When it comes to regeneration, Compulsory Purchase Orders – the power to acquire land and property without the consent of the owner – have long been an important tool for assembling land needed to help deliver developments which deliver social, environmental and economic change.

In July 2021 the government’s High Street Strategy emphasised the role of compulsory purchase as a catalyst for regeneration in town centres and high streets which are seeing persistent long-term empty properties, and where there are complex and fragmented land ownership patterns.

Now, the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill seeks to make this current process clearer, faster and fairer, empowering local decision making and improve transparency regarding local authorities’ power to acquire brownfield land compulsorily for regeneration in their area.

Its key points are outlined here:

• Firstly the Bill seeks a new Section 226(1B) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – the main CPO power used for urban regeneration schemes – to make it explicit that CPO powers can be used for regeneration purposes in addition to existing provisions in the 1990 Act for the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement of land.
• Clause 141 requires the publication of the making and confirmation of a CPO on an ‘appropriate website’ in addition to the usual newspaper notices.
• Meanwhile Clause 142 brings about a change to the confirmation process, with the aim of speeding it up. Save for where an order is subject to special parliamentary procedure, there would be no automatic right for a public local inquiry to be held in the event there are objections to a CPO.
• The Bill also proposes that the confirming authority can decide whether there will be an inquiry or a shorter and quicker representations procedure to determine the CPO, depending on the scale and complexity of the project. This is welcome news for those promoting much-needed regeneration schemes across the country where the costs of hosting a public inquiry can be prohibitive as well as disproportionately time consuming, both of which can potentially deter the promotion of smaller scale projects. Attending a public inquiry may also be impractical for objectors, for instance clashing with the working week. Still, careful consideration will need to be given to an objector’s human rights to ensure that any representation process provides sufficient ability for them to put forward their case comprehensibly otherwise it may provide grounds for challenge.
• Clause 146 is useful as it seeks to extend the current three-year period for implementing the CPO. Most transport and infrastructure schemes have five years for implementing their CPOs.
• There is also a provision to allow the acquiring authority to agree with the owner of any interest in land a later vesting date to that specified in notices send to the owner following the execution of a general vesting date. The current regime does not allow any flexibility once a general vesting notice has been served with the interest automatically vesting in the acquiring authority on a specific date. This can create issues where the acquiring authority is not sufficient prepared to take possession and manage the land on the specified date.   

There are other areas that give rise to concerns, however:

• Further procedural changes include the ability to confirm a CPO subject to conditions, for example a condition to demonstrate funds are in place for the scheme. This will need to be given careful consideration otherwise there is a risk that a scheme could be brought forward without sufficient justification of a compelling case in the public interest.
• Finally, presumably further guidance on the granting of CPOs subject to conditions will be provided in due course but based on the wording in the Bill I am not convinced this is a feasible step and could create unworkable difficulties for authorities.  For example, if there is a condition requiring the authority to reach agreement with a specific objector(s) prior to final confirmation that might inadvertently give that objector greater negotiating power. From an objector perspective there may be schemes granted over their property, subject to condition, which, in reality, have little chance of success.   

Looking wider, the Bill’s accompanying Policy Paper refers to reforming the assessment of compensation for the value attributed to prospective planning permission (hope value), something which has been tinkered with previously but so far has avoided wholesale reform. Planning assumptions continue to be a grey area of CPO law and can create significant variances in values between respective parties often leading to dispute which ultimately lead to parties incurring significant costs arising from third party resolution. Changes are necessary to simplify the assessment of hope value so that all parties can apply them fairly and avoid dispute.    

The paper also refers to providing access to ‘expertise’ on CPOs to authorities and, most importantly, a review of the CPO law with the Law Commission. In 2003, the Law Commission recommended sweeping reforms to CPO law with the aim of simplifying and consolidating the many Acts and case law which make up the ‘compulsory purchase code’. It feels to me that the faster, fairer and clearer intentions of the Bill make this a good time to dust off and refresh the previous Law Commission recommendations in parallel with the Bill’s assent through parliament. 

It is worth keeping these changes in mind as the Bill makes its journey through parliament. While most of its content centres on minor but important changes towards improving the process of regeneration, if this major policy recommendation makes it into the final version, we should prepare for fundamental changes to the system in the years ahead.