Press Release
REVIEW REPORT OFFERS NO BENEFITS TO SCOTLAND
14 December 2006
Recommendations contained in the Highlands and Islands’ Crown Estate Review Working Group report, due to be endorsed by Highland Council today (December 14, 2006), are flawed and would offer no benefit to the people of Scotland. If implemented they could lead to large environmentally sensitive rural areas being sold to private landowners, and fragment the responsibility for marine interests with a consequential adverse effect on businesses and economic opportunity. These conclusions come from The Crown Estate’s response to the Working Group report.
A key criticism of the report, commissioned by the seven Highland and Island councils, focuses on the suggested disposal of all of the rural estates in Scotland - including the award winning Glenlivet Estate in Moray and the Applegirth Estate in Dumfries and Galloway. The Crown Estate warns that the ‘sell off’ would threaten the businesses and homes of the people who live and work there. The Crown Estate’s Glenlivet and Applegirth estates have won a range of awards for environmental management and tourism and built up a strong reputation for public access and community events.
“If these estates are sold off, as the report suggests, it is unlikely that all the tenants would be in a position to buy them and consequently large areas would inevitably pass into private hands,” said The Crown Estate Chairman Ian Grant. “If they do, there is no guarantee that our high standards will be maintained and the people that live and work there, as well as the many visitors to these areas, would be the losers,” he continued.
The report also fails to explain why the sale of the urban estate would benefit Scotland. Urban properties currently provide over half of The Crown Estate’s revenue surpluses in Scotland – all of which goes towards public spending.
“We run The Crown Estate as a national asset and decisions are taken to preserve the long term public benefit. After deducting our running costs every penny we make goes towards public spending – so that everyone benefits,” said Ian Grant.
The Crown Estate also points out that suggestions of £10 billion of investment being made in renewable energy around Scotland’s coastline are also misleading. This represents the likely level of investment around the whole of the UK and does not take into account the lack of availability of suitable grid connections and the more challenging marine environment around Scotland’s coastline.
The report’s recommendation to break up The Crown Estate’s role for the marine estate would, in the view of The Crown Estate, be both costly and lead to a loss of valuable expertise.
Ian Grant went on to say: “We have unrivalled knowledge and experience of the marine and coastal environment, working closely with government, the energy sector, ports and harbours, environmental groups and others at a national and international level. The fragmentation of responsibility for the foreshore amongst local authorities would be costly and result in losing The Crown Estate’s depth of expertise. This would not be in the interest of Scotland’s marine communities and businesses.”
The Crown Estate invests in local communities through marine research and development programmes. It has also spent £1.1 million through the Marine Stewardship Fund on community-based projects, initiatives and research.
The Crown Estate contends that the report confuses opinion and fact, and points out that the constitutional demands are not within the gift of The Crown Estate. It also believes that the call for a review, the central recommendation of the report, is based on a flawed series of assumptions and would serve no purpose.
“We are always keen to improve the way we work in Scotland,” added Ian Grant. “We will continue to work in partnership with the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to provide real public and business benefits to Scotland. However, this report will not help achieve these ambitions and could be very damaging both environmentally and in terms of the Scottish public interest.”
|
