Compulsory sale and lease orders - Consultation analysis report

1. Introduction

Background

A consultation on proposals to reform the compulsory purchase system in Scotland ran from 19 September to 19 December 2025. The consultation contained 122 questions, most of which considered proposals to reform the existing Compulsory Purchase system, which gives certain bodies (known as acquiring authorities) the ability to make Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) in order to take possession of private property without the consent or approval from the property owner, as long as they receive adequate compensation.

As part of this consultation, the Scottish Government also sought views on the concepts of Compulsory Sale Orders (CSOs) and Compulsory Lease Orders (CLOs), neither of which exists at present in Scotland. These Orders aim to provide local authorities^[1] with additional tools to return vacant properties, derelict land, or buildings to use. This report presents the analysis of responses to questions about CSOs and CLOs only (questions 106 to 117). These questions can be found in Appendix A. The Scottish Government has also separately published a summary of responses to the remaining questions about CPOs.

The consultation paper outlines how CSOs were recommended by the Land Reform Review Group established in 2012 and advocated by the Scottish Land Commission in 2018. It is believed by some supporters of CSOs that they would be more straightforward, quicker and cheaper for local authorities to use, compared to CPOs. However, a compulsory sale would result in a person having to sell their property, or having their property sold against their will, which interferes with the property rights of those affected and therefore engages protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The need for appropriate safeguards and compensation arrangements is recognised. The paper also notes that local authorities can compulsorily acquire land they do not intend to develop themselves through back-to-back CPOs, where they dispose of the land to a third party after the acquisition.

The Scottish Government has also noted stakeholder views on CLOs and is keen to understand whether and how these could add benefit alongside compulsory purchase powers. While there has been a longer-term discussion about CSO powers, discussions and calls for CLOs are more recent, and it is envisaged that for properties subject to a CLO, the owner would retain property rights, but that the local authority could control the use of the property by arranging for a new leaseholder at a fair lease or rental price which can be used to compensate the owner.

Respondent profile

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest.

This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.

In total, 80 out of 107 consultation respondents answered one or more of the questions relating to CSOs or CLOs. This analysis focuses on the responses of those 80 respondents only, and only on their responses to Q106 to Q117.

Respondents were able to answer any question in the consultation. However, the response rate to each question varied. The main reason for this variation is that not all questions apply to all respondents, and therefore, respondents answer questions based on their own experiences or areas of interest. Throughout this report, tables presenting the closed question analysis indicate what proportion of the 80 respondents answered each question. Across the open questions, between 30% and 70% of all 80 respondents answered each question, with an average of 50% answering.

Almost all responses were recorded on the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 25 responses to the consultation; the remaining 55 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped according to the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed. Where possible, closed questions are used to quantify how many respondents hold particular views, with the general prevalence of views indicated as part of the qualitative analysis. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included four closed questions. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question.

For clarity, each results table shows:

• the percentage of respondents from the total sample of 80 respondents who selected each response (grey row)
• the number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”).

A full breakdown for each question, including a breakdown by each type of organisation answering, can be found in Appendix C. Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. Codes were refined during the full coding process, where all responses were manually coded against the key themes identified.

In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Where appropriate, and in line with respondents’ publishing preferences, quotes from a range of the 80 consultation responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

In a few instances, qualitative comments from individuals may not align with their response to the quantitative questions. For example, a respondent may agree in principle but use their open comment to caveat their agreement or suggest an alternative approach.

Prevalence of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• many respondents, a prevalent theme, mentioned by 20 or more respondents out of the 80 who responded to the CSO/CLO questions
• several respondents, a recurring theme, mentioned by between 10 and 19 respondents out of 80
• some respondents, mentioned by between 5 and 9 respondents out of 80
• a few / a small number, mentioned by fewer than 5 respondents out of 80
• two/one respondents, mentioned by one or two respondents out of 80This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within consultation responses. The qualitative analysis in this report does not assign importance to a theme, given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of consultation respondents.