Consultation outcome

Compulsory Purchase Process and Compensation Reforms: Consultation outcome

Updated 19 September 2025

Introduction

1. Compulsory purchase powers are an important tool that can be used as a means of attracting new investment to town centres, bringing empty properties back into use, driving housing growth, facilitating infrastructure, and delivering positive changes for communities through regeneration.

2. To drive sustained economic growth, the government wants to improve land assembly by compulsory purchase powers to speed up site delivery and the facilitation of housing, infrastructure, amenity, and transport benefits in the public interest. To achieve this, and to give authorities more confidence to use their powers, the government is committed to reforming the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules. The reforms aim to ensure quicker decisions on compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) can be made, the administrative costs of undertaking the process are reduced, and a fair balance is struck between acquiring authorities and landowners in the payment of compensation.

3. In December 2024 the government published a ‘Consultation on Compulsory Purchase Process and Compensation Reforms’ and sought views on a range of proposals. These included making the compulsory purchase process faster and more efficient so acquiring authorities are incentivised to make use of it where appropriate to deliver benefits for communities. Also, to enable more land value to be retained by public sector authorities via compulsory purchase and then reinvested in schemes for the public benefit.

4. The consultation asked 22 questions. A statistical overview of responses to the questions, showing the nature of the responses, is presented below as part of the analysis to each question. Where respondents did not specify a particular answer, these were considered and recorded as ‘Don’t know’. Responses were received which did not relate to the individual questions asked and they have not been included in the summary of responses.

5. A total of 160 responses were received from a range of interested parties from across the public and private sectors, as well as from the general public. The table below provides a breakdown of responses to the consultation by type of respondent.

6. The legislation subject to the proposals extends and applies to England and Wales. All the proposals will be made for England and Wales other than the proposals to adjust loss payments referred to in question 18. These proposals will apply to England only as the Welsh Ministers have devolved power to make regulations adjusting loss payments for CPOs in Wales, and that the Welsh Ministers act as the confirming authority for CPOs in Wales.

Table 1: Number of consultation responses

Type of respondent	Number of responses
Local authority	27
Parish/town council	6
Developer/landowner	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	4
Planning professional	6
Professional association/industry representative body	17
Community/residents organisations	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	1
Members of public	52
Other	29
Total	160

Changes to the power to limit compensation payable for the prospects of planning permission (“hope value”)

Question 1

Do you agree that directions to remove compensation payable for prospective planning permissions (“hope value”) should be allowed to be included in CPOs made on behalf of parish/town or community councils by local authorities under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972 where the schemes underlying the orders are providing affordable or social housing?

Table 2: Statistical summary of responses to question 1

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	22	0	6	28
Parish/town council	5	1	0	6
Developer/landowner	5	9	3	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	0	2	2	4
Planning professional	2	2	1	5
Professional association/industry representative body	6	4	7	17
Community/residents organisations	1	0	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	13	14	25	52
Other	9	9	11	29
Total	63	41	56	160

Table 3: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 1

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	63	41
Overall percentage	61%	39%

Summary of responses

7. Overall, there was considerable support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 1.

8. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

(i). The country needs house building and land values are expensive. Removing hope value will help schemes deliver vital public benefits such as affordable housing.
(ii). Authorities need to be given flexibilities to unlock stalled developments on vacant land which can create eye sores.
(iii). Assessment of hope value in compensation claims can delay or disincentive authorities from taking forward a CPO to facilitate affordable housing.
(iv). The proposal may correct the issue of land banking by developers.
(v). Restricting value to existing use is logical for underused sites with the potential for providing affordable housing to the locality.
(vi). Support for any mechanism which aims to deliver 1.5 million homes target.
(vii). The proposal will provide increased opportunities for councils to work with town and community councils to deliver smaller affordable housing schemes on sites in unknown ownership or abandoned state.
(viii). Parish/town or community councils, through being closer to their communities, are well placed to make decisions on how to employ this power for the benefit of the local area. Their schemes are likely to have broad community support.
(ix). The proposal will bring consistency with the other housing/development CPO powers which allow directions removing hope value to be sought.
(x). Directions to remove hope value should be used sparingly and the use of such powers and their implications should be monitored carefully.
(xi). The proposal may have merit if it is applied to specific cases where development has not been forthcoming such as small sites say, for example, for up to 5 or 10 units, depending on a rural or urban location.
(xii). Support for the proposal but some concerns: (a) resource implications will be imposed on local authorities and especially town and parish authorities; (b) any local authority promoting a CPO on behalf of a town/parish or community council would be likely to require assurance the costs incurred would be recoverable from the respective town/parish or community council; (c) lack of understanding of when the power may be used and the definition of “in the public interest” which could lead to litigation resulting in the delay in schemes being delivered.
(xiii). Removal of hope value should also apply to leaseholders seeking a lease extension and collective enfranchisement.
(xiv). The proposal should be expanded to a wider range of CPO powers such as those enabling transport infrastructure, works of statutory undertakers, and sporting and/or recreational purposes.

9. Those who indicated a negative response made the following comments:

(i). Realising hope value is a part of market value. Removing it will have a negative effect on landowners bringing forward their land for housing. This will result in a net loss in housing delivery and a two-tier market.
(ii). Removing hope value denies fair compensation, undermines the principle of equivalence and is a breach of human rights. It can have financial repercussions, jeopardising landowners’ ability to reinvest in other land.
(iii). Landowners may be deliberately prevented from developing land only for it to be acquired from them at below market value.
(iv). Landowners should be paid full market value for their land, reflecting the prospect of planning permission being granted in the future (‘hope value’).
(v). It may make it harder for authorities to use their CPOs powers as it could: (a) lead to more objections, inquiries, and disputes made to the Upper Tribunal; and (b) increased costs to overcome objections or disputes.
(vi). Removing hope value will assist the profits of those authorities building housing.
(vii). The proposal may discourage landowners from negotiating early land sales and could lead to more CPOs being issued.
(viii). The proposal could result in a piecemeal approach to the delivery of affordable housing on multiple smaller sites that would not deliver 1.5 million homes.
(ix). There are far more issues which affect why sites don’t come forward for housing. Removing ‘hope value’ will not significantly reduce the cost of delivering affordable housing. The cost of land and especially the hope value element is small compared to other factors including the cost of building houses.

Government response

10. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The power to remove the value attributed to the prospect of planning permission (‘hope value’) by directions (as introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023) is compatible with the European Convention on Humans Rights and allows for an assessment in each case by the acquiring and confirming authorities of whether interference with private rights is proportionate and justified in the public interest in that case.
• It will be the decision for individual parish/town or community councils to identify appropriate sites within their areas and the justification for use of CPOs and directions removing hope value. Also, that they have the resources to indemnify local authorities of their costs of taking forward a CPO on their behalf.
• Where a CPO with a direction removing hope value is confirmed, the terms of the direction will apply in respect of the assessment of compensation for the acquisition of all the interests in land included in the order regardless of the land’s intended use.
• The government is of the view a direction measure focused on broader schemes would be more difficult to justify in the public interest.

11. The government intends to proceed with expanding the power to remove hope value by directions to include CPOs made on behalf of parish/town or community councils by local authorities under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972 where the schemes underlying the orders are providing affordable housing. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 2(a)

Do you agree that a decision on the confirmation of a CPO which includes a direction to remove value attributed to the prospects of planning permission (i.e. “hope value”) from the assessment of compensation for land taken should be eligible, where the relevant criteria in guidance are met, to be undertaken by:(a) Inspectors where there are objections to the order?

Table 4: Statistical summary of responses to question 2(a)

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	24	0	4	28
Parish/town council	3	1	2	6
Developer/landowner	3	9	5	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	0	2	2	4
Planning professional	3	1	1	5
Professional association/industry representative body	5	5	7	17
Community/residents organisations	0	1	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	15	11	26	52
Other	10	5	14	29
Total	63	35	62	160

Table 5: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 2(a)

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	63	35
Overall percentage	64%	36%

Summary of responses

12. Overall, there was considerable support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 2(a).

13. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• Inspectors should take decisions on CPOs with directions removing hope value whether there are objections or not.
• There should be a neutral decision maker where there are objections.
• The government will need to support the Planning Inspectorate to ensure there are inspectors with specialised knowledge of CPOs and who are properly trained.
• The change would simplify the process, provide greater certainty, speed-up decisions, and reduce costs associated with delays. This will make use of the power to remove hope value by directions more attractive. Objections would still be heard so no one would be disadvantaged.
• This approach would be consistent with other housing and regeneration CPOs although it is questioned whether the first phase of decisions on CPOs with directions removing hope value will meet the delegation criteria set out in the government’s Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process.
• Decisions should be delegated to inspectors when the CPO relates to brownfield sites and sites that are in revised local plans but which have not yet come forward.
• It is not clear whether inspectors will have the delegated power to issue the decision relating to the direction removing hope value or whether the Secretary of State will still have to issue the decision following a delegation to an inspector. Clear guidance on the delegation process should be set out.

14. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• Directions removing hope value are novel and should be considered directly by ministers.
• Consideration of a CPO with a direction removing hope value will be a complex decision and should be made by the Secretary of State not inspectors who lack the necessary knowledge and expertise to deal with compensation matters. The only instance where a decision could be made at a lower level is if there are genuinely no objections.
• It would not be appropriate for an inspector, who is unlikely to have any expertise in valuation matters, to make a decision with such significant impacts on the human rights of landowners deprived of hope value. The delegation of a decision to an inspector involving a CPO with a direction removing hope value will bring the inspector within the compensation arena.  It is inevitable where a CPO is made with a direction landowners will bring evidence to an inspector regarding the market value of their land to prove why the direction is not justified.

Government response

15. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• Delegated decisions would be made by independent inspectors. The type of land subject of the CPO will have no bearing of how the examination of a CPO is undertaken by inspectors. The delegation criteria set out in the government’s Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process would be used and the Secretary of State will retain the power to recover decisions on a case-by-case basis. The government will update its guidance to make clear its policy that the power for inspectors to be appointed to take decisions on CPOs under section 14D of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 can be used for CPOs with directions removing hope value.
• Inspectors are independent, highly skilled professionals who are required to declare any conflicts of interest when determining cases to ensure decisions are impartial. They are also required to undertake training to perform their roles.
• Where a decision on a CPO with a direction removing hope value is delegated to an inspector, the inspector will either: (a) confirm the CPO with the direction included; (b) outright refuse the CPO with the direction included; or (c) confirm the CPO but with a modification removing the direction where they deem its inclusion not to be justified in the public interest.  Inspectors would have no role in determining how much compensation should be paid in accordance with a direction.

16. The government intends to proceed with allowing decisions on the confirmation of CPOs with directions removing hope value to be eligible for delegation to inspectors in line with the delegation criteria set out in government guidance. The proposal will be implemented by a revision to the government’s Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process to include advice that the power to appoint inspectors to take decisions on CPOs under section 14D of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981(Power to appoint inspector) may be used on CPOs with directions removing hope value.

Question 2(b)

Do you agree that a decision on the confirmation of a CPO which includes a direction to remove value attributed to the prospects of planning permission (i.e. “hope value”) from the assessment of compensation for land taken should be eligible, where the relevant criteria in guidance are met, to be undertaken by: (b) Acquiring authorities providing there are no objections to the order?

Table 6: Statistical summary of responses to question 2(b)

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	22	0	6	28
Parish/town council	3	1	2	6
Developer/landowner	5	7	5	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	0	2	2	4
Planning professional	2	2	1	5
Professional association/industry representative body	6	5	6	17
Community/residents organisations	0	1	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	15	8	29	52
Other	7	8	14	29
Total	60	34	66	160

Table 7: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 2(b)

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	60	34
Overall percentage	64%	36%

Summary of responses

17. Overall, there was considerable support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 2(b).

18. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• Clear criteria and robust guidance must ensure acquiring authorities cannot exploit the absence of objections and the process remains fair and robust.
• The views of residents must always be taken into account regardless.
• There is no reason to delay confirmation of CPOs with directions removing hope value where there are genuinely no objections. The existing process for confirming CPOs with no objections works well.
• It ensures speed and certainty in decision-making and delivery of public benefits.
• It will expedite and simplify the process which will make use of the power to remove hope value by directions more attractive.
• There is no benefit for the Secretary of State to have oversight where there are no objections.
• The proposal is acceptable providing agreements have been reached with landowners.
• The process would need to be clear that affected parties would need to object to the CPO if they wanted to object to the inclusion of the direction removing hope value to guarantee it would not automatically apply.

19. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• It should be made clear to all landowners that a CPO with a direction removing hope value is being made and they should be afforded a right to object.
• Acquiring authorities will have financial interest in the decision and have a conflict of interest as they are the beneficiary. They should be subject to independent scrutiny, including of its Statement of Commitments, to ensure the commitments given are appropriate.
• There is too much political influence at the local level for it to be fair.
• All decisions relating to CPOs with directions removing hope value should be made by the Secretary of State.
• The absence of an objection to a CPO should not be taken to mean anything more than a lack of opposition to the CPO or the scheme underlying it. It does not provide evidence that the substance of a direction removing hope value has been noted and its practical effect understood by landowners.
• The absence of independent scrutiny could create grounds for challenge on the basis that interference with affected landowners’ human rights was neither fair, impartial nor proportionate.
• Landowners may avoid objecting to CPOs with directions removing hope value due to perceived fear of antagonising local authorities or they may not have the advocacy to object. Safeguards should be in place to ensure their rights and interests are not undermined.
• Where CPOs are used on very large-scale sites (such as new towns) the Secretary of State should be involved in the decision.
• It is not clear if confirmation of a CPO with a direction removing hope value by an acquiring authority would also mean the direction would be issued by the authority or whether the Secretary of State would still need to issue the direction.

Government response

20. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The government is not proposing to amend the current process outlined in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 for notifying landowners that a CPO with a direction removing hope value has been made and submitted for confirmation.
• Before a decision is made to delegate the confirmation of a CPO with a direction removing hope value to an acquiring authority, the Secretary of State will undertake procedural checks of the CPO including whether the notification requirements under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 have been met. Where the CPO is facilitating provision of affordable housing, the procedural checks will include a review of the acquiring authority’s Statement of Commitments to ensure it identifies the number of affordable housing units intended to be provided by the scheme.
• If an acquiring authority wishes to amend its Statement of Commitments after a CPO with a direction removing hope value has been submitted for confirmation and no objections have been made, it will be the decision of the Secretary of State whether to allow the amendment to be made by the authority before it confirms its own CPO.

21. The government intends to proceed with allowing decisions on the confirmation of CPOs with directions removing hope value to be eligible for delegation to acquiring authorities where there are no objections and the other conditions for delegation under section 14A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 have been met. The proposal is is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 3

Do you agree that the decision-making function of the confirming authority relating to the making of a direction for additional compensation under Schedule 2A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 should be eligible to be undertaken by an inspector?

Table 8: Statistical summary of responses to question 3

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	22	1	5	28
Parish/town council	3	0	3	6
Developer/landowner	4	8	5	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	2	0	2	4
Planning professional	3	0	2	5
Professional association/industry representative body	10	0	7	17
Community/residents organisations	1	0	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	15	7	30	52
Other	11	0	18	29
Total	71	16	73	160

Table 9: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 3

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	71	16
Overall percentage	82%	18%

Summary of responses

22. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 3.

23. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• It will relieve the burden on the confirming authority, speed-up the process and not disadvantage any party as they do not impose on the rights of individuals.
• It is a sensible and reasonable simplification as it will result in a fair outcome for both parties.
• Support for the proposal providing decisions are made by independent inspectors who are suitably trained, have resource and expertise, and that decisions deliver suitable re-compensation for hope value.
• Clear guidance on the process should be set out to ensure that where such decisions are made, they are not susceptible to challenge.
• Only on the basis an inspector’s decision-making would be qualitative i.e. based on the extent to which the public benefits had/had not been delivered rather than quantitative (going to the quantum of the compensation paid).
• It is to be assumed inspectors would proceed in a similar manner when deciding whether to make an additional compensation direction as the Secretary of State would.
• Delegation of decisions on applications for additional compensation directions should still be in accordance with the criteria set out in the government’s Guidance on Compulsory Purchase Process.

24. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• Inspectors are not always best placed to understand the local circumstances and nuances.
• Inspectors could have a conflict of interest with making decisions on applications for additional compensation directions.
• These decisions should be made by the Secretary of State to ensure impartiality and robust scrutiny.
• It is not clear whether the inspector will have the delegated power to issue additional compensation directions or whether the Secretary of State will still have to issue directions following the delegation of decisions to inspectors.
• A dispute over the amount of additional compensation payable should remain the responsibility of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) not inspectors.
• The layering of processes i.e. compensation decisions by the Upper Tribunal and decisions on additional compensation directions by inspectors is unlikely to be helpful to acquiring authorities under pressure to expedite housing delivery.

Government response

25. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• Decisions on applications for additional compensation directions will involve consideration of:

(a) whether the acquiring authority’s Statement of Commitments has been fulfilled i.e. is the acquiring authority’s use of the acquired land materially in accordance with its stated intentions set out in the version of its Statement of Commitments as at the date the CPO with the direction removing hope value was confirmed; and

(b) whether the CPO with the direction removing hope value would have been confirmed on the basis of a Statement of Commitments reflecting what the acquiring authority has done with the land included in the CPO since its acquisition.

These considerations require an evaluation of the extent of the public benefits that have been delivered against the extent of such benefits promised in the Statement of Commitments within the timescales provided for in paragraph 1(3)(b) of Schedule 2A to the Land Compensation Act 1961. The decision-making process on applications for additional compensation directions will be the same regardless of whether decisions are taken by inspectors or the Secretary of State. 

• The government’s Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process was updated in October 2024 to reflect the process for applying for additional compensation directions.
• Where decisions on applications for additional compensation directions are delegated to inspectors, inspectors will undertake the function of the Secretary of State to make directions for additional compensation where the conditions outlined in paragraph 1(3)(b) of Schedule 2A to the Land Compensation Act 1961 have been met.
• Where a direction for additional compensation is made either by an inspector or the Secretary of State, disputes on the amount of additional compensation claimed may be referred to Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for determination.
• Inspectors are independent, highly skilled professionals who are required to declare any conflicts of interest when determining cases to ensure decisions are impartial. The government does not consider it appropriate to delegate decisions on applications for additional compensation to acquiring authorities as it is important there is independent scrutiny of these decisions.

26. The government intends to proceed with allowing the decision-making function of the confirming authority relating to the making of a direction for additional compensation under Schedule 2A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 to be undertaken by an inspector. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 4

Do you agree that section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 should be amended to make it clear that directions to remove hope value should apply to other heads of claim where open market value is a relevant factor in the assessment of compensation?

Table 10: Statistical summary of responses to question 4

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	18	2	8	28
Parish/town council	3	0	3	6
Developer/landowner	2	9	6	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	0	1	3	4
Planning professional	4	0	1	5
Professional association/industry representative body	9	1	7	17
Community/residents organisations	0	0	1	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	11	9	32	52
Other	9	5	15	29
Total	56	27	77	160

Table 11: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 4

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	56	27
Overall percentage	67%	33%

Summary of responses

27. Overall, there was considerable support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 4.

28. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• It would make more sense for the position to be clear in law.
• For reasons of consistency and removing ambiguity this change is required.
• It should be made clear CPOs with directions removing hope value should apply to other heads of claims where open market value is a relevant factor in the assessment of compensation. If not, then two valuations would need to be agreed.
• Removing hope value from all aspects of compensation would align land valuations with public interest objectives.
• CPOs with directions removing hope value should not apply to land that is retained and outside the scheme i.e. injurious affection and severance claims. Any such proposals should be subject of a further consultation.
• It would be fair for hope value to be removed across all heads of claim.
• If a direction for additional compensation is made at a later point, then the assessment of additional compensation would need to take into account the hope value under the other heads of claim such as basic and occupier’s loss payments.
• It needs to be clear how the government would consistently apply market value assessments.
• It should be made clear which heads of claims directions removing hope value apply to as it could lead to confusion over the assessment of other heads of claim. For example, claims for disturbance, severance and injurious affection, betterment and loss payments.

29. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• Hope value should not be removed from compensation and full market value should always be paid.
• The current compensation regime works and should not be changed.
• It is unfair, will cause legal challenges and undermine trust in the compulsory purchase process.
• Such an amendment would risk further eroding the principle of fair compensation for landowners and disproportionately disadvantage landowners, particularly those who rely on their land as a key financial asset, such as farmers or smallholders.
• The level of compensation needs to be sufficient to fully reflect the impact on the individual affected.
• Reducing compensation would discourage landowners from negotiating early land sales. This would lead to more CPOs being issued, more public inquiries, longer delays and more costs.
• Where compensation for home loss payments and basic and occupier’s loss payments are concerned, claimants should not be penalised by having them reduced below market value.
• If schemes which benefited from CPOs with directions removing hope value do not proceed and the Crichel Down Rules are used, acquiring authorities will not sell the land back at existing use which will cause animosity.

Government response

30. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The assessment of compensation for home loss payments and basic and occupier’s loss payments involves the market value of the interest which is subject to compulsory purchase. Where land is acquired under a CPO with a direction removing hope value, the determination of market value for the purposes of these loss payments would be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the direction. As compensation for:
  a) diminution in the value of a person’s retained land as a consequence of it being severed from, and not being held with, land acquired by an acquiring authority, and
  b) damage caused to the retained land by injurious affection,
  is not related to the value of land acquired under a CPO confirmed with a direction removing hope value, the direction would have no effect. In relation to any increases in the value of a claimant’s other land, this would be deducted from the compensation payable to the claimant courtesy of section 6B of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
• The power to remove hope value by directions is limited to certain CPO powers facilitating affordable housing (which could be part of a mixed tenure scheme), education or health development. The government considers public sector acquiring authorities, in taking forward these schemes, are most likely to be able to justify that payment of compensation below market value is in the public interest.
• The government will update its Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process to provide clarity that where a direction for additional compensation is made, the additional compensation payable will need to be reflected in all assessments relating to market value where hope value was removed by the original direction.

31. The government intends to proceed with making it clear in legislation that CPOs confirmed with directions removing hope value apply to all other heads of claim where open market value is a relevant factor in the assessment of compensation. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 5

Another approach to removing hope value from the assessment of compensation could be to allow the Secretary of State in England or the Welsh Ministers in Wales to issue general directions for sites which meet certain defined criteria. We would welcome examples of brownfield sites suitable for housing in your areas (e.g. through an allocation) where a planning permission has not been sought along with the reasons why. In particular, examples of sites where either: (a) it is claimed the delivery of the scheme with minimum affordable housing provision and other obligations such as provision of public infrastructure is not viable; or (b) the costs associated with the value associated with the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) has made the scheme unviable.

Summary of responses

32. Respondents with positive views on question 5 can be summarised as follows:

(a) General support for removing hope value by a broad direction power

• A broad direction power could facilitate the development of brownfield sites for affordable housing which would make such schemes viable.
• The general public would likely support this approach, especially for sites left undeveloped because of landowner inactivity and causing blight for communities.
• Mixed-use allocated sites should be included in the proposal to ensure all potential sites are considered.
• The threat of a broad direction power could persuade landowners to sell voluntarily.
• The broad direction power should be explored for all stalled developments not just brownfield sites but large-scale strategic schemes with viability and cashflow challenges.

(b) Specific examples of brownfield sites and stalled sites

• Grosvenor Hotel, Bristol: An example of a neglected brownfield site that has become a public safety hazard through lack of action by owners.
• Old Town Dock/Whitehead Steelworks: Underutilised site which remains vacant despite its prime location.
• Bill House, Birmingham: A site with potential for development supported by the local community but stalled due to landowner expectations on land values.
• Glacis Park, Plymouth: A brownfield site with viability concerns preventing its development.
• Mayflower House, Plymouth: A site with planning permission granted but not delivered due to viability issues.
• Millbay Waterfront, Plymouth: A stalled site due to viability issues and the need for third-party land acquisition.
• The Site of former Tothill Sidings, Plymouth: A cleared brownfield site, included in the local plan with benefit of a planning permission. No viable scheme progressed in over 10 years due to site constraints and landowner expectations on land value.
• 0.88 ha brownfield site, Leeds city centre: Allocated for housing and has planning permission for apartments and ancillary commercial space but site not progressed. Engagement with the landowner has stalled on expectations on land value.
• 0.9ha brownfield site, Leeds city centre: Site contains derelict buildings and contaminated land from its former use as a petrol station. Allocated for housing in the local plan. The landowner turned down voluntary acquisition of the land by the local authority due to high value perception of land values.
• Brooke Marine site, East Suffolk: Brownfield site secured planning permission in 2015 for a residential-led scheme of up to 850 dwellings. Foundations for a single plot were installed in June 2020. However, since then, no further construction or planning activity has taken place on site.

(c) Conditions for removing hope value

• The removal of hope value should be confined to brownfield sites not greenbelt acquisitions, unless the greenbelt site does not meet its intended purposes.
• Sites where the delivery of schemes with minimum affordable housing and other obligations is not viable due to hope value should be targeted.

(d) Challenges and considerations

• The approach would not help where the land is currently in commercial use, as the existing use value is likely to be higher than the value as a housing site.
• The proposal is likely to be more effective on rural or open sites than urban sites with significant existing use value.

33. Respondents with negative views on question 5 can be summarised as follows:

(a) General concerns

• Removing hope value would deter landowners from bringing land forward for development. Landowners would also be less willing to engage with local authorities if their land could be acquired at less than market value under compulsory purchase.
• There was a concern the proposal would slow down housing delivery. Also, landowners and developers may be less inclined to promote land for housing if they face lower compensation, leading to fewer housing schemes being brought forward.
• The proposal could lead to more legal challenges against CPOs which would lead to costly legal battles on human rights principles and the right to fair compensation.

(b) Economic and social implications

• The proposal may increase the risks for developers and land promoters who invest significant sums in promoting sites. If the land is acquired at less than market value, their investment could be wasted.
• Public confidence in the planning process could be undermined. The proposal may lead to a perception of unfairness and discourage landowners from participating in the planning system either through bringing land forward as allocations in local plans or planning applications.

(c) Human rights and fairness

• The proposal could contravene human rights, particularly the right to fair compensation as hope value is a legitimate component of market value.
• The proposal would undermine the principle of equivalence.

Question 6

We would welcome views on why you think, in the circumstances of the example(s) given in question 5, the removal of the value associated with the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) where CPO powers are used could help deliver a housing scheme which meets the policy requirements of the local authority and how it would help address the problem outlined in the example.

Summary of responses

34. Responses to question 6 can be summarised as follows:

• It would force landowners to bring forward development in the knowledge local authorities could intervene and acquire the land at below market value via CPOs.
• Where remediation costs are high and the viability of development is questioned, the removal of hope value would reduce the overall acquisition cost, allowing for more funds to be allocated to essential infrastructure such as affordable housing and public services. The land could then be made available for use in line with local housing needs without the financial pressure imposed by inflated land prices.
• Lowering the cost of land acquisition would reduce the risk of landowners holding out for higher prices based on speculative future development potential, encourage quicker land transactions via negotiations, and accelerate the delivery of housing.
• Where scheme viability is an issue due to low rents and high build costs, the reduction of project costs through lower prices paid for land would help viability.
• Brownfield sites often have inflated expectations on land value for the prospect of future development. Development including provision of affordable housing in these areas is likely to have infrastructure in place to support it and the necessity for such housing has great weight compared to the loss of value for the prospect of future development.
• Landowners can provide comparables and justification for not providing affordable housing based on a speculative approach to land sales which can inflate value as authorities begin to process local plans and major regeneration projects.
• Policy compliant levels of affordable housing often cannot be delivered due to option agreements developers have reached with landowners. Short cutting all effort in determining hope value would incentivise authorities to use a CPO rather than seeing it as a costly bureaucratic process.

Question 7

We would also welcome your views on whether, in the circumstances of the example(s) given in question 5, there would be any consequences of removing the value associated with the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) from the assessment of compensation as a result of the use of CPO powers and the delivery of land for housing development.

Summary of responses

35. Responses to question 7 can be summarised as follows:

• It would allow for the full demolition of derelict buildings on brownfield sites which could be processed into housing.
• Acquisition costs of brownfield sites would be reduced making it financially viable to proceed with schemes including provision of affordable housing and public infrastructure.
• The cost implications of land taken under CPOs would decrease and it would encourage their use to stimulate regeneration schemes.
• Likely to have a chilling effect on speculative work to promote sites through the local plan process or in the preparatory work required for planning applications. It will slow down the delivery of housing and result in a two-tier land market.
• Difficult sites would not be tackled by private developers.
• The consequences include more objections to CPOs and legal challenges on human rights grounds adding cost and delay to the CPO process, it would also bring into question the principle of equivalence.
• Present a risk to housebuilders, threatening the commercial viability of many.
• Landowners will be less willing to enter into voluntary agreements to sell their interests to authorities.
• Relocation of businesses would be more difficult and the likelihood of businesses folding would increase.
• Impact on the finances of a wide variety of people and organisations including public and private landowners.
• Removal of hope value would require an exercise of finding the hypothetical existing use value before consideration of hope value which might not be clear in all cases.

Question 8

We would welcome views on whether there are any other categories of sites, other than those listed in question 5, which would be suitable for the proposal. If so, please give reasons why you think the removal of the value associated with the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) where CPO powers are used in those circumstances could help deliver a housing scheme which meets the policy requirements of the local authority and how it would help address the problem outlined.

Summary of responses

36. Responses to question 8 can be summarised as follows:

(a) General inclusion of all types of sites

• Suggestions that brownfield, greybelt and greenbelt sites should be included using a tiered approach to prioritise development schemes.
• Emphasis on ensuring a significant portion (at least 45%) of affordable housing in line with the National Planning Policy Framework is facilitated on site.
• Local authorities should be proactive with use of their CPO powers to break deadlocks with uncooperative landowners.

(b) Specific site categories:

• Brownfield sites suitable for development, especially those with extant or unimplemented planning permissions that have not commenced within five years.
• Privately owned commercial sites including warehouses and public sector buildings that are no longer in use.
• Empty and neglected properties throughout cities which are empty.
• Regeneration sites which require land assembly for larger schemes or are stalled due to uncooperative landowners.
• Land which has planning permission but landowners are not bringing forward the development.

(c) Exclusion of certain sites

• Greenbelt and agricultural land should be excluded to reduce the impact on the farming community. Farmers should be adequately compensated.

Government response to questions 5 to 8

37. The government recognises a consensus amongst some respondents on the need to remove hope value to unlock the development potential of brownfield sites and stalled sites (both in urban and rural locations) to deliver more affordable housing.

38. The government acknowledges the responses submitted which expressed concerns about the economic viability, legal challenges, human rights implications and overall impact on housing delivery and public confidence from the proposal under questions 5 to 8. The government also recognises the proposal could encourage regeneration of certain sites and make schemes financially viable, whilst at the same time posing challenges for landowners and developers.

39. In light of responses to questions 5 and 8, the government considers that on balance the evidence of sites collected through the consultation was at a high-level. Notably, it did not address the specific public benefits which could be delivered by removing hope value from market value compensation payable in the circumstances of the sites put forward other than in a generic way. Also, how the retention of hope value as an element of compensation under the compulsory purchase compensation rules by the landowners of the sites in the examples given was preventing the delivery of housing and/or affordable housing.

40. The government intends to achieve its objective of supporting development including the delivery of affordable housing and infrastructure for communities through use of the power to remove hope value by directions introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the procedural changes to the CPO process being made by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Technical changes to the compulsory purchase order process and compensation rules

Question 9

Do you agree that notices and documents required to be served under the Land Compensation Act 1961, Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, Land Compensation Act 1973 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 should be capable of being served electronically if parties agree in writing to receive service in that manner or where the recipient is a public authority?

Table 12: Statistical summary of responses to question 9

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	24	1	3	28
Parish/town council	3	1	2	6
Developer/landowner	11	4	2	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	3	0	1	4
Planning professional	4	0	1	5
Professional association/industry representative body	13	0	4	17
Community/residents organisations	1	0	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	21	5	26	52
Other	20	1	8	29
Total	100	12	48	160

Table 13: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to 9

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	100	12
Overall percentage	89%	11%

Summary of responses

41. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 9.

42. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• All documents should be served electronically with an option to receive a hard copy on request.  The largest cost associated with a highways CPO is printing physical documents.
• You could adapt the questionnaires under sections 5A and 16 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to state the person would like the documents served electronically and add a clear section for the email address and signature for GDPR agreement.
• It is more efficient and reflects the modern world of mobile phones, the internet, and social media.
• Use of digital technology will increase convenience, reduce costs and delays, and potentially make information more transparent.
• Serving electronically should become the only method and not require agreement.
• It is easier to keep track of communication and ensure important correspondence is received by the correct parties.
• There should remain a paper process for those recipients who prefer to work or are only able to work on paper.
• Consideration needs to be given to whether acquiring authorities’ agents can serve the notice using their email address or whether service needs to be by the acquiring authority itself.
• It would align with other similar processes, for example, Transport and Works Act Orders or Development Consent Orders.

43. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• Email and other digital communications can be lost, overlooked, or delayed due to technical issues such as spam filters or server errors.
• If notices are not properly received or acknowledged, it could lead to disputes or delays in proceedings.
• Requiring written agreement to receive notices electronically adds a layer of complexity.
• It may be difficult for some people to fully understand the implications of agreeing to receive such notices digitally, particularly if they are unfamiliar with the process or the technology involved.
• The only reliable approach is via hand delivery, leaving it at their address, or by recorded delivery/signed for post.
• Protected characteristics should be taken into consideration under the Equality Act.
• Concerns over the mechanics in respect of public authorities and the ability to identify the most appropriate individual within the organisation to serve suitable notices/documents.

Government response

44. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• A balanced approach would be offered to participants in the CPO process as explicit consent would be required for electronic service. This ensures all parties have fair access to information.
• Where parties do not agree to receive notices by electronic service, or provide an electronic address for service, they would continue to receive notices by existing methods. This is in recognition that not everyone has access to electronic services. Agreement to receive notices by electronic service, and providing an electronic address for service, would be a clear indication.
• Guidance will be provided for local authorities to reflect best practice and ensure routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are minimised.
• Where parties have agreed in writing to receive notices by electronic service, the burden of responsibility for responding to an action triggered by receipt of a notice would lie solely with the recipient.
• There would be no legal requirement for read receipts or acknowledgement of notices served by emails for electronic service to be effective otherwise this could create uncertainty on timescales for service.

45. The government intends to proceed with allowing notices and documents required to be served under the CPO process by electronic methods of communication where parties agree in writing to receive service in that manner or where the recipient is a public authority. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 10

Do you agree that the information relating to the description of land published in newspaper notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs should be simplified?

Table 14: Statistical summary of responses to question 10

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	23	0	5	28
Parish/town council	4	0	2	6
Developer/landowner	11	2	4	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	3	0	1	4
Planning professional	4	0	1	5
Professional association/industry representative body	12	0	5	17
Community/residents organisations	1	0	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	18	4	30	52
Other	18	1	10	29
Total	94	7	59	160

Table 15: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 10

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	94	7
Overall percentage	93%	7%

Summary of responses

46. Overall, there was overwhelming support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 10.

47. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• It would be better for the general public to be directed to look at maps on the authority’s website or on deposit.
• Most people need simple information to understand CPO process.
• Printed newspapers are redundant and only digital media should be used for the publication of notices. The circulation of newspapers and their relevance to people has diminished significantly. This requirement remains despite evidence to show news and information consumption habits have changed.
• Provided the important information about the land being referred to remains clear and comprehensive.
• With the advent of smart phones, social media and the use of QR codes, this could go further, reducing and simplifying the process.
• The use of online publishing has removed the need for significant print publication.
• A newspaper notice for a small CPO usually costs a minimum of around £500. This can increase for bigger schemes which are then replicated several times during the process. Additional costs are incurred through consultants or staff time in arranging for the notices to be published. These costs can exceed the cost of publishing the notice itself.
• As newspapers are covering increasingly wide areas, the ability to get a printed paper that will target the relevant community is becoming difficult. It may become impossible to comply with this requirement in the future. It may be appropriate to require newspaper notices to be published digitally or a newspaper notice is only appropriate where the interests in land are unknown and notice is required to describe the unknown parcel of land rather than all parcels of land. This would align with the planning application notification process for unknown land.

48. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• The existing process is not overly complicated.
• It should be clearer but include maps and sufficient detail for a non-planner to understand.
• The population should be fully aware of any proposed use of a CPO.
• Newspaper notices should remain sufficiently detailed to identify the property/land subject of a CPO and provide an adequate understanding of the full impact of the CPO.

Government response

49. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The government considers newspaper notices are of use to members of the public who cannot access the internet, in identifying unknown landowners and those with third party right interests in land.
• The government will consider the wording of section 11 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and whether a clarification is needed to ensure acquiring authorities can meet the requirement to publish notices in newspapers by allowing notices in digital versions of newspapers.

50. The government intends to retain physical newspaper notices at the present time but proceed with simplifying the information relating to the description of land published in newspaper notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 11

Do you agree that where a CPO requires modification to rectify an error such as a drafting mistake or to remove a plot of land from the schedule and/or map, the acquiring authority should be able to confirm the CPO itself by making the required modification(s) providing: (a) all other conditions under section 14A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 have been met, and (b) the proposed modifications are non-controversial in the manner set out in the consultation?

Table 16: Statistical summary of responses to question 11

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	23	0	5	28
Parish/town council	3	0	3	6
Developer/landowner	7	5	5	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	2	1	1	4
Planning professional	2	0	3	5
Professional association/industry representative body	11	1	5	17
Community/residents organisations	0	0	1	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	17	6	29	52
Other	16	2	11	29
Total	81	15	64	160

Table 17: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 11

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	81	15
Overall percentage	84%	16%

Summary of responses

51. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 11.

52. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• It could help expedite the process, save time and reduce unnecessary delays.
• Welcome the drive to further simplify the CPO process.
• The removal of land may change the status of a landowner who would be entitled to compensation on a no-land taken basis. Such a change could be fundamental to the ability to claim compensation on acquisition or early acquisition through blight.
• Providing the modifications are clearly and carefully defined in legislation to reduce the risk of legal challenge and they are appropriately constrained.
• If land is incorrectly removed or added, even a minor modification could have a significant impact on the landowner’s compensation rights.
• Care is needed to ensure the public have not been inadvertently misled as to the scope of the scheme by relying on a map which turns out to be at odds with the CPO text itself.
• Providing all parties agree an error has been made and modifications can be made.
• There would need to be sufficient transparency of evidence, reporting and decisions.
• Consideration should be given to how it would apply where a CPO includes a direction removing hope value.

53. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• It is not overly complicated now.
• An acquiring authority should not be able to confirm amendments to its own CPO as individuals are unable to amend their planning permissions as this is a conflict of interest.
• Where a landowner wants a plot removed and requires clarity the land does not form part of the compulsory purchase scheme, such clarity can only be achieved by the confirming authority’s agreement to the modified CPO. There could be difficulties in future land transactions unless it is clear that the final confirmed CPO did not include the land which was removed. An ink strike through is not sufficient in these cases.
• In the interests of transparency and integrity, the confirming authority should in its notice to the acquiring authority only be able to authorise modifications that are designated non-controversial.
• This proposal carries great risk and the proper management of this risk would undo any benefits it offered.
• This power could be misused if the definition of non-controversial is not robust.
• The lack of a formal objection should not in itself make a modification non-controversial.
• Categorising something as a “mistake” or an “omission” may allow deliberate distortions to be hidden and retracted later if discovered. There should be an independent reviewer to protect against dishonesty.

Government response

54. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The Secretary of State will retain oversight of the modification process and will undertake a check of CPOs to identify what modifications are required and whether it is appropriate for them to be made by the acquiring authority.
• The government will update its Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process with advice on the process for how the Secretary of State will notify acquiring authorities they may make modifications to their CPOs when confirming them.
• As with planning permissions, acquiring authorities would not be able to modify their CPOs once they have been confirmed.

55. The government intends to proceed with allowing acquiring authorities to modify their CPOs providing all other conditions under section 14A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 have been met and the proposed modifications will not be controversial or unfair on a person with an interest in the land included in the CPO or would not likely provoke objections. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 12

Are there any modifications which you think should or should not be capable of being made by the acquiring authority (in addition to the inclusion of additional land in a CPO without the consent of the owner) when confirming its own CPO?

Summary of responses

56. The following comments were provided by respondents on the modifications which should be allowed:

• Modifications to remove interests from the CPO schedule and/or map as well as correcting mapping, grammatical or small typo or spelling errors.
• Councils should be able to make any modifications needed to deliver on house building targets.
• The modifications referenced in question 11.
• Errors made when including land not part of the CPO.
• The addition of open space where the relevant open space certificate has been granted.
• The owner’s consent in writing should be required before a modification allowing additional land to be included in the CPO is permitted.
• Modifications which add wording into the CPO which was agreed between the acquiring authority and relevant landowner during negotiations. For example, wording which imposes a restriction on the way new rights (acquired pursuant to the CPO) may be exercised to protect a particular affected party.

57. The following comments were provided by respondents on the modifications which should not be allowed:

• The inclusion of additional land or amendment of interests without the consent of the landowner.
• Amending the CPO power being used. As an example, land where rights are sought rather than outright acquisition should not be capable of being upgraded to full acquisition and the same applies for land where temporary possession is sought.
• Increases in the rights acquired over land without consent of the owner or moving from acquiring a leasehold to a freehold interest.
• Amending the purpose of the CPO. For example, land acquired via a CPO for affordable housing should not be allowed to become a commercial development by modification of the order.
• Boundary changes of the CPO including increasing the area of land should be properly advertised.
• Where modifications would be detrimental to prior negotiations held with landowners or may provoke an objection.
• All modifications would need to be agreed by all parties and public views should be taken into consideration.
• Reductions in area, value or rights taken should not be considered minor. Where part of a business premises is taken, for example, this will often make the remainder of the business unviable.

Government response

58. The government acknowledges the responses to the question and has the following comments to make:

• The inclusion of additional land or amendment to interests in CPO schedules or maps would need the consent of the landowner to remain consistent with section 14 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
• Any modifications to CPOs which would affect the rights of business owners would need their consent.
• Modifications to CPOs which change the purpose of the compulsory purchase i.e. the scheme underlying the CPO or upgrade from the taking of rights to full land acquisition would likely be controversial and not within scope.
• The types of modifications to CPOs allowed would be limited and listed in primary legislation.

59. The government intends to proceed with allowing acquiring authorities to modify their CPOs providing all other conditions under section 14A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 have been met and the proposed modifications will not be controversial or unfair on a person with an interest in the land included in the CPO or would not likely provoke objections. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 13

Do you agree that the Secretary of State should be able to appoint an inspector to undertake a decision on whether to confirm or refuse a CPO made under the New Towns Act 1981?

Table 18: Statistical summary of responses to question 13

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	18	2	8	28
Parish/town council	3	1	2	6
Developer/landowner	7	6	4	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	2	1	1	4
Planning professional	1	1	3	5
Professional association/industry representative body	9	1	7	17
Community/residents organisations	0	0	1	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	13	6	33	52
Other	11	3	15	29
Total	64	21	75	160

Table 19: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 13

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	64	21
Overall percentage	75%	25%

Summary of responses

60. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 13.

61. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• It would streamline the process without unduly affecting any party, ensure speed and efficiency of the decision-making process, and save costs.
• This would be in limited and specific circumstances, most likely where there is either (or both) limited opposition to CPO and/or only a small area of land.
• Appointing inspectors to take these decisions could bring an impartial and expert perspective to the process.
• Inspectors are likely to have experience in dealing with complex matters which would ensure decisions are based on facts rather than political considerations.
• CPOs under the New Towns Act 1981 should not be dealt any differently to other CPOs.
• The Planning Inspectorate should be suitably resourced to ensure adequate expertise and personnel are secured.
• It would be helpful to apply a threshold, based on factors such as the area of affected land and/or the number of affected land interests.
• Clarity on how the proposals would apply to Wales would be welcomed.
• The decision on any delegation of CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981 should be judged against the criteria set out the Guidance on Compulsory Purchase Process.

62. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• It will depend on the size of the CPO and the scale of objections.
• Use of the CPO power under the New Towns Act 1981 is likely to be controversial and the Secretary of State should make the decision.
• New Towns are of national significance and will attract a high-level of interest. The decision should remain with the Secretary of State.
• Better to have a panel of local representatives in the area affected make the decision.
• The significance of taking away a person’s land should remain with the Secretary of State due to the human rights issues.

Government response

63. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The delegation of decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981 to inspectors would be considered against the delegation criteria set out in the government’s Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process. The Secretary of State would also retain the power to cancel the appointment of an inspector and recover the decision for their own determination.
• Inspectors are independent, highly skilled professionals who are required to declare any conflicts of interest when determining cases to ensure decisions are impartial. They are also required to undertake training to perform their roles.
• The New Towns Act 1981 and the proposal extends and applies to England and Wales. It would be for the Welsh Ministers to decide whether to delegate confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981 for land in Wales to an inspector.

64. The government intends to proceed with allowing the Secretary of State, and the Welsh Ministers for CPOs of land in Wales, to appoint inspectors to undertake the decision-making function on the confirmation of CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 14

Do you agree the temporary possession powers available under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 do not need to apply to the taking of temporary possession of land under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Planning Act 2008 as there are sufficient provisions under those consenting regimes which provide for the temporary possession of land?

Table 20: Statistical summary of responses to question 14

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	14	2	12	28
Parish/town council	2	0	4	6
Developer/landowner	7	2	8	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	3	0	1	4
Planning professional	3	0	2	5
Professional association/industry representative body	8	2	7	17
Community/residents organisations	0	0	1	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	6	6	40	52
Other	11	1	17	29
Total	54	13	93	160

Table 21: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 14

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	54	13
Overall percentage	81%	19%

Summary of responses

65. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 14.

66. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• The temporary possession of land is an important prerequisite for the delivery of schemes.
• The temporary possession provisions under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Planning Act 2008 are sufficient for those purposes. Simplifying and streamlining the system will help all parties involved.
• Support for the commencement of the temporary possession provisions under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 with application only to CPOs.
• Flexibility around the temporary possession of land should be beneficial.
• The provisions in orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Planning Act 2008 are well precedented and understood by practitioners.
• There should be guidance on how the temporary possession power under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 including the calculation of compensation in such instances.

67. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• Temporary possession powers must remain as set out in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017.
• It is important a system based on proper scrutiny is imposed on all temporary possession powers. The experience under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Planning Act 2008 places the entire burden of regulating the system on affected landowners, usually at their own cost. The Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 process ensures the balance between interests of the landowner and the project are appropriately balanced when considering use of temporary possession powers.
• There should be a consistent approach to the application of temporary possession powers across all methods of compulsory purchase. This was a part of the reason for the temporary possession powers under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017.

Government response

68. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• Before the temporary possession power provisions under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 (“the 2017 Act”) can be commenced, the government is required to publish regulations on the reinstatement of land following a period of temporary possession. Alongside the commencement of the temporary possession power provisions under the 2017 Act, the government will publish guidance on how the temporary possession power may be used including the calculation of compensation in such instances.

69. The government intends to proceed with making changes to the 2017 Act to ensure the taking of temporary possession of land under other consenting regimes such as the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Planning Act 2008 are not affected when the power to take temporary possession of land under the 2017 Act is commenced. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 15

Do you agree there should be an expedited notice process for the vesting of interests in land and properties under the general vesting declaration procedure in the circumstances outlined in the consultation?

Table 22: Statistical summary of responses to question 15

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	23	0	5	28
Parish/town council	3	0	3	6
Developer/landowner	5	4	8	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	3	0	1	4
Planning professional	2	0	3	5
Professional association/industry representative body	5	3	9	17
Community/residents organisations	0	0	1	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	13	9	30	52
Other	12	3	14	29
Total	66	19	75	160

Table 23: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 15

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	66	19
Overall percentage	78%	22%

Summary of responses

70. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 15.

71. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• Only where properties are being acquired specifically to bring them back into beneficial use.
• Early acquisition would be helpful for specific types of land, particularly unoccupied properties/land.
• An appropriate safeguard would be to require notice of use of the expedited vesting process to be given at the point of making the CPO and permission sought in any inquiry and confirmation procedure. Justification for use of the expedited process should be provided.
• The expedited vesting process would be appropriate in cases where the asset under consideration is threatened due to its deteriorating condition, where further degradation may result in any proposed repairs not being viable and there is possibility of the asset being lost.
• The general vesting declaration procedure could be flexible on timings if properties are vacant and both parties agree.
• Notices of entry have only 14 days’ notice. 6 weeks would be an acceptable minimum period of notice for a general vesting declaration. Parties could agree a later vesting date if required.
• An expedited vesting process should be an option rather than a default.
• The minimum 3 months period should be retained where there is an existing business operating legally.
• The expedited vesting process should take place where land is unregistered or there is agreement in writing between parties.
• Reducing delays in land assembly would benefit regeneration but cases involving vulnerable occupants must be handled with care.

72. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• The notice period of 3 months should remain. In agricultural scenarios, 3 months is not long enough when losing a large area of land or buildings and in these situations 6 months is actually required. The rights of landowners should not be compromised in the process.
• There should be clear safeguards to ensure landowners are not rushed into decisions that could have long-lasting negative effects.
• It could create a complex position as to whether a minimum 6 weeks or 3 months would apply.
• There is a risk the expedited vesting process could result in increased compensation costs for acquiring authorities.
• The applicable circumstances should be limited to those where the owner’s written consent has been obtained or the relevant property is located in an already-developed area and constitutes either a wasted housing resource or a “blight” on its locality.
• If an owner-occupier of a property suffers ill health or financial distress they may be unable to maintain the property to the point it becomes legally uninhabitable even if they continue to occupy it. Reducing the notice period under such circumstances would add to this distress.
• Non-engagement with notices and lack of objections weakens protections for those who due to mental or physical illness, disability or lack of good quality advice, find themselves unable to reply to, or understand the need to reply to, notices served on them. No response or objection to a CPO would not necessarily mean a landowner would agree to less than 3 months’ notice of vesting. It would require the landowner to object to the CPO on the basis that not objecting would mean an expedited vesting process.
• A residential property may be technically unoccupiable due to, for example, easily rectified issues with fixtures and fittings or it may be currently undergoing refurbishment. It is unreasonable to expedite the vesting process in these circumstances.

Government response

73. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The proposed expedited vesting process would not apply to land which is occupied and fit for ordinary use (i.e. in good condition). This is the same for agricultural land as it is for other land. Whether the land is fit for its ordinary use will depend on the uses to which the land can be put.
• The proposed expedited vesting process would apply where the acquiring authority has not been able to identify anyone with an interest in the property/land or the acquiring authority and owner have reached an agreement.
• The government agrees that allowing the expedited vesting process to be used where there are no objections to a CPO or responses received to notices could result in more CPOs being objected to. This would lead to slower decision-making and delivery of benefits in the public interest together with increased overall costs of undertaking a CPO. This would run counter to the objectives of the government.
• The expedited vesting process could be used by consenting regimes which adopt the general vesting declaration procedure, providing the relevant conditions for use of the expedited vesting process are satisfied.
• The proposed expedited vesting process would have general application to any CPO where the relevant conditions for its use are met. The government does not want to limit application of the expedited vesting process. It will be for individual acquiring authorities to identify where they think the conditions for use of the expedited vesting process have been met. In doing so, it will be for authorities to defend any disputes or challenges made on use of the expedited process.

74. The government intends to proceed with introducing an expedited notice process for the vesting of interests in land and properties under the general vesting declaration procedure where land or property subject to a CPO is unoccupied and unfit for its ordinary use because of disrepair, neglect, contamination, or risk to health or safety. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

75. Having considered responses to the consultation, the government does not intend to take forward the proposal to allow the earlier taking of the possession of land or properties under the general vesting declaration procedure where no objections are made to CPOs or no responses received to CPO notices.

Question 16

If you answered positively to question 15, we would welcome views on whether there are any other circumstances where the expedited notice process for the vesting of interests in land in an acquiring authority should apply?

Summary of responses

76. Respondents provided the following views:

• The expedited vesting process should apply in all circumstances.
• Areas viewed as either in severe need or that can be used to alleviate severe need of another area nearby.
• Where it is clearly in the public interest.
• Where the owner has died and cannot sign over the property or the executors of their estate have obtained probate.
• An expedited vesting process could be helpful for undertaking updated or other intrusive surveys e.g. archaeology or unexploded ordnance, environment mitigation, setting up site compounds so the start of the main works is not delayed, site clearance before the bird nesting season begins.
• Where the occupier has reached agreement with the acquiring authority but the landowner has not.
• Where no surface interests are affected e.g. subsoil rights are being acquired for subsoil cables.
• After the acquiring authority has taken temporary possession of land in advance of compulsory acquisition. This would accelerate the commencement of the authority’s permanent works.
• Where a building or land has been derelict for a long time or poses a risk to the health or safety of the general public or other infrastructure. This includes other environmental risks, for example, a site where there is an illegal waste processing business in operation and there is a risk of more material being left or buried on the site prior to the acquiring authority taking possession.
• For defence purposes to support the needs of National and Homeland Security.

Government response

77. The government has noted the suggestions put forward in responses. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• There must always be a fair balance between: (a) the interests of parties affected by a CPO having an adequate notice period before possession of land or properties transfers to an acquiring authority, and (b) the interests of acquiring authorities delivering public benefits as quickly as possible. The government considers the expedited vesting process should not allow for the early vesting of land/property where land/property is in good condition or a business is capable of being operated, for example, agricultural land. Also, that occupiers of land/property subject to a CPO should be given the minimum 3 months’ notice period to remove any possessions and vacate the land/property.
• The general vesting declaration procedure involves the permanent transfer of possession of land or properties to acquiring authorities. The taking of temporary possession of land would not evoke use of the general vesting declaration procedure and the expedited vesting process would therefore not be available in those circumstances.

78. The government believes the proposed conditions for the use of the expedited vesting process strike the correct balance between safeguarding the rights of individuals and expediting the delivery of benefits in the public interest. The government intends to proceed with introducing an expedited notice process for the vesting of interests in land and properties under the general vesting declaration procedure where land or property subject to a CPO is unoccupied and unfit for its ordinary use because of disrepair, neglect, contamination, or risk to health or safety. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 17

If you answered positively to question 15, do you agree those with an interest in land included in a CPO should be able to enter into an agreement with the acquiring authority for their interest to vest in the authority earlier than the existing minimum three-months’ notice period?

Table 24: Statistical summary of responses to question 17

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	5	0	23	28
Parish/town council	3	0	3	6
Developer/landowner	10	3	4	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	1	1	2	4
Planning professional	2	0	3	5
Professional association/industry representative body	8	0	9	17
Community/residents organisations	1	0	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	1	0	0	1
Members of public	38	1	13	52
Other	16	0	13	29
Total	85	5	70	160

Table 25: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 17

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	85	5
Overall percentage	94%	6%

Summary of responses

79. Overall, there was overwhelming support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 17.

80. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• It is appropriate for those with an interest in land included in a CPO to be able to enter into an agreement with the acquiring authority.
• If all parties are in agreement, there seems no reason to delay matters as the taking of land via the CPO process can take too long. This ensures a fairer process.
• Strict conditions and protections are needed to ensure agreements can only be exercised in certain circumstances.
• It should be clear what is required by way of agreement and it should only relate to the interest of the person giving their agreement.
• There are examples of where the overwhelmingly majority of interests agreed with the CPO and an expedited vesting process would have helped deliver the benefits of the scheme quicker.

81. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• A landowner whose land is being compulsorily acquired is unlikely to agree for their land to vest earlier.
• Landowners should have appropriate representation.
• Where parties agree an earlier vesting date it should be subject to a minimum 6 week notice period.
• If a vast number of landowners on larger schemes enter into agreements it could cause disorganisation and large costs for authorities.
• If additional interests of land/property do come to light there should be a mechanism whereby the expedited process will no longer be effective.

Government response

82. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• Use of the expedited vesting process would be dependent on whether the relevant conditions for its use are met. Furthermore, it would be at the discretion of acquiring authorities whether to use the expedited vesting process and enter into agreements with landowners for the early vesting of their land.
• Included within the power to take early possession would be a safeguard to prevent the early vesting where there is disagreement as to whether the land/property is unoccupied, is in a condition that is fit for use, or an occupier identifies themselves to the authority.

83. The government intends to introduce an expedited notice process for the vesting of interests in land and properties under the general vesting declaration procedure where there is an agreement between the acquiring authority and the owner of an interest subject to a CPO. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 18

Do you agree that the current loss payments should be adjusted as set out in the consultation?

Table 26: Statistical summary of responses to question 18

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	19	1	8	28
Parish/town council	3	0	3	6
Developer/landowner	2	5	10	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	3	0	1	4
Planning professional	2	0	3	5
Professional association/industry representative body	5	1	11	17
Community/residents organisations	1	0	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	7	7	38	52
Other	11	3	15	29
Total	53	17	90	160

Table 27: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 18

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	53	17
Overall percentage	76%	24%

Summary of responses

84. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 18.

85. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• The current loss payments regime is flawed and unfair. The proposal is more equitable and it would mean owners of empty properties are not entitled to such payments.
• These are sensible refinements and seem fairer provided occupiers have enjoyed a minimum number of years in occupation and there are no formal proceedings underway to terminate tenancies.
• Tenants should receive more compensation compared to investor landlords.
• As the occupying tenant bears the burden of compulsory purchase, they ought to have an enhanced loss payment.
• The ambiguity relating to “the value of the interest” when calculating basic and occupier’s payments should be clarified.
• We would welcome clarity on how the proposals would impact on claims submitted under rules 2 and 6 of Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.

86. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• The current loss payments regime works well.
• Fifty-fifty split between landowners and occupiers would be fairer.
• Reducing the loss payments available to landowners will likely result in more CPOs being objected to rather than voluntary agreements being entered into. There will be more CPO inquiries which slowdown development.
• The loss payments regime should be totally removed.
• The occupier’s loss payment should be increased but the basic loss payment should be maintained at its current level. Basic loss payments should not be decreased.
• Adjusting loss payments to reflect current market conditions and inflation would help ensure landowners are compensated fairly for the disruption and financial losses they experience. The maximum payable i.e. £25,000 £75,000 and £300/ha should be increased annually by the same mechanism as home loss payments.
• The land amounts should be based on the same unit of measurement. Currently, the agricultural land amount is assessed per hectare and the other land amount is assessed per square metre.

Government response

87. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The government’s Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process will be reviewed and updated in light of this proposal. Consideration will be given to expanding the guidance on what “the value of the interest” means when calculating basic and occupier’s payments.

88. The government intends to implement changes to the framework for basic and occupier’s loss payments under the Land Compensation Act 1973 to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of occupiers of land for England only. The Welsh Ministers have the power to set amount or percentages of loss payments for compensation claims for land in Wales. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Question 19

Do you agree that the method of calculating the “buildings amount” under sections 33B(10) – 33C(11) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 should be changed to “gross internal floor area”?

Table 28: Statistical summary of responses to question 19

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	16	0	12	28
Parish/town council	2	0	4	6
Developer/landowner	5	5	7	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	3	0	1	4
Planning professional	2	0	3	5
Professional association/industry representative body	3	3	11	17
Community/residents organisations	1	0	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	9	7	36	52
Other	14	2	13	29
Total	55	17	88	160

Table 29: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 19

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	53	17
Overall percentage	76%	24%

Summary of responses

89. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 19.

90. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• The change will align with the commonly used Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Code of Measuring Practice for Buildings. It will make assessments clearer and easier to calculate.
• The method of calculating the “buildings amount” should be changed for consistency with market practice.
• It will assist with situations where a claimant only occupies part of a building, where an external measure is difficult to calculate.
• Gross internal floor area is used by landlords in calculating market rent for commercial premises and RICS in the assessment of rateable value.
• Measuring the gross external area can be difficult in practice and is inconsistent with the market practice for measurement of most buildings for valuation purposes.
• Calculations for measuring gross internal area can be made from building plans which will be a mechanism for speeding-up and streamlining the CPO process.

91. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• There could be resistance to this approach from occupiers who may consider the external area of a building as a critical part of their operational business e.g. logistics, vehicle sales, storage, car parking.
• For landowners with smaller or non-standard buildings e.g., sheds, silos, or farm infrastructure that isn’t traditionally valued based on floor area, the change in method could result in lower compensation.
• The building compensation should be gross internal floor area plus the area of the surrounding grounds.
• Gross external area is a standard form of measurement also recognised by RICS.
• In some circumstances, it will make the calculation of agricultural buildings more difficult.
• Gross internal floor area is not the common standard or practice for agricultural or other types of building. There may be several constraints that make an internal inspection of an agricultural building problematic, for example, biosecurity issues for livestock housing.
• Introducing the change for agricultural buildings could cause confusion and unnecessarily disrupt what has been working without difficulty for many years.

92. Several responses were received which did not relate to the question asked.

Government response

93. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The government’s Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process would be updated to provide advice on how ‘gross internal floor area’ is measured.
• The government’s view is ‘gross internal floor area’ is not inherently more difficult to calculate than other forms of measurement.

94. The government intends to proceed with simplifying the method of calculating the “buildings amount” under occupier’s loss payments for buildings on non-agricultural land by changing the calculation of “buildings amount” from “gross external area” to “gross internal floor area”. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

95. The government acknowledges respondents’ concerns that the sensitivities of livestock could make the internal inspection and measurement of agricultural buildings for the purposes of calculating the gross internal floor area impractical. The government also recognises there may be other constraints with agricultural buildings, for example, biosecurity issues for livestock housing. The government is of the view the change to ‘gross internal area’ for the measurement of buildings on agricultural land could cause unnecessary disruption to the operation of farming operations and disturb the well-being of livestock in some circumstances. Also, that it could make it physically more difficult to undertake the measurement of the internal floor areas of some agricultural buildings due to their unique nature which would run counter to the government’s objective of simplifying the process.  The government therefore does not intend to change how the “buildings amount” for buildings on agricultural land is calculated under section 33B(10) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land)

Question 20

Do you agree that exclusions to home loss payments should apply where one of the statutory enforcement notices or orders listed under section 33D(4) and (5) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 has been served on a person and they have failed to take the required action on the day the relevant CPO which their property is subject to is confirmed?

Table 30: Statistical summary of responses to question 20

Organisation	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Local authority	20	2	6	28
Parish/town council	2	0	4	6
Developer/landowner	6	2	9	17
Business (other than developer or landowner)	3	0	1	4
Planning professional	2	0	3	5
Professional association/industry representative body	4	1	12	17
Community/residents organisations	0	1	0	1
Voluntary/charitable sector	0	0	1	1
Members of public	7	11	34	52
Other	6	5	18	29
Total	50	22	88	160

Table 31: Total number of respondents indicating a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 20

	Yes	No
Total number of respondents indicating a response	53	17
Overall percentage	76%	24%

Summary of responses

96. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal among respondents who provided a ‘Yes/No’ response to question 20.

97. Those who indicated a positive response provided the following comments:

• It would be logical to exclude home loss payments in the circumstances described subject to proper and fair notice.
• It is imperative neglected properties are bought back into use as they are an important resource to address the country’s housing shortage. The removal of these payments will help provide the necessary impetus.
• The burden of neglected properties is an additional cost to the local authority and the public purse. Such cost would be countered against the home loss payment being excluded for the property owner.
• The proposal is sensible and in the public benefit.
• The exclusion should be discretionary for local authorities, as there may be genuine reasons why an owner has been unable to comply with notices which is out of their control.
• An appeal mechanism should exist for exceptional cases, such as where financial hardship or health circumstances have prevented compliance. This would prevent perverse outcomes while ensuring neglected properties do not receive undue compensation.
• The circumstances where payments could be withheld should be clearly identified and also include safeguards to prevent a situation where an acquiring authority’s decision to withhold payment could be vulnerable to challenge or open to abuse.
• Owners should be entitled to a minimum time period to undertake the works required in an enforcement notice/order before the ability to exclude home loss payments is introduced.
• Home loss payments should be claimable if an enforcement notice/order is served post-confirmation of a CPO.

98. Those who indicated a negative response provided the following comments:

• Making this change would essentially be penalising ignorance and it seems unjust.
• There may be good reasons for non-response, such as ill health, financial distress or if someone doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand the notice. It is often not a matter of personal choice and most people are distressed, inconvenienced and discomforted by the CPO process. If a person has failed to take action, face-to-face support should be given to achieve a sensible outcome.
• It would be reasonable for owners to mitigate losses by not undertaking extensive refurbishment prior to a scheme backed by compulsory purchase.
• There may be a tenant in occupation who should still be entitled to the home loss payment. They should be treated differently.
• All persons should receive home loss payments irrespective of the date which they complied with an enforcement notice.
• Owners should be given the opportunity to take the action specified. Entitlement to a home loss payment should be removed if owners have failed to comply by the date possession of the property is taken.
• Acquiring authorities may be encouraged to serve an enforcement notices or orders where they would not previously have done so to avoid making home loss payments.
• Home loss payments should still be due where an enforcement notice or order has been served after the CPO was made.

Government response

99. The government welcomes the support for the proposal and has noted those responses against the proposal. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents:

• The exclusion of home loss payments would only apply where the relevant enforcement notice/order has been served and not complied with on the date the relevant CPO is confirmed. It will be for individual local authorities to determine the appropriate circumstances in which to serve the relevant enforcement notice/order listed under section 33D(4) and (5) of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
• Where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be entitled to compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation, or other costs of the CPO process such as legal or other professional costs.
• The responsibility for complying with an enforcement notice/order will generally lie with the legal owner of the property to which the improvement notice/order relates. Any tenant or occupier of a building which is subject to an improvement notice or order served on their landlord would still be able to claim for a home loss payment where the property owner fails to comply with the notice or order by the date the relevant CPO is confirmed.
• The government’s Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process would be updated to provide advice on the exclusion of home loss payments to ensure the circumstances where payments could be withheld are made clear.
• The tests for the serving of the relevant enforcement notices or orders are identified in the relevant legislation which must always be met by the relevant local authority before serving the relevant notice/order.  The proposal would not create any incentives for local authorities to serve relevant enforcement notices/orders on properties that are in good repair.

100. The government intends to proceed with introducing exclusions to home loss payments where one of the statutory enforcement/improvement notices or orders listed under section 33D(4) and (5) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 has been served on a person and they fail to take the required action on the day the relevant CPO which their property is subject to is confirmed. The proposal is being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Impact assessment

Question 21

Do you have any comments on the likely impact of the proposals outlined in this consultation on business interests both for the acquiring authority and claimants?

Summary of responses

101. The majority of respondents supported the assumptions made in the consultation impact assessment and considered overall the proposals would either provide benefits to acquiring authorities and businesses or have negligible impacts. The only matters to raise a negative response was in relation to the assumptions on the expansion of the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023  to remove value attributable to the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) from compensation by directions to other CPO making powers i.e. section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the proposal for a broad direction power to remove hope value. Views expressed included landowners who would be unfairly undercompensated resulting in financial hardship and disruption to businesses. Furthermore, that it is contrary to human rights legislation to have land acquired at less than market value and would lead to a two-tier market. A comment was also made on the assumptions relating to the expedited vesting process and that it could have negative impacts on particular types of land or agricultural businesses.

102. Several responses were received which did not relate to the question asked.

Government response

103. The government welcomes the overall support for the assumptions used in the impact assessment including the reforms to speed-up and simplify the process and removing administration costs that will be of benefit to acquiring authorities and businesses. The government notes the differing views about the proposal to expand the power to remove hope value by directions and the proposal for a broad direction power to remove hope value.  The government is clear any reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules to be taken forward would be made in accordance with human rights law.

104. In relation to the concerns around the impact of the expedited vesting process on types of land or agricultural businesses, the government intends that the power to take early possession of land without the agreement of the landowner would not apply to land or buildings which are fit for ordinary use i.e. in good condition or are occupied. This is the same for agricultural land as it is for other land and whether the land is fit for its ordinary use will depend on the uses to which the land can be put.

105. In the absence of clear alternatives put forward in responses, and in the light of the general level of support, the impact remains as assessed on the assumptions set out in the consultation impact assessment.

Equality impact assessment

Question 22

Do you consider there are potential equalities impacts arising from any of the proposals in this consultation? Please provide details including your views on how any impacts might be addressed.

Summary of responses

106. Of the 160 respondents to the consultation, 72 provided a response to question 22, 44 of which were not relevant to the question asked. The 28 responses which were relevant can be summarised as follows:

• There are sufficient safeguards in the process to mitigate any adverse impacts and there are no negative impacts on groups with protected characteristics that arise from the proposals.
• The proposals should produce impacts that act in favour of protected groups defined under the Equality Act 2010. In particular, if they result in the provision of additional affordable housing where there is a disproportionate need for it i.e. in Black and Minority Ethnic communities who can have low salaries and incomes, children brought up in overcrowded social housing, single women, deaf and disabled Londoners, older people and young people.
• Reducing land values by encouraging house building should help marginalised communities gain access to housing and eliminate homelessness.
• Farmers and businesses in rural communities may face financial instability or operational disruption if compensation is insufficient, especially if the land taken is critical to their operations. They may be disproportionately affected as they rely on agricultural land for their livelihood and it can be difficult finding alternative land or facilities due to cost or availability. Increased use of electronic communication in the CPO process could discriminate and exclude those people without reliable internet access particularly in rural areas or digital skills, for example, older people.
• These proposals may negatively affect residents but the impact of each CPO should be assessed on an individual basis.
• The proposal to exclude home loss payments could be considered harassment or victimisation to low-incomed, vulnerable, disabled, elderly, and peoples of ethnic minorities.
• Human rights would be affected if the change to removing hope value by a general direction power was introduced.
• There may be negative impacts to some people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 because of the expedited vesting processes.
• Proposals to shorten timescales may disproportionately affect individuals with limited cognitive or educational capacity who need assistance to understand notices.
• Any proposal to extend the power to remove hope value by directions could in very limited circumstances worsen the consequences of CPOs for people with protected characteristics.
• The proposal to introduce a general direction power to remove hope value could significantly impact on the human rights of owners whose land is affected and create a two-tier market.
• Although the scope of the proposal to allow acquiring authorities to modify their CPOs is intended to be narrow, it could be open to abuse. To mitigate against this, there should be a clear notification process to enable affected persons to make representations should they wish.
• There may be an impact on individuals or communities with protected characteristics who require documentation to be presented in a different format such as braille.

Government response

107. The government has noted the views put forward in responses including those relating to specific CPO decisions. It has the following comments to make to address specific issues raised by several respondents but it is unable to provide comments on specific CPO cases:

• Concerns about the effect of the proposals on farmers and private property rights have been noted although these are not protected characteristics for the purpose of the Equalities Act 2010.
• Where parties to a CPO do not agree to receive service of notices by electronic methods, or provide an electronic address for service, they will continue to receive notices by post, hand delivery or leaving it at their address.  Agreement to receive service of notices electronically and providing an electronic address for service will be a clear indication a person is willing to receive notices via electronic communications.
• The power to exclude home loss payments will only apply in the circumstances where a relevant statutory improvement notice or order has been served on a property owner due to the physical condition of the property. This is not dependent on the characteristics of the owner.
• The expedited vesting process would not allow for the early vesting of land/property where it is in good condition, a business is operating or capable of being operated, for example, agricultural land, or there are occupiers or capable of being occupied. There would also be safeguards to ensure the expedited vesting process can be stopped where occupiers are identified.
• The power to remove hope value by directions only applies where directions are justified in the public interest.
• It is not proposed to allow acquiring authorities to make modifications to CPOs which would affect landowners’ interests other than with the landowners’ consent.

108. The government notes a mix of responses were received to question 22 including positive comments on how the proposals could deliver additional affordable housing and concerns raised about how some proposals could impact unfairly on persons with protected characteristics.

109. Based on the evidence put forward by respondents, the government considers it cannot envisage how the proposals will have a differential impact on those with protected characteristics as compared to those who do not share those characteristics. The government also has the view that its proposals will allow for a full assessment by the Secretary of State (or Welsh Ministers for CPOs in Wales) on a scheme-by-scheme basis of the balance between the impact on affected people and the public interest benefit in the scheme.

110. As the proposals will be taken forward via primary legislation, the impact of the individual proposals will be considered further through the preparation of a full impact assessment which will accompany the primary legislation.

Next steps

111. In line with the outcome of the government’s consideration of the consultation responses outlined above to questions 1 to 4 and 9 to 20, the following proposals require primary legislation and are being taken forward by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill:

• Allow the delegation of decisions on CPOs with directions removing hope value to acquiring authorities where there are no objections.
• Allow the delegation of decisions relating to directions for additional compensation under Schedule 2A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 to inspectors.
• Allow decisions to be delegated to acquiring authorities where certain categories of modifications (which do not prejudice or affect an individual’s rights) are required to be made to CPOs where there are no objections.
• Allow confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981 (including those with hope value directions) to be made by inspectors.
• Allow acquiring authorities to take earlier possession of land/property in certain circumstances under the general vesting declarations procedure.
• Disapplying the temporary possession provisions under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 to other consenting regimes including Transport and Works Act Orders, Development Consent Orders and Infrastructure Consent Orders.
• Allow the electronic service of notices under the CPO process and compensation regime.
• Simplify the information required to be included in newspaper notices about the making and confirmation of CPOs authorised under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
• Extend the existing section 15A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 power to remove hope value from compensation by directions (introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023) where town/parish or community councils are compulsorily purchasing land for affordable or social housing.
• Ensure hope value is removed from the assessment of market value under all heads of claims where CPOs with directions removing hope value are confirmed.
• Rebalance the loss payment share for landlords and occupiers under sections 33A – 33C of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
• Exclude home loss payments where certain statutory enforcement notices/orders have not been complied with under the Land Compensation Act 1973.