around 30 people from the local area. Additional staff, including a full-time chef, provide hospitality for guests in the two shooting lodges.
In addition to the economic loss, there is the social impact of cancelled shoot days.
I recently spoke to a headkeeper of a moorland estate in County Durham, who told me that the seasonal staff range in age from teenagers all the way up to retired people, and it is one of the rare activities that brings all generations together on an equal footing.
For some people, the grouse season is the highlight of their year, providing not just additional income but physical exercise in the great outdoors and is a hugely beneficial social interaction.
Although many estates have cancelled their shooting for the season, gamekeepers will still be working, carrying out capital projects and managing the moor to meet the requirements of agri-environment schemes.
The impact of the poor grouse season this year is dramatic for many sporting estates, but spare a thought for the gamekeepers, local communities and businesses who will really bear the brunt.
For more information or to discuss moorland management services, please contact your nearest Galbraith Office. n
A Notice of Payment of Improvement Grant (NPIG) is a statutory notification issued by local authorities to the Registers of Scotland when they provide financial assistance to homeowners for repairs.
The grant amount is determined by the type of work proposed, the council's assessment of the homeowner's contribution, and a minimum amount specified in your local council’s "statement of assistance." Priority is given to applications for adaptations to properties for disabled individuals, bringing long-term empty properties back into use, and addressing properties not meeting the Tolerable Standard due to poor condition. In February 2024, Scottish Government statistics revealed that 6,353 grants were awarded in 2022-2023, a 4% increase from the previous year, with 59% allocated for disabled adaptations.
Recently, while reviewing the title for a property my clients were purchasing, their solicitor identified a NPIG from 2019 relating to a minor grant for heating system upgrades. The Notice mandated a 10-year observation period, transferring liability to my clients as they would inherit this burden on the property title for the remaining
five years. Although the financial risk was minimal, the conditions of the Notice could influence their future use of the property, if the Notice was to be adhered to and the grant was not to be repaid. NPIG grants generally do not require repayment as long as the Notice conditions are met. These conditions might dictate the property's use (e.g. as a primary residence or holiday home) or require maintenance standards, keeping the property in, a rather ambiguous, “good condition”, for example. Such grants are flagged during title searches, but potential buyers in Scotland should be vigilant, especially if the property isn’t intended as their main residence.
This situation highlights a significant issue in Scottish residential properties, particularly in rural areas. The condition of these properties is currently under scrutiny in Holyrood, where minimum energy efficiency standards for privately rented and owner-occupied homes are being
debated. Proposed regulations would require privately rented properties to meet an as-yet-undetermined energy efficiency standard by 2028, with owner-occupied homes needing to meet the same standard by 2033. Additionally, there are plans to phase out carbon-intensive heating systems, such as oil and gas boilers, by 2045. Implementing these energy efficiency standards and changing heating systems will require substantial investment, which many households, particularly in rural areas, may struggle to afford. While other grants are available through the Scottish Government's "Warmer Homes Scotland" scheme, concerns have been raised about the quality of work performed by contractors under this initiative. Reports indicate that some contractors exploit the scheme, leading to
inadequate installations that cause problems like damp, mould, and structural damage.
This situation highlights a significant issue in Scottish residential properties, particularly in rural areas. The condition of these properties is currently under scrutiny in Holyrood...
Cameron Main
In summary, energy efficiency requirements are becoming a significant burden for homeowners in Scotland, especially given the rises in energy costs. Although assistance programmes exist, the challenges associated with grant funding can result in liabilities for future buyers and current homeowners. Careful consideration must be taken, therefore, by anyone involved in purchasing rural residential properties in Scotland.
If you have questions about energy efficiency for rural properties, our Rural team would be happy to assist. n
The Scottish Government has acquired over 40% of remaining sections of A9 dualling, paving the way for advance payments, reports Philippa Orr.
has been working with claimants along the route since the project began in 2015 and we have guided many residents and owners through the CPO process. Philippa Orr
Scottish Ministers have signalled their intention to purchase four more sections for the A9 dualling project – opening the way for compensation payments by property owners/occupiers and tenants affected by one of Scotland’s biggest transport projects.
The Ministers made ‘general vesting declarations’ at the start of April, affecting the Tay Crossing to Ballinluig, Pitlochry to Killiecrankie, Glen Garry to Dalwhinnie and Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore sections. A general vesting declaration is the formal procedure that gives the Scottish Ministers (or another local authority) the right to take over the ownership of a property.
Galbraith is already representing a large number of owners and tenants impacted by these sections of road, which equate to just over 35km in length. We suspect that more general vesting declarations will be issued for other sections of the A9 before the end of the year.
Advance claims for compensation may be submitted by owner/occupiers and tenants with land taken for the schemes. The claims can include the value of land taken, servitude rights acquired, severance, injurious affection, disturbance and fees.
Subject to receiving a valid claim for an advance payment, the acquiring authority must make an advance payment of 90% of the amount of either any agreed compensation, or the authority’s estimate of the amount due.
It’s important to note that although eligible claimants can receive 90% of the compensation in advance, this settlement doesn’t bind them to agreement of any final claim. It is difficult for anyone to know the impact of the scheme on any property until the completion of the works so final claims are agreed at that stage.
Prospective claimants should keep a record of any losses, including quotes, estimates and receipts which can be included in the final claim upon completion of the scheme. This should include a record of claimants’ time involved with the scheme as that can easily be forgotten over a long construction period and evidence of time incurred helps to justify any claim. A claimant can claim for anything that they have had
to do as a result of the scheme, such as moving livestock handling facilities, or for the buying of additional sileage for cattle, and also for any losses suffered such as the loss of business due to access being restricted.
Where ministers do not purchase any of an individual’s property, compensation may still be payable. In accordance with Part 1 of The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (the Act), compensation can be claimed for the depreciation in value to their property as a result of the physical factors associated with the use of the newly dualled A9.
These include noise, vibration, smell, smoke, artificial lighting and the discharge of any solid or liquid matter onto an individual’s property. However, a Part 1 Claim does not compensate individuals generally for the loss of amenity they may suffer as a result of the scheme.
In order to receive compensation under Part 1 of The Act, the individual must be the owner of the property before the date the road first came in to public use and must also still be the owner on the date that the claim is submitted. Part 1 Claims have to be submitted at least 12 months after the road was open to the public and claims need to be made within five years.
The A9 programme upgrades 80 miles of road from single to dual carriageways to boost growth through improved safety and quicker journey times, as well as better links to pedestrian, cycling and public transport facilities. Inverness is the only UK city without access to dual carriageway.
Households, businesses, farms and estates along the A9 dualling scheme are being contacted by the Scottish Ministers through Transport Scotland about the acquisition of land and buildings to advance the £3.7 billion scheme.
Work on the infrastructure project has picked up pace in recent months. A ‘contract notice’ for the construction of the £155 million section, from Tay Crossing to Ballinluig, was published on 24 May, formally commencing procurement of the fourth section.
This is a big step forward following the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition, Mairi McAllan, in December 2023, updating Parliament on the delivery plans for the dualling works. The plan anticipates completion of the entire A9 dualling programme between Perth and Inverness by the end of 2035.
The Tay Crossing to Ballinluig project is the first of the three in the south section that will be progressed by means of individual design and build contracts, due to be awarded by Transport Scotland in summer 2025 with the shortlisted contractors being announced at the start of August. Further north, it was announced in early July that Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd are expected to be awarded a contract worth nearly £185 million to upgrade the Tomatin to Moy section after a significant delay.
Galbraith has been working with claimants along the route since the project began in 2015 and we have guided many residents and owners through the CPO process. If you have been issued with a general vesting declaration and are unsure as to how to progress, we would recommend seeking agents’ advice and therefore please do get in touch with your local Galbraith office. n
Philippa Orr
07917 220 779
philippa.orr@galbraithgroup.com
The Scottish Government committed £250 million over a 10-year period in 2020, with the aim of restoring 250,000 hectares of degraded peatland by 2030.
Within the first three years of the budget a spending commitment of £66 million in funding was made available. The Scottish budget for 2024/25 announced £31.4 million is to be invested into peatland restoration.
Peatland restoration funds are allocated between five direct delivery partners through the Peatland ACTION partnership. These partners include NatureScot, Forestry and Land Scotland, Cairngorms National Park Authority, Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park Authority and Scottish Water. Each delivery partner is responsible for carrying out peatland restoration projects. The most relevant funding stream available to landowners located out with the National Parks is the NatureScot Peatland ACTION route.
Peatland ACTION have some fund eligibility criteria for prospective project developers. Principally, projects generally need to be greater than 10 hectares in size with a restoration cost of over £10,000 and the majority of peat
depths over the project area need to be greater than 50cm.
Until 2024, peatland restoration projects were assessed on a first come first served basis. At the start of 2024, this was deemed to be no longer appropriate due to an anticipated high level of demand. A competitive funding approach has therefore been adopted moving forwards. In summary, Peatland ACTION are looking to focus on supporting projects which allow them to maximize the area of peatland restored and minimize any risks to delivery.
Due to the competitive nature of applications going forward, it is important to take advice on the eligibility and suitability of land for restoration and the funding available. If you are interested in understanding the next steps in restoring your peatlands, please do not hesitate to contact us. n
Edward Fletcher
07990 130 753
edward.fletcher@galbraithgroup.com
redundant property and providing an income for a property that produced minimal income in the past.
arises. With farming requiring more modern style buildings and older traditional buildings requiring high levels of maintenance, the original use of these buildings is becoming less common.
One way to utilise these unused traditional steadings is to convert them into a multi-use commercial hub. Although these conversions may seem to be an attractive project, there are several things to be aware of and things to consider, such as but not limited to:
• What is the demand for commercial properties in the area? Would you be able to find suitable long-term tenants?
• What condition is the property in? Is the property suitable for conversion?
• Are there any planning restrictions? If the answers to the above questions are leaning towards the positive side, then it is worth considering. A conversion such as this may bring many positives to rural areas, providing a startup space and hub for local businesses, whilst bringing life to a
One key issue with changing the use of a property from agricultural to commercial is that this will trigger the property to be liable for business rates. With the change in rules meaning there are no longer reliefs for empty properties, this can leave landlords liable for large rates bills should the properties sit vacant for periods of time.
In addition to rates, the management of utilities and service charges should also be considered. It is important that utilities are split for each individual unit to allow tenants to be responsible for their own accounts. Implementing service charges is often useful to cover the costs of communal maintenance, however it is key that this is managed properly and is monitored by the RICS.
Although there are many potential pitfalls in steading conversions of this type, there are many positives to preserving these historic properties whilst getting some profit, for a property that might otherwise become a liability. n
Anna Fisher 07775 407 194
anna.fisher@galbraithgroup.com
This September Galbraith held their annual Land Agents’ Day at the Black Isle Showground, north of Inverness. The event is always a great opportunity to catch up with colleagues from some of the farther flung offices (hence the trip North!) and for newer members of the team to meet others.
Following bacon rolls and coffee, first up on the agenda was carbon audits and the forthcoming BPS eligibility changes. Thereafter, a natural capital exercise based around exciting projects Galbraith are currently involved in, hosted by our own Eleanor Harris. We then welcomed representatives from the Scottish Land Commission to discuss policy, community engagement, tenant
farming and last but not least, land reform. This showed itself to be a fantastic opportunity to open up pragmatic and (at times!) frank discussions between a public body and land managers.
A fine spread awaited for lunch followed by an afternoon practical group exercise covering a strategic review and valuation of a holding. The weather could not have been better, which was to be expected given our Inverness colleagues confirmed it hardly ever rains up there! n
Kilravock Estate comprises an enchanting 15th Century castle near Nairn and a small estate with let farms and various cottages, some let some unoccupied.
Galbraith was engaged to take on the estate management as well as the sale of the estate, led by Galbraith partners Dougal Lindsay and Rod Christie.
Lisbeth McMillan, chair of the trustees of Kilravock Trust SCIO, said: “We approached Galbraith as we were impressed by their local knowledge and extensive experience in dealing with the sale of large estates in Scotland”.
Outlining the work undertaken by Galbraith, Lisbeth continued: “Galbraith has undertaken two separate activities but with both sides working closely together: “Estate management - taking over the management of our 550-acre estate including several farms, agricultural land, woodland, tenanted residential properties and the management of a Grade A-listed castle and historical artefacts. This included working closely with our accountants to rectify any issues with tenants. They also dealt with other local landowners on boundary discussions. Dougal was personally involved with the local community liaison and Georgie (Milne) did a diligent job of managing the various aspects.
“In terms of the sale of the estate –the team gave recommendations on the best approach to maximize interest in the sale, with a decision taken to segment the estate into different lots. This involved the sale of the Grade A-listed castle and immediate surrounds, tenanted properties, empty residential properties, farms and tenanted agricultural land (including reaching agreement with the tenant farmers). Rod and Dougal were closely involved in the different transactions, providing very good advice and regular updates.”
Rod, who led on the sale of the estate, said: “The estate, although not large, is complex, with various management legacies that needed to be worked through in order that each element was as attractive and saleable as possible.
“This meant the agency and management teams had to work
closely together, to optimise the value of the property as a whole. There are very few firms that can offer this joined-up approach, which is one of our particular strengths. The overall result was the very successful sale of a multi-faceted estate”.
Lisbeth added: “I would highly recommend Galbraith for either estate management or the sale of a country estate. They are very knowledgeable with a wide range of expertise to call on within their practice.
“They are proactive but also careful to provide regular updates to keep us fully informed of progress. We were able to exceed our expectations on the ultimate sale price through careful planning on the optimal sales approach to the different aspects of the estate.
“Galbraith also helped us to manage the transition to the new ownerparticularly in relation to communication with our tenantswhich helped to ensure that the new purchaser had the best start in their ownership of this historic estate”. n
Aberdeen 01224 860 710
aberdeen@galbraithgroup.com
Ayr 01292 268 181 ayr@galbraithgroup.com
Blagdon 01670 789 621
blagdon@galbraithgroup.com
Castle Douglas 01556 505 346
castledouglas@galbraithgroup.com
Cupar 01334 659 980 cupar@galbraithgroup.com
Edinburgh 0131 240 6960
edinburgh@galbraithgroup.com
Hexham 01434 693 693
hexham@galbraithgroup.com
Inverness 01463 224 343
inverness@galbraithgroup.com
Kelso 01573 224 244
kelso@galbraithgroup.com
Morpeth 01670 331 500 morpeth@galbraithgroup.com
Penrith 01768 800 830
penrith@galbraithgroup.com
Perth 01738 451 111 perth@galbraithgroup.com
Stirling 01786 434 600 stirling@galbraithgroup.com
Galbraith operates from 13 offices across Scotland and Northern England, bringing our clients a wealth of experience in:
•Building consultancy
•Commercial forestry & woodland management
•Commercial property sales & management
•Estate, farm & forestry sales & acquisitions
•Estates, farming & land management
•Natural capital & carbon
•Property lettings
•Renewables and utilities
•Residential estate agency