FIFE Council has failed in its bid to buy a derelict piece of land in Dalgety Bay.

The local authority had been seeking a compulsory purchase order (CPO) for a site in Hillend and Donibristle Industrial Estate which has been on the council’s vacant and derelict land audit for more than 20 years.

They submitted paperwork last August to buy and develop 1.32 hectares at Beech Way but the current owners objected and an appeal heard by Scottish Government reporters has rejected the move.

The landowner is United UK Propco 2 Ltd, a development company with its registered office in Jersey, and the plot includes the site of the former Maxwell building which was demolished by the previous owners in 2013.

READ MORE: Fife Council pursue compulsory purchase order

Fife Council, in their appeal, said that the CPO land would not be brought back into active active employment use without intervention.

The Planning and Environmental Appeals Division's report explained: "The council considers the CPO land has remained undeveloped because of constraints in terms of its existing condition and the work required to make it developable.

"The scheme is eligible for the vacant and derelict land fund and the council has a funding commitment from that source.

"Regeneration of industrial estates is a council priority and there is concern that a lack of modern business property and effective employment land is having a detrimental impact on the Fife economy and the region’s ability to attract investment.

"The council wishes to remediate and service the CPO land in order to break its long term vacancy and facilitate its reuse for employment purposes.

"This would support industrial estate regeneration and help meet market demand."

United UK Propco 2 Ltd, however, said the council had failed to prove the order is necessary and in the public interest and said the measure would be against Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights which entitles a landowner to "peaceful enjoyment of its property" and means it cannot be deprived of that property except in the public interest.

Outlining their view, the report states: "It is not enough for the council to show the CPO land is suitable for development, redevelopment or improvement or that there is a planning purpose.

"The CPO land is a fairly typical vacant site. The statement of reasons says it is in a strategically important location, but it does not explain that opinion.

"FIFEplan also does not explain why this small part of the whole should be singled out for compulsory purchase. The development plan contains no explicit or implied suggestion or information that supports the council’s premise that employment use requires to be delivered through compulsory purchase."

The reporter agreed that the CPO was not justified in this case and said an award of expenses should be made in favour of the landowner and against the council.

The report added: "We have concluded that compulsory purchase of the CPO land is not required in order to secure the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement, nor for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of the area.

"We cannot therefore conclude that achieving the purpose for which the order was made is sufficiently in the public interest or of sufficient public benefit to justify interfering with the rights of the landowner."