Compulsory sale and lease orders - Consultation analysis report

6. Conclusions

A range of individuals and organisations with varied and detailed knowledge and experiences participated in this element of the consultation, sharing their views on CSOs and CLOs. This report provides a high-level summary of the consultation responses. For more details, readers are encouraged to read individual responses, where permission was given for publication, via the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Respondents considered that CSOs and CLOs could be useful for tackling the housing emergency, could benefit communities, could motivate owners to act voluntarily, and could be more streamlined or cost-effective compared to alternatives. Others felt these orders are not needed or that using a CPO should be sufficient, that the rights of owners should be further considered and that safeguards are needed should these orders be introduced, such as using it as a last resort or ensuring it meets a public interest test.

A majority of those answering (69%) felt local authorities should have the ability to instruct the sale of a property without permission from the property owner. It was felt that this could be a useful tool in tackling vacant or derelict buildings, but drawbacks included the need for resources or challenges in finding a buyer. The need for safeguards was also emphasised. However, 31% disagreed, with individuals more likely to be opposed.

Procedures equivalent to a CPO were felt to be necessary by most respondents, to ensure use of a CSO was justified, proportionate and thorough, and to reflect its compulsory nature. Aligning the process to the CPO process was suggested. Other respondents felt the process should be faster, with ways suggested for simplifying it, such as streamlining the confirmation process.

Suggestions were given for how to control the use of the property by its new owners, such as attaching conditions to the sale or titles, using penalties or clawbacks, or using the planning process. While respondents often found it difficult to specify a timescale for allowing a CSO property to remain on the market or suggested applying timescales on a case-by-case basis, others suggested that around six months to a year could be appropriate. If the property did not sell, suggestions included that local authorities could address it, that it could be returned to the owner or be repriced and remarketed. Avoiding limbo situations was felt to be important.

Respondents were more evenly divided on the value of a CLO. Views were expressed that there could be little value in CLOs, they could increase complexity or that they could be challenging for local authorities, mostly due to the need for an ongoing relationship with the owner. However, benefits were identified, such as CLOs being able to address vacant homes or be used in situations where CPOs or CSOs were inappropriate. Views were split over whether procedures would need to be more onerous than for a CPO, though a somewhat higher proportion of respondents felt they should be more onerous than less. Calls were made for clear guidance should CLOs be introduced.