Campaigners demand rethink of Scots bank investing public funds in 'Scotland's second largest landowner'
Land campaigners claim Gresham House has recently become Scotland’s second biggest landowner.
Scotland’s National Investment Bank (SNIB) has come under fire for its relationship with asset managers said to be the second largest landowner in Scotland.
The SNIB, funded by taxpayers’ money, previously awarded £50million in funds to Gresham House’s Forest Growth and Sustainability Fund (GHFGS), which invests in new forestry and established commercial forests across the UK.
Former MSP and land campaigner Andy Wightman claimed last month that Gresham House, through the partnerships that they control, is Scotland’s second largest private landowner, owning 73,553 hectares across the country. The SNIB disputed this claim, saying the company manages other peoples’ investments in forestry.
Olly Hughes, managing director of Gresham House, which is now owned by a private equity firm headquartered in New York, told MSPs last year the company did “not own any land directly under the name of Gresham House”.
However, it is understood the firm and its subsidiaries are named as General Partner in a number of Scottish Limited Partnerships - legal entities which can own land.
Community Land Scotland (CLS), the lead organisation promoting community ownership, said, in addition to the SNIB investment, GHFGS has received about £3.4 million of forestry-related grants, which rise to over £11 million by 2031.
CLS called for the SNIB to re-examine its relationship with the firm, claiming public funds have effectively funded some of Gresham House’s land acquisitions.
CLS’s director of policy Dr Josh Doble said: “Basically, Scottish taxpayers’ money is funding Gresham House land acquisitions and helping encourage further investment in Gresham.”
The SNIB said while Gresham House manages many forestry funds, the particular fund it invested in has a majority investment of public investor money in it, such as local authority pension schemes and has “diversity goals.”
A spokesperson for the SNIB said: “Through our investment, we anticipate environmental benefits from biodiversity, flood defence, improved air quality, reduced soil erosion, outdoor recreation and the creation of natural materials.”
They warned many of the benefits won’t be realised yet given the long-term investment of planting trees.
The spokesperson said the investment also helped attract more than £250 million of additional investment in woodland creation.
High land prices potentially impacting other buyers
Dr Doble said recent land purchases by the Gresham fund reached remarkably high prices, including a 579 hectare hill farm for more than £12 million. He said this made the sale £21,070 per hectare “an eyewatering sum” compared to the already inflated prices for agricultural land.
At its peak in recent years, agricultural land was valued at about £15,152 per hectare, while hill land for tree planting cost about £13,590 per hectare.
“These kinds of bizarre transactions are troubling for those of us interested in the economically, socially and environmentally progressive use of Scottish land”, Dr Doble added.
“Gresham House seem to be speculating on Scottish land, partially funded by Scottish taxpayers’ money.
“Land speculation makes it more expensive for communities and local people to buy land and warps an already inflated land market.”
A spokesperson for Gresham House said: “The investment rationale is rooted in the ability to sustainably produce timber over the long term. The drivers of value in forestry investments are diverse and change over time, but at no point have any of our investment strategies been informed by speculation over future land values.”
The company pointed to the Scottish Government’s woodland creation targets of 18,000ha per year, with 2025 figures showing just 8,500ha were reached in the last year.
The spokesperson added: “The purpose of the Gresham House Forest Growth and Sustainability LP was to create as much new and sustainable woodland in Scotland as possible. In delivering this mandate it was quite appropriate for the Partnership to access available woodland creation grants.”
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.