The owner of a boarded-up home in Penilee which has sparked complaints from neighbours has failed in an attempt to stop Glasgow’s council from buying the property.

Paul Gillespie objected to Glasgow City Council’s bid for a compulsory purchase order (CPO) as it has “extremely high sentimental value” and he planned to return to the Rylees Crescent home.

However, the council said the rundown property has been lying empty since 2006 and attracting anti-social behaviour. Alongside Wheatley Group, it wants to bring the home back into use.

READ NEXT: Glasgow refugee family lives with damp and mould

Following a hearing in February, Paul Cackette, a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government, has ruled the CPO can go ahead.

Mr Gillespie told the hearing that the £60,000 valuation of the home would mean he “will never have enough money to buy another property”.  He said his current home, in Renfrew, is “not suitable for my health needs” and the case has been “a total stress meltdown for me”. However, the council believed it had “exhausted all avenues of engaging with the landowner”.

Mr Gillespie owned the home with his mother until her death. She moved into care in 2006 and the council said the property had not been maintained or repaired since then.

When councillors approved plans for a CPO in 2022, officials reported the property is “creating a blight on the area and is attracting anti-social behaviour”.

At the hearing, Mr Gillespie said he was willing to work with the council, however the council submitted a series of emails from April 2021 to May 2023 which showed “no progress to address the issues identified was made”.

READ NEXT: Worst area for pothole damage claims in Glasgow revealed

It had also been suggested his daughter could move in but it didn’t materialise. The owner believed the CPO was “inappropriate” and limited work was needed to fix the property.

Mr Cackette concluded there were “no realistic or reasonable alternative steps” available instead of CPO. “The current poor state of the property and the adverse implications on the immediate neighbourhood are beyond doubt,” he reported.

“Its current state is poor, it is boarded up and it is and remains in a dilapidated condition.”

He added: “Evidence of an intention on the part of the objector to take tangible steps to restore the property to useful or productive use as a residence is very limited. Past indications appear to me to be little more than aspirational.”

Mr Cackette also questioned Mr Gillespie’s belief that limited repairs were needed. He said it appeared “doubtful” as he “has not been there since 2018!” and “provided no convincing explanation that anyone else had been there on his behalf”.

The reporter added if “the remedial works were as explained, this begged the question why they had not been done in any of the last 18 years”.

His conclusion stated: “It appeared in my judgement to be unlikely that the limited levels of work suggested by the landowner as needed and the ease with which they could be done could readily or realistically be reconciled with the differential values set out in the valuation obtained.

“The prospect of compulsory purchase has not galvanised action on the part of the objector. It is hard to see how removing or delaying that prospect will do so. Meantime the blight on the local area caused by the condition of the property will continue.”