'Bloom on my Peaceful Grave' : Forthtay Limited Employee Trust v Scottish Ministers

When the Scottish Parliament passed Part 5 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 (‘the 2016 Act’), it gave community bodies a powerful right – the right to force the sale of land from an unwilling seller if Scottish Ministers agree the proposed transfer meets several demanding tests. The Ministers must find that the transfer of land from the unwilling seller to the community body (a) ‘is likely to further the achievement of sustainable development’; (b) ‘is in the public interest’; (c) ‘is likely to result in significant benefit to the relevant community’; (d) is the only practicable, or the most practicable, way of achieving that significant benefit’; and (e) not granting consent ‘is likely to result in harm to that community’ (2016 Act, s 56(2)). On 25 January 2025, for the first time since the enactment of the 2016 Act, the Scottish Ministers granted consent to the application by Poets’ Neuk, a properly constituted community body, to exercise this right to buy in relation to a plot of ground in St Andrews with fascinating historical ties to Mary Queen of Scots. This decision was then subject to appeal by the landowners. In April 2025, Sheriff Niven-Smith upheld the decision of the Scottish Ministers (<i>Forthtay Limited Employee Trust v Scottish Ministers </i>[2025] SC DUN 24 ‘<i>Forthtay</i>’). This case comment provides an overview of this important decision and considers the implications of this decision within the wider context of Scottish land reform.&nbsp; <br><br>We conclude that the Sheriff acted properly in confirming the Scottish Ministers’ application of the various legal tests under the 2016 Act in relation to Poets’ Neuk’s community right to buy application and in rejecting the appellants’ judicial challenge. The Sheriff correctly recognised that considerations relevant to sustainable development under the 2016 Act extend beyond merely economic factors. In addition, the Sheriff recognised that the Scottish Ministers were bound to focus on the state of affairs at the time of Poets’ Neuk’s application and could properly consider the full suite of potential benefits that transforming a neglected lot of land in the heart of Saint Andrews into a poetry garden could bring to the community. The Scottish Ministers could also take account of the appellants’ lack of care of the property and their failure, at the time of the application at least, to obtain planning approval for any proposed development plans. At the same, we also acknowledge the considerable time and effort required by the community body to prosecute this first ever successful sustainable development community right to buy application and raise questions about the efficacy of the current legal regime in light of the Scottish Government’s goal to increase the amount of land in community ownership in Scotland.