Compulsory sale and lease orders - Consultation analysis report

Executive Summary

The Scottish Government has sought feedback on proposals to reform the compulsory purchase system in Scotland. As part of this, it also sought views on the concept of Compulsory Sale Orders (CSOs) and Compulsory Lease Orders (CLOs). A public consultation, which included 122 questions, ran from 19 September to 19 December 2025. This report presents the analysis of responses to questions about CSOs and CLOs only (Q106 to Q117). In total, 80 respondents answered at least one of these questions, with responses received from 25 individuals and 55 organisations.

Compulsory Sale Orders

69% of those answering agreed local authorities should be able to instruct the sale of a property without permission from the property owner, while 31% disagreed. Organisations were more likely to lend support than individuals. CSOs were mostly considered justified for addressing vacant and derelict properties, but also potentially to support larger-scale projects. Perceived drawbacks included costs and expertise needed to oversee CSO cases and impacts on people’s human rights. The need for safeguards was emphasised.

Procedures involved in preparing a CSO should be largely similar to those for a CPO, according to 72% of those answering. However, others felt the process could be simpler or faster. It was suggested that properties subject to CSO should remain on the market for around twelve months, if necessary, though others felt it may be less or more, or determined on a case-by-case basis. Ways to strengthen governance and regulatory frameworks, and control use of the property, were suggested should a CSO process be introduced.

Compulsory Lease Orders

Views were split on whether local authorities should be able to instruct the lease of a property without permission from the property owner (51% agreed; 49% disagreed). Like CSOs, CLOs were considered most justified where they could help address vacant or derelict property or help regenerate urban areas. However, they were also seen as having the potential for presenting challenges, such as complexity, legal disputes and how to control relationships.

Most (60%) felt a CLO process, if introduced, would not need to be more onerous than that of CPO, while 40% felt it would. The ongoing responsibilities created by a CLO, as well as the intrusive nature of the intervention and the need to manage a tenant, were reasons why respondents thought a CLO process should be more thorough. The need for guidance and to protect tenants' rights was also highlighted.

Further considerations

Views were expressed that CSOs and CLOs were not needed. Others highlighted perceived benefits, such as the powers being potentially cheaper and more streamlined than alternatives and useful for tackling the housing emergency. Some suggested CSO and CLO would potentially be more complex and at least as resource-intensive as existing mechanisms such as CPO.