North Glenbuchat Update: Police Interview & False Certifications
Following my previous blogs here, here and here on the topic of the Register of Persons Holding a Controlled Interest in Land (RCIL), I am pleased to report that after much toing and froing I eventually secured an appointment with Police Scotland to be interviewed about my complaint.
The complaint being that, contrary to paragraphs 10(8) and 10(10) of the Regulations, the estate owners, North Glen Estate Ltd. registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands, failed to register the required information with the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland by the relevant date, 1 April 2024. Such failure is a criminal offence.
In the course of my interview on 15 June 2025, I passed over the facts of the case and drew the attention of the Police Officer to the relevant offences. I informed him that I was blogging about this topic and would be maintaining a close interest in the outcome.
I await developments.
Meanwhile, during Stage 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, Mark Ruskell MSP raised the question of amending the penalties for failing to register. One amendment sought to make the penalty recurring. Currently the maximum penalty is a one-off £5000. The other amendment proposed changing from a criminal penalty to a civil one meaning that criminal procedure would be avoided and the proposed Land and Communities Commissioner (for example) could issue a higher fine of £40,000 (the sum proposed by Mr Ruskell).
These amendments were withdrawn but not before Mr Ruskell made the following comment in winding up the debate.
It seems odd that the bill contains provision for a fine of up to £40,000 for failure to produce a community consultation on a land management plan, whereas a failure to declare who is financially behind the ownership of land in Scotland attracts only a £5,000 fine. I understand the difference: one of those actions could result in a criminal conviction. However, in the small number of cases that have come through, we have seen that the likelihood of securing a conviction is vanishingly small. For the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to even take on such a case would require a lot of specialist research by the police. I do not know whether we would ever get to a point where that might help to secure a criminal conviction.[1]
The problem, however, is that no-one (apart it appears from myself and Alan Brown) are monitoring compliance. I do in fact have a very list of offenders which I am eager to present to the Police once they have satisfied me that they can investigate the North Glenbuchat case.
Mark also overstates the complexity of this. It does not take a “lot of specialist research by the Police”. It is not hard to investigate this crime. All that is needed is to identify whether the relevant person is required to register (as set out in Schedule 1 of the Regulations) and examine the Register to determine whether a registration has been made by 1 April 2024 (and maybe check with the Keeper for good measure). If it has not, then an offence has been committed and a straightforward report can be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal. [2]
The investigation is essentially limited to searching a website.
Meanwhile ……
For some odd reason, the Times newspaper thought it newsworthy to report that,
A wealthy aristocrat with strong links to the royal family has lodged plans to extend his Scottish estate.
The Earl of Medina, known as Harry Mountbatten, wants to build a gym and add an extension to his mansion at the Glenbuchat estate, 20 miles from Balmoral Castle.
Quite why a planning application for an extension merits a report in the Times escapes me but I was curious enough to have a look at the Application on Aberdeenshire Council’s planning portal (ref APP/2025/1047).
A planning application has by law to include prescribed information. Under Regulation 15(2)(b)(i), an applicant must certify (if applicable) that no person other than the applicant is the owner of any land to which the application relates or an agricultural tenant of the land.
In the case of this application, the applicant is given on page 2 of the application form as Glenbuchat Estate Ltd. On page 4, of the form, Martin Cobban of Cobban Architecture (the agent) certifies that nobody other than the agent or applicant is an owner of any part of the land.
Except that is a false declaration. There is somebody (other than the agent or applicant) who is the owner, namely North Glen Estate Ltd.
Glenbuchat Estate Ltd is merely the company (controlled by Harry Mountbatten) that manages the estate. It is not the owner of the estate and never has been. It was incorporated in 2019. North Glen Estate Ltd. acquired the estate in 2007.
As a courtesy, I contacted Mr Cobban in advance of publishing this blog to ask him how and why he came to falsely certify the ownership certificate but have received no reply.
NOTES
[1] See Official Report 17 June 2025 Columns 80-87 for fuller discussion of this and related matters and Column 87 for this particular quote.
[2] I am not a Police Officer and so am sure that there is some more work that needs done but in essence this is the nature of the offence and the investigation that needs to be carried out.
Glad someone is highlighting the breaking of laws by the rich and powerful. Keep at it Andy. Maybe something might change as a result.
Thank you, Andy, for undertaking this important work. The people of Scotland owe you a huge debt of gratitude.
This is tremendous work you are doing. It is a grave fault that the ownership of Scootish land should be so obscure. It seems that only those wanting to act against the public interest or the tax laws would think it necessary to hide their ownership so transparency must be the aim of any body responsible.
There was a similar article in our local paper the Press & Journal a few days ago about the planning application for North Glenbuchat Estate. I did not appreciate the false declaration . I wonder if that is a reason to object to the planning application. It may not stop the application but it may bring the apparent ignoring of the planning rules to the council and possibly the wider public attention. Having read your recent blogs I feel that the government’s attitude to Land Reform is rather laisse faire with maybe plenty of words but very little real action as it would ruffle too many wealthy landowners feathers and the government don’t see it as a vote winner for the majority of the public who live in towns and citys. I shall be very interested in the outcome of your police intereractions. Keep up the good work Andy.