Compulsory Purchase Reform in Scotland – Consultation Response
Renfrewshire Council · 3 December 2025
Back to Leadership Board — 3 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
PUBLIC ___________________________________________________________________ To: Leadership Board On: 3rd December 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Compulsory Purchase Reform in Scotland – Consultation Response ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 This paper sets out the Council’s proposed response to the consultation launched by the Scottish Government. The deadline for submission of responses is 19th December 2025. 1.2 The Council’s proposed response has been drafted by officers familiar with the Compulsory Purchase process and informed by their experiences of the current system. 1.3 A summary of the consultation process is provided within this report with the proposed response itself attached at Appendix 1. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that members approve the proposed response to the Scottish Government’s Compulsory Purchase Reform in Scotland consultation which will be submitted to the Scottish Government prior to the deadline of 19th December 2025.
Page 2
PUBLIC _________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 On 19th September 2025, the Scottish Government launched the Compulsory Purchase Reform in Scotland consultation. 3.2 The purpose of the consultation is to inform the Scottish Government’s approach to the comprehensive reform they consider is required to the Scotland’s compulsory purchase system. The consultation puts forward a package of options and proposals for comment. 3.3 The consultation is informed by the Scottish Law Commission’s Discussion Paper on Compulsory Purchase No 159 which consulted on their discussion paper between December 2014 and June 2015. The Council issued a response form to this earlier consultation. 3.4 The Commission’s 2016 Final Report concluded that “the legislation is old, difficult to understand and does not work effectively in a modern context” and that those who the Commission consulted with “took the view that the system, both procedurally and in relation to the award of compensation, does not operate fairly”. 3.5 The Scottish Government state in their Consultation Paper that Compulsory Purchase Orders are a powerful tool with the potential to help drive real change for Scotland’s people and places by enabling delivery of development and infrastructure projects. However, this potential has not been fully realised as CPO powers are under-utilised due to the perception that the current system is opaque, antagonistic, costly and time consuming. The reforms aim to address some of these issues whilst ensuring that any CPO is clearly justified as taking someone’s home or business is a serious step. 3.6 The consultation also invites views on the associated concept of Compulsory Sale Orders, which have been suggested as an alternative or additional tool to complement Compulsory Purchase Orders. 3.7 Officers from Finance and Resources, Chief Executives and Environment, Housing and Infrastructure have prepared a draft response which could be submitted by The Renfrewshire Council in relation to the consultation which is attached as Appendix 1. This has been informed by their experience of the Compulsory Purchase process which has been utilised regularly by the Council in recent years to support to key regeneration and infrastructure products. ___________________________________________________________________
Page 3
PUBLIC Implications of the Report 1. Financial – there are no financial implications immediately arising from this report, future decisions on the compulsory purchase order process including streamlining the process for unopposed CPOs, digitalisation and may reduce the costs of some a compulsory purchase order applications however the process will be similar for opposed compulsory purchase orders and the reforms to the compensation system may increase costs by extending eligibility for compensation in certain circumstances. Without clarity on the specific reforms that will be introduced, any financial analysis is premature. 2. HR & Organisational Development - none 3. Community/Council Planning – Compulsory Purchase powers are a valuable tool in delivering economic growth and vital regeneration and infrastructure projects for Renfrewshire and its people and as such any efforts to streamline the compulsory purchase process to deliver projects contingent on a fully assembled site will be positive and in keeping with the principles of the Council Plan. 4. Legal – proposed reforms to Compulsory Purchase powers will have significant impact on the current legal framework for CPOs and may require revisions to the Council’s governance if proposals to permit Council’s to confirm certain unopposed CPOs themselves are introduced however until the Scottish Government conclude the consultation and bring forward a reform bill this is hypothetical. The proposed introduction of Compulsory Sales Orders would grant all local authorities additional powers to force the sale of properties where this can be justified in the public interest. 5. Property/Assets - the proposed reforms would not have a significant impact on the assets of the Council however if procedures for certain protected assets are extended to include local authority this would make the process of acquiring Council assets compulsorily more onerous. 6. Information Technology – if the proposed reforms to the CPO process to extend digitalisation are introduced, this may require the Council utilise new applications or additional technology support to staff working on individual compulsory purchase order applications however until the extent to which reforms will extend the digitalisation of the process this cannot be confirmed.
Page 4
PUBLIC 7. Equality & Human Rights - The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report because this is a report seeking approval of a consultation response to a Scottish Government consultation. If required following implementation, the actual impact of the recommendations and the mitigating actions will be reviewed and monitored, and the results of the assessment will be published on the Council’s website. 8. Health & Safety - none 9. Procurement – none 10. Risk – the consultation response at Appendix 1 highlights certain potential risks in relation to governance and finance but at this stage this is speculative. 11. Privacy Impact - none 12. Climate Risk – none 13. Children’s Rights – none 14. Cosla Policy Position –not applicable. _______________________________________________________ List of Background Papers none ___________________________________________________________________ Author: Declan MacAskill, Assistant Managing Solicitor (Housing Regeneration and Development)
Page 5
PUBLIC Compulsory Purchase Reform in Scotland – Consultation List of Questions Please respond to this consultation using the Scottish Government’s consultation hub, Citizen Space. Access and respond to this consultation online at https://consult.gov.scot/planning-architecture/compulsory-purchase-reform/. If you are unable to respond using Citizen Space, you can use this document to structure your response. Please remember to include the Respondent Information Form with your response. 1. Introduction 2. Overview: How compulsory purchase works Legislation and guidance Question 1: Do you agree that legislation governing compulsory purchase procedures and compensation in Scotland should be brought into a single statute? YES Question 2: Do you have any specific concerns in relation to the repeal of existing legislation on CPO procedures and compensation that we should consider? Great care should be taken when consolidating the provisions of decades of compulsory purchase legislation into a single statute ensuring that no gaps are created unintentionally when repealing the existing legislation without adequate re-provision in the new statute. If gaps are created, this creates a need for additional regulations on top of the new statute that will create the same issues of having to read across multiple pieces of legislation to take forward a CPO. 3. Enabling powers Question 3: With the exception of the bodies referred to at paragraph 3.6, are there any gaps in acquiring authorities’ enabling powers? Please provide specific examples. Existing acquiring authority enabling powers are sufficient with no reform required in this area. Question 4: Are local authorities’ compulsory purchase powers (set out on page 13-14) sufficiently broad to cover the circumstances in which they may need to compulsorily acquire land in carrying out their statutory functions? If not, please specify which powers require to be amended, clarified or supplemented.
Page 6
PUBLIC Existing acquiring authority enabling powers are sufficient with no reform required in this area. Question 5: Should there be a general power for acquiring authorities to create new rights in land and to attach conditions to such rights? YES Question 6: Should there be a general power for acquiring authorities to seek temporary possession of land? YES Question 7: Do you agree with the proposed list of matters that should be addressed in any new temporary possession power? If not, please give details. YES – however if it is likely that temporary possession powers will be used in circumstances where voluntary agreement to occupy has been sought but will not be forthcoming, it would be useful to have a mechanism to fast track disputes or postpone compensation negotiations to ensure that the necessary works can be delivered without unnecessary delays. Question 8: How might the use of back-to-back CPOs be further encouraged? More detailed guidance on back-to-back CPOs would be welcomed but we would agree that the existing Circular 6/2011 is clear in its support for this mechanism in any case.
Page 7
PUBLIC 4. Early engagement and preliminary steps Question 9: Do you agree that early and effective engagement is best promoted through non-statutory measures (e.g. guidance) rather than legislative requirements? YES Question 10: How might early and effective engagement between acquiring authorities and affected parties be further encouraged? The existing legislative framework provides flexibility which is important given the significant variations in how compulsory purchase can be used. There may be value, however, in providing examples of best practice, for example, that illustrate what effective early engagement looks like for CPOs of different scales e.g. single empty properties v large infrastructure or regeneration projects. Question 11: Would it be helpful to introduce a general power for acquiring authorities to require specified parties to provide information about ownership, occupation and other interests in land? Please explain your views. YES – it is likely that such a power would be used sparingly as in most cases land referencing should be sufficient to obtain ownership information. However, in certain circumstances where the position is more complicated then a general power to require specified parties to provide information under penalty would a useful means of moving forwards with a project that has stalled due to lack of information. Question 12: Do you agree that acquiring authorities should have a general power of entry prior to the making of a CPO for the purposes of surveying etc? YES Question 13: Does the outline proposal at paragraph 4.23 strike a reasonable balance between the needs of acquiring authorities and rights of the owner/occupier? If not, how should it be changed? Yes, we are supportive of this proposal. 5. Confirmation procedures – Making a CPO Form and content of a CPO Question 14: Are any changes required to the legislation which prescribes the form and content of CPOs? If so, please give details. NO Question 15: Should any or all of the following documents be placed on a statutory footing?
Page 8
PUBLIC • Statement of Reasons - NO • General Certificate - NO • Protected Assets and Special Category Land Certificate - NO Notification and advertisement of a CPO Question 16: Do you agree that the notification requirements for CPOs should be prescribed through secondary rather than primary legislation? YES Question 17: Should heritable creditors be added to the list of parties who must be individually notified of a CPO? YES Should they have the status of statutory objectors? NO Question 18: Are any other changes required to the list of people to be individually notified? No, the existing list is considered to be appropriate, the obvious gap being heritable creditors which it is proposed will be filled. Question 19: Do you agree that the CPO (and map) should be published on a suitable website, in addition to being made available for inspection at a specified physical location? YES Question 20: Should newspaper notices continue to be used to publicise the making of CPOs? YES – on balance, there does not seem to be an alternative means of reaching local people who may be digitally excluded. The notice must be shorter and simpler though, the length is not only expensive it is also off- putting and potentially confusing to the people we are trying to reach. Question 21: What alternative approaches might be appropriate for publicising CPOs – either in addition to or instead of newspaper notices? There should be greater flexibility on notice requirements, for example for the CPO of a single vacant property should perhaps be limited to affected persons i.e. owner, heritable creditor. Equally, local notices should be placed at the acquiring authority’s discretion e.g. on bus shelters, local noticeboards in community centre where they believe they will be seen by the most people in line with the existing legislation but without obliging newspaper notices on top of this. Newspaper advertisements should be reserved for larger projects. Digitisation Question 22: Should Scottish Ministers have a power to prescribe (through secondary legislation) common data standards for compulsory purchase documentation? If not, please explain your reasons. YES
Page 9
PUBLIC Question 23: Should acquiring authorities be able to serve compulsory purchase notices by electronic means, if a party agrees to this in writing and provides an address for this purpose? If not, please explain your reasons. YES 6. Confirmation procedures – Deciding a CPO Considering objections to a CPO Question 24: Should there be a statutory time period within which an opposed CPO should be referred to a Reporter after it has been submitted for confirmation? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Question 25: If there is to be a statutory time period, how long should it be? There may be value in setting a statutory time period on a sliding scale e.g. 3 months for 1-3 plots, 6 months for 3 – 10 plots, 9 months for 10+ plots Question 26: Should express provision be made in legislation for objections to be considered through written submissions? YES Question 27: Should the procedural rules for hearings and written submissions for CPO cases be set out in secondary legislation? YES Question 28: Do you agree that statutory objectors’ right to be heard at either a PLI or a hearing should be retained? YES Question 29: Should Scottish Ministers continue to decide whether a PLI or hearing is used? If not, in what circumstances should a PLI be required? YES Question 30: Should provisions on awards of expenses be extended to cover cases where objections are considered through hearings and written submissions? YES How CPOs are decided Question 31: Does the public interest test, as currently set out in Circular 6/2011, strike a fair balance between private and public interests? Please explain your views.
Page 10
PUBLIC YES – the existing test is fit for purpose and does not require specific revision. Question 32: Do you agree that the public interest test should continue to be policy-based rather than statutory? YES Who takes CPO decisions Question 33: Should acquiring authorities be empowered to confirm unopposed CPOs? YES Question 34: If acquiring authorities are empowered to confirm unopposed CPOs, which approach outlined at paragraph 6.34 would be preferable – Option 1 or 2? Please explain your views. OPTION 2 – unopposed CPOs should be dealt with as efficiently as possible and more radical reform is preferred here, Option 2 strikes the correct balance between efficiency for unopposed CPOs and following due process for CPOs with objections from statutory objectors. Question 35: Should Reporters be empowered to take CPO decisions, subject to published criteria regarding delegation by Scottish Ministers? Please explain your views. Yes, reforms should stive to improve efficiency and speed in making CPO decisions therefore removing double handling and empowering Reporters to take CPO decisions is supported. Special category land Question 36: Is additional scrutiny still needed for CPOs which include particular land? If yes, which of the four current special categories of land should this apply to? • land owned by a local authority • statutory undertaker land • land held inalienably by the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) • land forming part of a common or open space YES Question 37: If additional scrutiny of certain CPOs is needed, could there be alternative ways to achieve this other than Special Parliamentary Procedure? Please outline your suggestions Renfrewshire Council supports applying the special procedure to local authority land and sees an opportunity to remove inconsistencies based on
Page 11
PUBLIC the acquiring authority, which currently create unnecessary complexity and uncertainty. Renfrewshire Council supports the requirement for mandatory public local inquiries when confirming CPOs involving special category land. Renfrewshire Council supports the extension of the restriction on confirmation unless specific certification is received to include all special category land. Replacing the need for an Act of Parliament with a motion at Scottish Parliament would be more efficient and seems proportionate. Question 38: Should the restriction on confirmation of CPOs that include statutory undertaker land apply only where a relevant objection is made by the undertaker whose land is included in the Order? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Question 39: Do you agree with the proposals at paragraph 6.57 regarding the interaction between CPOs and public rights of way? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Scope and timing of CPO decisions Question 40: Should there be a mechanism that would allow statutory objections to be addressed during the confirmation process, so avoiding unnecessary hearings or PLIs? YES Question 41: If provision for such a mechanism were made, what procedures or safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure fairness? Could either of the suggestions in paragraph 6.62 achieve this? Both suggestions sound reasonable and proportionate. Question 42: Would a power to confirm CPOs subject to conditions be helpful in terms of overall project delivery? Please explain your views. Yes – one of the main disadvantages of the CPO process is the potential for it add lengthy delays to delivery of a project, therefore if conditional CPOs could be sought earlier in the process this would alleviate once of the main challenges with for example a regeneration project reliant on fully site assembly before funding requirement are met. Question 43: If conditional CPOs were taken forward, what additional procedures and safeguards would need to be in place to ensure fair and proportionate use?
Page 12
PUBLIC There should be no opportunity for objectors to re-visit substantial issues settled during the confirmation process of the conditional CPO or seek to re-litigate these issues causing delays that undermine the effectiveness of the conditional CPO initiative. However, it is accepted that the current 3 year implementation period is justified and proportionate and subject to specific, limited exemptions e.g. loss funding, economic conditions there should be a limited period for acquiring authorities to discharge conditions. Question 44: Do you agree that the Scottish Government should publish target timescales for the issuing of CPO decisions, rather than having binding statutory time limits? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Question 45: If targets (statutory or otherwise) are not met, what sanctions might be appropriate? Renfrewshire Council does not consider sanctions appropriate in these circumstances but supports reporting obligations to promote transparency and apply external accountability Question 46: Should the Scottish Government be required to report on compliance with any target timescales for CPOs? YES Challenges to a CPO Question 47: Do you agree that the grounds on which a confirmed CPO may be legally challenged should be retained? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Question 48: Should the 6-week period within which a confirmed CPO may be legally challenged be retained? If not, what should the period be? YES Question 49: If a legal challenge is successful, should the court have discretion to quash just the confirmation decision, rather than its only remedy being to quash the Order itself? YES 7. Implementation Procedure Question 50: Do you agree that there should be a single procedure for implementing compulsory purchase, similar to GVD? If not, what problems do you see with this approach?
Page 13
PUBLIC YES Objection to severance Question 51: Should there be a single test for objection to severance, or a different categorisation? If you propose different categories, please explain what they would be. A single test or perhaps two distinct tests for residential v commercial/agricultural to take account of the different considerations that are relevant between these two categories of land. Question 52: Under the new CPVD, should a notice of objection to severance prevent the land included in the CPO from vesting in the acquiring authority? NO – it is vital that these notices do not delay vesting, the present system is at risk of abuse with spurious notices issued that not only delay vesting but also expose the acquiring authority to unnecessary additional claims by their contractors. Timing Question 53: Should confirmation notices be required to be published within 6 weeks of the date on which the order is confirmed? If you disagree, what timing would you prefer, and why? No – while there is currently no time limit for submitting confirmation notices, they are typically published as soon as reasonably practicable. Given the complexity and cost of the CPO process, any delay is likely to be justified. If a time limit is introduced, it should be significantly longer than six weeks. Question 54: Do you agree that the standard implementation period should remain at three years? YES Question 55: Should confirming authorities be able to specify a longer or shorter implementation period? YES Question 56: Do you agree that the time limit should be suspended during any court challenge to the validity of the CPO? YES Question 57: Please add any comments on the time limit for implementation, if you wish to expand on your answers to questions 53 to 56. Question 58: Do you agree that the new CPVD should take effect six weeks after notification that it has been made? If not, what should the period be, and why?
Page 14
PUBLIC YES Question 59: Is there a need for a separate stage to notify people with an interest in the land and seek information from them? NO Effect on title Question 60: Should the new CPVD provide the acquiring authority with a valid title, removing all defects, real burdens, servitudes etc and securities? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Question 61: In relation to section 107 of the Title Conditions Act, should the legislation be amended to clarify that the acquiring authority simply has to have relevant compulsory purchase powers? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Question 62: Should acquiring authorities be able to include land in a CPVD which belongs to them, or where they are unsure if it does? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Question 63: Should a note be added to the title sheet in the Land Register stating that the title was acquired by compulsory purchase? If not, please explain your reasons. YES Rights subordinate to ownership Question 64: Would there be any difficulties in including all leases and liferents in a CPVD, extinguishing them in return for compensation? Clear guidance would be required in relation to valuation of a liferent for compensation purposes. 8. Compensation Value of land acquired Question 65: Do you agree that compulsory purchase compensation in Scotland should continue to be based on the principle of equivalence? If not, please explain your reasons. YES
Page 15
PUBLIC Question 66: Should compensation for land acquired compulsorily continue to be based on an assessment of its market value (disregarding increases/decreases attributable to the CPO scheme)? Please note that the following questions consider potential exceptions to this approach. YES Question 67: Should acquiring authorities have the power to request that, for a specific CPO, compensation would take no account of the prospect of planning permission being granted for alternative development? It would be for Scottish Ministers to make the decision when confirming the CPO. YES In what circumstances do you think this approach would be justified? In limited cases, land costs may be so high that key regeneration or infrastructure projects become unviable without changes to the compensation valuation regime to enable affordable acquisition. Question 68: Should the no-scheme principle be codified in the legislation? YES Question 69: If the no-scheme principle is codified, do you agree with the outline proposal at paragraph 8.39? Are there any other matters that would need to be addressed? YES - no other matters are considered necessary for inclusion. Question 70: Should the planning assumptions be repealed and re-written? YES Question 71: Do you agree with the broad outline for how the planning assumptions might be reformed set out in paragraphs 8.45 to 8.46? Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the planning assumptions? YES – it is felt that the outline planning assumptions are broadly correct and are consistent with codifying the “no-scheme” principles in the new legislation. Question 72: Should CAADs be retained as a tool to establish development value in a CPO context, or should they be abolished? Please explain your reasons. CAAD should be retained – it has value as a transparent process with a public decision delivered through the application process. It is felt that there in insufficient detail in the consultation paper on the alternative proposal should CAAD be abolished. Question 73: If CAADs were to be retained, how could they be made more effective, efficient and equitable?
Page 16
PUBLIC We have no comments to make on this proposal. Question 74: Should Part V of the 1963 Act be repealed and not re-enacted? YES Injurious Affection Question 75: Do you agree that the method of valuation for injurious affection should be dealt with in guidance rather than set in legislation? YES Question 76: Should set-off of betterment continue or be removed from the legislation? Please explain your views. Renfrewshire Council supports retaining this provision for the reason set out in the consultation paper: where public investment increases the value of retained land, this uplift should be reflected in the compensation assessment. Question 77: Please provide details of any acquiring authorities which you believe would need new powers to enable them to carry out accommodation works on a discretionary basis. The current discretionary approach to accommodation works, assessed on a case-by-case basis, remains sufficient and does not require new powers. Disturbance Question 78: Do you agree that separate statutory provision should be made for compensation for disturbance? If not please explain your reasons. YES Question 79: Should compensation for disturbance be able to cover losses incurred from the date on which the notice of making of the CPO is published (and the claimant’s duty of mitigation should apply from the same date)? YES If not, from what date should compensation apply? Please explain your reasons. Question 80: Should compensation for disturbance be payable to those who have a compensable interest in land included in the CPO when it is made, even if that land is not ultimately acquired? YES Question 81: Should owners who do not occupy the property be able to claim a wider range of disturbance compensation than at present?
Page 17
PUBLIC NO Question 82: Would it be helpful to provide guidance on compensation in cases of complex corporate structures? YES Question 83: Do you agree that the impecuniosity rule should be removed? YES Question 84: Do you agree with the proposals on mitigation, including compensation for business relocation and extinguishment? Please add any comments on these issues. YES Question 85: Should the jurisdiction of the LTS should be extended to cover discretionary as well as mandatory disturbance payments? YES Loss Payments Question 86: Should the minimum period of residence necessary to qualify for a HLP (currently one year) be increased? If so, what should the period be, and why? NO Question 87: How should the amount of HLP be calculated, among the options discussed in paragraphs 8.104 to 8.110? Please add any comments on these options or other approaches. The current approach of calculating HLP as 10% of market value is supported. It is less arbitrary than a flat rate and better reflects differences in property condition and value, even within the same area. A flat rate fails to account for these variations, and grading HLP by length of occupation introduces unnecessary complexity and evidence gathering. Therefore, the 10% approach remains the most practical and equitable. Question 88: If a person is displaced from an agricultural unit as a result of compulsory purchase, should they be eligible for a loss payment regardless of whether they continue farming elsewhere? YES Question 89: Should there continue to be a minimum area of land (currently 0.5 hectares) below which a FLP is not payable? If yes, what should the minimum area be? YES – maintain a minimum of 0.5 hectares
Page 18
PUBLIC Question 90: Do you agree that we should move away from the current profit- based approach to calculating FLP? YES Question 91: If a new approach to calculating FLP is taken forward, which of the options outlined at paragraph 8.118 would you prefer? Option 1 – Market rate: base the amount of FLP on a proportion of the market value of the land acquired. Question 92: Should loss payments be extended to other non-residential interests displaced as a result of compulsory purchase? Please explain your views. YES – the extension of loss payments to other non-residential interests is supported provided there is sufficient detail on how this is to be calculated as experience of existing loss payments are that they are a valuable tool in brining negotiations to a close much more quickly. 9. Compensation procedures Making a claim Question 93: Should acquiring authorities be required to advise owners of their rights to compensation and how to claim it? YES Question 94: Should a statutory claim form be provided to collect more information about the amount of compensation sought? YES Question 95: Should acquiring authorities be required to provide information on their assumptions relating to compensation, if this is requested by a claimant? NO Question 96: Should acquiring authorities be required to offer compensation, rather than requiring owners to claim it? YES Question 97: Please provide any comments about the procedure for claiming compensation, if you wish to expand on your responses to questions 93 to 96. Advising Owners of Rights: Existing forms offer no flexibility in terms of information provided to owners, amendments to the forms required to take this proposal forward. Providing Assumptions on Request: While supportive of greater transparency, there is currently insufficient
Page 19
PUBLIC guidance on what assumptions acquiring authorities should make. Without clearer direction, this requirement cannot be supported. Offering Compensation Proactively: This is an area lacking guidance, and we are supportive of clearer directions being provided to acquiring authorities. Time limits Question 98: Do you agree that an application to the LTS should be able to be made from the date of vesting? If not, when should the earliest date for application be? YES Question 99: Should there be a final time limit for making a claim for compensation? If yes, what should the limit be? YES – six years from date of vesting, as an acquiring authority we are not supportive of maintaining an open-ended payment obligation. Question 100: Are any other changes needed in relation to the timing of compensation claims? No Advance payments Question 101: Are any new powers needed to enable acquiring authorities to make discretionary advance payments, if one is sought before they take possession? YES – it would be beneficial for this power to be expressly stated. Question 102: Would it be helpful to enable advance payments to be made to heritable creditors, with the landowner’s agreement? YES Question 103: What mechanisms do you think would help to ensure advance payments are made promptly? • enforcement through the courts • LTS enforceable valuation • penalty interest • other (please explain). Renfrewshire Council are not supportive of penalty interest or court enforcement, as delays are often due to unrealistic or disputed claims rather than bad faith. Of the options presented, an LTS-enforceable valuation by a
Page 20
PUBLIC neutral third party is the most effective and balanced mechanism to ensure timely advance payments. Question 104: Should acquiring authorities have the power to offer advance payments even where one is not requested? If so, should interest on the amount of outstanding compensation be capped? Yes - capping interest on the outstanding balance is reasonable. It avoids financially penalising authorities acting in good faith and encourages early engagement, while still protecting claimants' rights. Interest rates Question 105: What should be the basis for the interest rate payable on outstanding compensation? • current rate (0.5% below standard rate) • average rate for overdrafts • average rate for loans • statutory interest • other (please give details) Maintain the current rate (0.5% below the standard rate). This rate is fairer than statutory interest and more straightforward to ascertain than the other options presented and avoids unnecessary complexity in processing time-sensitive payments. 10. Compulsory Sale and Lease Orders Compulsory Sale Orders Question 106: Should local authorities be able to instruct the sale of a property without permission from the property owner? Please explain your reasons. YES – a compulsory sale power to complement the CPO powers is desirable. Question 107: In what circumstances might compulsory sale be justified, and what benefits or drawbacks might there be? CSOs could be used to bring into use empty or problem homes that are not in areas with a compelling housing need, or are not suitable for social housing due to their size, or location, or type. However, a CSO as proposed only seeks and achieves a change of ownership. If that new owner then leaves the property vacant and does not invest in overcoming its vacancy then little will be achieved. Question 108: If a CSO process was introduced, would the procedures involved in preparing a CSO need to be equivalent to those that apply to a CPO? If not, how should those procedures differ?
Page 21
PUBLIC As noted in the consultation paper, a CSO would not result in the local authority obtaining an income bearing asset. Accordingly, whilst balancing the public good in, for example, bring a vacant property back into use with the ECHR considerations for deprivation of property the process needs to be proportionate but not overly onerous for the local authority who are essentially exercising step in rights to facilitate a sale that is in the public interest but not benefiting directly from the end result. Question 109: What governance or regulatory frameworks would need to be introduced to ensure that any future CSO process is used fairly and effectively? Question 110: What measures could be taken to control the use of the property by the new owner? There may be a good reason to permit local authorities to impose conditions on the new owner to ensure they bring the property back into use as soon as possible. This may include a time limit for investment by the new owner with this monitored by the local authority. One proposed measure would be a CSO application for investment to the local authority and a decision/certification being made prior to the change in ownership being confirmed. There is also an argument that there should be an opportunity to penalise a failure to comply with conditions with a simplified CSO process to force a further sale without the same level of scrutiny on the basis a CSO has previously been approved by the confirming authority. Any conditions imposed must strike a balance between ensuring the CSO serves its purpose and the negative impact that any controls or obligations that are put on a new owner will have – reducing the potential marketability and prospects of sale and will also detrimentally affect value of the property. Question 111: How long should a property subject to a CSO remain on the market? There are difficulties in setting a default marketing period for properties subject to a CSO – e.g. a residential property may sell quickly with a 12 week marketing period appropriate here however for non-residential property or property that has been long term vacant and in a deteriorated condition a much longer marketing period may be required. Question 112: What should happen if the property does not sell? Ownership stays with the existing owner but there may be an argument for simplified CPO powers for the local authority who obtained approval for a CSO from the Scottish Ministers. Compulsory Lease Orders Question 113: Should local authorities be able to instruct the lease of a property without permission from the property owner? Please explain your reasons. More detail required to be able to provide an informed view on these matters.
Page 22
PUBLIC Question 114: In what circumstances might compulsory lease be justified, and what benefits or drawbacks might there be? More detail required to be able to provide an informed view on these matters. Question 115: If a CLO process was introduced, would the procedures involved in preparing a CLO need to be more onerous than those that apply to a CPO? Please explain your views. More detail required to be able to provide an informed view on these matters. Question 116: If you think there are any other measures or issues that we should be aware of as part of our consideration of CLOs, please tell us more about these. More detail required to be able to provide an informed view on these matters. Question 117: Do you think that the introduction of either Compulsory Sale Orders or Compulsory Lease Orders in Scotland would add any benefits beyond a reformed CPO process, as a tool for tackling long-term vacant or derelict properties? Please provide details. CSOs would allow local authorities to require the sale of such properties, without the need to acquire them directly. This could: • Reduce the financial and administrative burden on councils. • Enable quicker action on problematic sites. • Incentivise owners to bring properties back into use voluntarily. In contrast, Compulsory Lease Orders (CLOs) remain underdeveloped as a policy concept. Insufficient detail has been provided to assess their potential effectiveness or legal viability 11. Assessment of impacts Question 118: Do you have any comments on the draft BRIA provided in the Annex? No Question 119: Do you consider that any of the options and proposals in this consultation document would impact (positively or negatively) on people with protected characteristics? Please provide details. No
Page 23
PUBLIC Question 120: Do you consider that any of the options and proposals in this consultation document would affect children’s rights and wellbeing? Please provide details. No Question 121: Do you consider that any of the options and proposals in this consultation document would have significantly different impact on island communities from other communities? Please provide details. No Question 122: Do you consider that any of the options and proposals in this consultation document would impact (positively or negatively) on people who are socio-economically disadvantaged? Please provide details. No