Shucksmith recommends that a residency burden be placed on all houses on crofts, starting with the next time the croft has a new tenant, or if/when the house is ‘detached’ from the croft. He also appears to recommend limiting the number of houses on a croft to two, but in any event all such houses would be ‘burdened’ with a residency requirement - whether still part of the croft or ‘detached’. So no more de-crofting in the current sense.

I completely agree with this: time to stop the family silver being sold off!

However Shucksmith appears to overlook the fact that not all houses are croft homes, nor are they ‘holiday homes’ in the worst sense.  Many crofters (myself included) have developed houses specifically as holiday lets, as part of croft diversification.  In my case I have shunned the trend for gimmicky/whacky eco-houses or twee thatch, and chose to build something that at some point would make a very good family croft house (it replaces two derelict houses), extremely well built and with its own supply of energy from a turbine. But in the meantime the house is intended to appeal to a sophisticated kind of tourist, keen to experience crofting life and have fresh produce from the croft to cook. 

My concern is that under the Shucksmith proposals any tenant after me (my daughter or someone else) will be bound to live in the house. This could mean that the market value of the house would be a fraction of what it has cost to build, and above all any value of the ‘goodwill’ - ie the value of the reputation I have built up, and the value of repeat business and recommendation, would also be lost. 

I fully agree with the objective to control holiday homes, but we need to distinguish between holiday homes owned and operated by active resident crofters as part of their croft operations, and just ‘holiday homes’ as an abuse of a croft house.

I suggest therefore that there be a provision for ‘registering’ holiday lets on crofts as part of the working assets of the croft, and any burden on them being to the effect that they have to be continued to operated as a business. A change in status, from croft asset to croft home (or vice versa) would be subject to the approval of the new local crofting board.

Any further thoughts on this?

If its a Holiday business does it not have planning restrictions already? Most new build holiday letting propertiies here have planning restrictions that they can only be used for holiday letting.

The short answer to that, Joyce, is no: no such planing restriction has been imposed.

I’m not aware that that planning restriction has been used by the comhairle, as I think the provision in law was really intended to prevent back-door sub-urbanisation of a rural area with limited facilities and especially with buildings not really suitable as permanent homes: am I right that in such cases lettings may be limited to XX weeks per year, and/ior a maximum length of let of X weeks?

Perhaps this provision could be used to designate a building as a holiday home rather than a croft house, but there would I think still need to be an explicit provision in the new crofting legislation, and maybe it would be better to have all this kind of regulation managed by the new local crofting boards.

I guess what underlies my concerns on this is that the Shucksmith proposals as they stand discourage a crofter from investing in the croft and developing a thriving croft business, as there may be little prospect of getting his investment back when (for example) he retires and wants to pass the croft on.  And that’s just the ‘permanent improvements’: what about the value of a fresh produce business (eg supplying local hotels) ‘as a going concern’ - which takes years of perserverence and no little talent - to build up, yet may involve very little in the way of fixed assets: what mechanism is there in the Shucksmith proposals by which an outgoing tenant can be rewarded for the work and commitment over many years?  I guess this is more to do with the question of ‘highest bidder’ re-assignations (which I despised but now see another side to).

Back to holiday lets:  this should never be a substitute for agricultural use, but it can certainly contribute significantly to croft income and underpin crofting economics; it is also often the biggest single investment a crofter will make; and it should be seen as a way of developing the community assets (as the permanent improvements belong to the landowner - in our case a community estate). So this is a very significant issue which I’m surprised has been overlooked by Shucksmith.

Its not going to go through now anyway.

Is Shucksmith proposal appropriate?

I can’t agree with him totally…

Please let me know more about his proposal..

Thanks…