Open consultation

Consultation: Future of access to HM Land Registry information

Published 27 October 2026

Applies to England and Wales

About this consultation

The purpose of this consultation is to seek views on a package of proposals to increase the public value of HM Land Registry (HMLR) data and improve access to land ownership information, while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place. The proposals cover a new ownership dataset, changes to access and charging arrangements, public interest access, accelerating land registration, and potential powers to introduce safeguards or restrict access to information where there is evidence of a significant risk of harm.

The consultation is published by HMLR, on behalf of and jointly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). It seeks evidence on the benefits, risks and impacts of the proposals and will inform future policy decisions, implementation and any necessary legislative changes.

Scope of consultation

This consultation applies to England and Wales.

Duration of the consultation

The consultation period begins on 27th October 2026 and will run until 22nd December 2026.

Related consultation: Restructuring HM Land Registry Fees

Alongside this consultation, HMLR is also consulting on proposals relating to simplifying the current fee model contained within The Land Registration Fee Order 2024. While the consultations cover separate areas of work, both support our wider ambition to improve access to trusted land and property information. We encourage respondents to contribute to the Restructuring HM Land Registry Fees consultation and share their views on the proposals set out there.

How we consult

Consultation principles

This consultation is being conducted in line with the revised Cabinet Office consultation principles published in March 2018. These principles give clear guidance to government departments on conducting consultations.

Feedback on the consultation process

We value your feedback on how well we consult.  If you have any comments about the consultation process (as opposed to comments about the issues which are the subject of the consultation), including if you feel that the consultation does not adhere to the values expressed in the consultation principles or that the process could be improved, please email them to futureaccessconsultation@landregistry.gov.uk or by writing to:

Policy Team
HM Land Registry
7th Floor
Trafalgar House
1 Bedford Park
Croydon
CR0 2AQ

Personal data

By responding to this consultation, you acknowledge that the data you provide will be processed in accordance with HMLR’s, MHCLG’s and Defra’s personal information charters.

All feedback will be treated in confidence and nothing that would identify you or your organisation will be included in any reporting or published analysis.

HMLR and MHCLG plan to use an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool called Consult to assist the analysis. The tool is hosted in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST). HMLR and MHCLG will appoint BIST as a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Departments and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation. Where we do, we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

HMLR and MHCLG will take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent personal data from the consultation responses being sent to Consult. The AI tool processes data securely and does not copy or share data. The data will only be accessed and used by those authorised to do so.

The AI tool identifies themes present in the responses. The draft themes are reviewed and agreed by a policy team before the tool then maps responses to the themes to be used by policy teams to analyse the consultation. HMLR and MHCLG will take steps to check for accuracy and identify and reduce bias.  Your data will not be used to train the AI models.

How to respond to this consultation

We strongly encourage responses via the online survey. Using the online survey greatly assists our analysis of the responses, enabling more efficient and effective consideration of the information provided. if it is not possible for you to use the online survey, please contact us to discuss alternative formats through email or writing.

Respond online

or

Email to:

futureaccessconsultation@landregistry.gov.uk

Write to:

Policy Team
HM Land Registry
7th Floor
Trafalgar House
1 Bedford Park
Croydon
CR0 2AQ

All members of the public are invited to respond, along with organisations such as local authorities, representative bodies, communities, and businesses. We are particularly interested in what these proposals would mean for you in your context.

If you are providing a response, please refer to our privacy notice. If answering any questions using a free text box, please do not include any sensitive personal information in your answer. Please only respond to this consultation if you are over 18.

Next steps

We will publish the government response to the policy consultation on GOV.UK.

Foreword from the Chief Executive and Chief Land Registrar

HMLR plays a vital role in supporting confidence in land and property ownership in England and Wales. The register of title provides a trusted record of ownership, rights and interests affecting land. It underpins the property market, supports public services and helps people, businesses and communities understand who owns land and how it is used.

Access to reliable land and property information is increasingly important. Better access to HMLR data can support economic growth, housebuilding, local planning, regeneration, research, public-interest journalism and community activity. It can also help government and public bodies make better evidence-based decisions and provide services more effectively.

Openness has always been an important part of the land registration system. However, increasing access to information must be done carefully and responsibly. We recognise the need to balance transparency, public benefit and economic opportunity with data protection, privacy and security considerations. The evidence gathered through this consultation will help us understand those benefits, risks and trade-offs, and inform any future decisions.

We welcome views from members of the public, landowners, businesses, local authorities, public bodies, researchers, community organisations, professional users and anyone with an interest in land ownership and access to land information. Your evidence and experience will be essential in helping us design proposals that are useful, proportionate and trusted.

I encourage you to read the proposals carefully and share your views. Every response will be considered as we develop our recommendations and continue to improve access to trusted land and property information in a way that supports transparency, safeguards individuals and creates public value.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute.

Iain Banfield

Chief Executive and Chief Land Registrar
HM Land Registry

Ministerial forewords

HM Land Registry holds one of our most important collections of land and property data. This information can help unlock economic growth, support housebuilding, strengthen local planning and regeneration, improve public services, and increase public understanding of how land is owned and used. That is why I am pleased to launch this consultation on the future of access to HM Land Registry information.

The proposals seek to maximise the public value of this nationally important asset, helping government, businesses, researchers, and the public make better-informed decisions. I encourage everyone with an interest in these issues to share their views and help shape the future of land information in England and Wales.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage OBE

Minister for Housing and Local Government

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

The Government’s Land Use Framework was clear that we need to be more strategic with how we use land in this country – so that we can meet our goals for housing and development, green energy, food security, nature recovery and mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. Our land register plays an important role in helping us to plan and deliver strategically and collaboratively. This is why we committed to working with HM Land Registry to both increase access to information on land ownership and encourage completion of the land register. We know the majority of unregistered land is agricultural, so we want to work with farmers and landowners to encourage them to register their land, whilst also ensuring there is ongoing support for tenant farmers who play such a critical role in delivering our nation’s food security and delivering environmental goods.

Stephen Morgan MP

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Background and context

Background to HMLR

HMLR’s main statutory function is to maintain the register of title to land in England and Wales, providing a reliable and publicly accessible record of land ownership and interests affecting land. We mainly do this through title registers, which record ownership details, including owners’ names and legal rights and obligations affecting the land—for example, rights to cross neighbouring land, rights for paths or access routes, restrictions on development, and mortgages—and title plans, which show the general boundaries of registered land.

HMLR’s fees and charging model

HMLR is funded by fees for its services, including for registration, changes to the register, document requests, and access to information already held by HMLR. Customers can inspect a title register or title plan to read what it says for a fee, for example to understand ownership, rights, restrictions or other interests affecting land. They can also buy an Official Copy, which is an official HMLR-issued copy normally used as evidence for legal, conveyancing or other formal purposes. Most information service income comes from Official Copies used in property transactions, with some income from inspection fees for other uses.

HMLR’s most recent Fees Order (2024) increased information service fees by £4, the first increase in more than 10 years. All land registry title documents are currently subject to a £7 fee for online inspection. The increase reflected the costs of running and improving HMLR’s services, including plans to increase digitalisation of data. It also supported HMLR’s aim to remain broadly cost neutral to the taxpayer over the long term. However, as fees for accessing information were increased, it is important to consider where those fees could be a barrier to increasing the public value of HMLR data.

HMLR’s public datasets

HMLR also publish public data produced using the title registers and plans. In 2016 data was made freely available under licence on the ownership of 16% of titles on the register, namely those owned by UK companies and non-UK companies or corporate bodies. HMLR estimate that these datasets on company-owned land boost UK Gross Value Added (GVA) by between £77 million and £139 million per year, in 2025 prices.

MHCLG analysis and stakeholder engagement has identified that further increasing access to HMLR data will increase its contribution to economic growth; land market efficiency; policymaking; regulation; local government planning and regeneration; performing statutory duties; and public understanding of land ownership.

Our proposals

The proposals under consultation target these benefits while seeking to maintain HMLR’s fee income and mitigate data protection impacts.  The proposals are to:

• Publish a new dataset of the owners of significant land holdings on the register.
• Give public sector users cost-free access to information held on HMLR title registers.
• Give all users cost-free access to information held on HMLR title registers relating to commercially owned and significant land holdings.
• Extend public sector access to other users with public interest objectives.
• Accelerate completion of the register of title by exploring options such as linking government land use payments to registration of the land.

Alongside these specific proposals, the government is also seeking views on whether HMLR should have powers to suppress or restrict access to information in limited circumstances where there is clear evidence of risk.

The value of increasing access to ownership data

These proposals are designed to increase the public value of HMLR data. As set out below, they could support economic growth, housebuilding, land market efficiency, government policymaking and interventions, community activity, and public-interest journalism and research. This is supported by qualitative evidence from stakeholder engagement, desk research, and responses to the Government’s Land Use Framework consultation; as well as quantitative evidence on the value of HMLR’s existing public ownership datasets.

Significant benefits could include:

• Economic growth: Easier and lower-cost access to ownership data could enable businesses, particularly in property development, PropTech and related sectors, to develop new products and services, reduce research costs and bring innovations to market more quickly. As shown by previous open data initiatives, wider availability of ownership information could create new commercial opportunities and support job creation. HMLR estimates that its existing public ownership datasets already generate £77 million to £139 million in GVA, with further gains possible as accessibility and coverage increase (see also Annex B).
• Housebuilding: Ownership data is an important input for identifying, assembling and promoting development sites, as well as supporting local authorities’ housing land supply and regeneration activities. Expanding access to ownership data and increasing coverage could reduce the time and cost involved in bringing sites forward and support more efficient housing delivery. Responses to the Government’s Land Use Framework consultation highlighted ownership data as essential for land-use planning and reducing barriers to development across larger spatial areas.
• Land market efficiency: Easier access to ownership and other title information could reduce information asymmetries within land and property markets, helping buyers and other market participants make better-informed decisions. This could improve market transparency, lower transaction costs and support more efficient land transactions. Responses to the Government’s Land Use Framework consultation also emphasised the importance of ownership data being interoperable with other geospatial datasets to improve market understanding and decision-making.
• Strategic spatial planning: More comprehensive and accessible ownership data could support better strategic planning by helping decisionmakers understand who owns land and how different parcels relate to wider spatial priorities. This could make it easier to plan across larger areas, identify opportunities for housing and infrastructure, and support land use that provides multiple benefits, including domestic food production, nature restoration, clean energy, climate resilience and economic growth.
• Policymaking and government: More comprehensive and accessible ownership data could help national, regional and local government better understand land and property ownership patterns and support evidence-based decision making. This could support work on housing supply, strategic planning, regeneration, infrastructure delivery, economic development, environmental improvement, monitoring conditions of protected sites, and stopping illicit finance and waste crime. Stakeholders reported that greater access could enable forms of analysis that are currently difficult or prohibitively expensive.
• Devolution and local decision-making: More comprehensive and accessible ownership data could support Mayoral Strategic Authorities, combined authorities, local authorities and other public bodies to make better-informed decisions about housing, infrastructure, regeneration and land use. Better visibility of ownership patterns could help identify opportunities for strategic land assembly, coordinate investment across administrative boundaries and support the delivery of local growth priorities. As devolved institutions take on greater responsibilities for planning and economic development, improved access to ownership information could strengthen evidence-based decision making and support more effective place-based interventions.
• Economic crime and national security: Giving the public sector and public interest users better access to ownership data can complement the capability of law enforcement and other agencies and ultimately support enforcement action against economic crime. It will improve understanding and awareness of patterns of UK land and property ownership by state actors and entities affiliated to them. This can work in support of national security objectives, sanctions compliance, and the identification of strategic concentrations of ownership that may warrant greater scrutiny.
• Community activity: Community organisations use ownership data to support activities including community-led housing, energy projects, ecological restoration, food production and protecting community assets. Reducing access costs could significantly expand use among groups that are often highly price-sensitive, helping support working together and local participation.
• Public-interest journalism and research: Greater transparency could support research and scrutiny of issues such as housing, land use, wealth inequality, land management payments and illicit finance. Journalists, academics and other stakeholders identified access costs as a significant barrier to this work.

Across stakeholder engagement and the Government’s Land Use Framework consultation, there was strong support for land ownership data that is open, affordable, interoperable and easy to use alongside other datasets, while recognising the importance of proportionate safeguards to protect privacy and sensitive information.

Consultation questions

1. About you questions 

1. What is your name?

2. What is your email address (preferred) or mobile telephone number?

3. Are you responding to this consultation as an individual or submitting a collective response from a group?

• a. individual
• b. collective response on behalf of a firm, charity, public body or other organisation

(3.1 if responding on behalf of a firm, charity, public body or other organisation) What is your name or the name of your organisation / the group you are submitting a response for?

(3.2 if submitting a collective response) Please can you provide a summary of the people or organisations you represent and who else you have consulted to reach your responding conclusions?

4. Which of the following best describes you?

• member of the public
• landowner
• farmer/farm business
• tenant farmer
• solicitors or conveyancing company
• land promoter
• local government authority
• other government service
• chartered surveyor
• Property company (e.g., estate agency, property development, construction, land agent or advisor).
• prop tech academic/researcher
• utilities
• housing association
• banking, finance, or investment-financial institution
• data processing company, or search intermediary
• think tank
• interest/campaign group/political organisation
• other professional
• other – please state

5. What is the first part of your postcode? If you are responding on behalf of a company or organisation, what is the first part of the postcode of the main office? [only provide first 3-4 characters]

2. New dataset of owners of significant land holdings

Our proposal 

As announced in the recent Government’s Land Use Framework, HMLR is exploring the publication of a new dataset with information on the freehold owners of significant land holdings. It is intended to cover most land not already covered by existing ownership datasets, while excluding almost all home ownership. HMLR does not currently have a unique ID for each landowner, so it is not possible to base the threshold on each individual’s total land holdings across all their properties.

We are proposing to populate the dataset using an area threshold applicable to each individual title, and possibly also using data on which properties contain residential addresses to further filter out homeowners.

We are proposing the dataset would likely be similar to the already published data on UK companies that own property in England and Wales in terms of format and accessibility. For example, requiring a login to download, being free under licence, and being published monthly. We would also aim to include information required to make the data interoperable and mappable.

Why we are proposing it 

HMLR’s analysis found that between £77 million and £139 million of annual economic value was unlocked following the release of UK and Overseas Companies data. However, around 70% of registered land by area is not covered by these datasets, and ownership information for that land is currently only available through title registers, normally downloaded as PDFs after payment of a fee per document. A dataset release could enable new uses, as outlined above, such as integration in PropTech and analysis of ownership patterns. By concentrating on significant land holdings, the free public datasets could together cover most registered land in England and Wales, while excluding almost all home ownership.

The significant land holdings dataset would increase the coverage of HMLR’s published ownership datasets from around 30% of land and 16% of titles across England and Wales, to up to 95% of land and 21% of titles. We estimate that if we assume that information about the ownership of larger titles is no more valuable than information about smaller ones, it could boost the economy by a further £22 million to £41 million (see Annex B).

Considerations 

This would have data protection and privacy implications for landowners. While it is already possible to pay to find out who owns a particular property, this would make the process easier both by removing the cost and improving ease of access (for example, enabling users to search the dataset by the owner’s name, with the associated impact on privacy and data protection).  We can mitigate impacts on some individuals by excluding all properties under a certain area threshold. We could also directly exclude land registry titles which contain a single residential address, using address data produced by local authorities. We will also work on a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) following this consultation, to determine what impacts and mitigations we could put in place to protect individuals’ personal data. We will consider further mitigations based on the DPIA process and responses to this consultation.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects people’s right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence. Publishing information about land ownership may affect these rights because it can make personal information easier to find, combine and reuse. However, interference with these rights is limited since information is directly connected to the ownership and legal status of land, is already public and is an area in which the registration system has historically been intended to provide public notice and legal certainty. As detailed above, publication also supports several legitimate aims. The government will consider whether any impact on these rights is lawful, necessary and proportionate, taking account of the public benefits of transparency and any safeguards needed to protect individuals.

We also recognise that the evidence base needs to be tested and we welcome evidence on possible risks and mitigations.

Questions 

Table 1. Illustrative area thresholds for the proposed significant land holdings dataset, showing the proportion of HMLR titles, registered land, and titles containing one home that would be included at each threshold.

What would each threshold capture?

Threshold	Proportion of all HMLR titles	Proportion of all registered land	Proportion of titles containing a single home1
Greater than or equal to 0.5 hectares	6.5%	94.5%	1.6%
Greater than or equal to 1 hectare	4.9%	92.8%	1.1%
Greater than or equal to 5 hectares	2.0%	83.3%	0.4%
Greater than or equal to 10 hectares	1.2%	75.3%	0.3%
Greater than or equal to 20 hectares	0.7%	63.7%	0.2%

Note: This table does not take into account land for which the owner’s details are already in public datasets on UK and Overseas companies that own property in England and Wales.

6. To what extent do you support the proposal for HMLR to publish a new open dataset of the owners of significant land holdings? Please explain your answer.

• Strongly support
• Somewhat support
• Neither support nor oppose
• Somewhat oppose
• Strongly oppose
• Don’t know

7. What benefits might come from publishing a new public dataset of owners of significant land holdings on the register? Please give examples of how you or others could use this data.

8. What risks might come from publishing this data? How could these be mitigated?

9. What minimum area threshold would be the most appropriate to adopt to balance the usefulness of the data against privacy and data protection impacts? To help get a sense of scale, a football pitch is 0.7 hectares. Please explain your answer.

• 0.5 hectares
• 1 hectare
• 5 hectares
• 10 hectares
• Other (please specify)

10. Should titles containing a single residential address be subject to a higher minimum threshold than other titles? If yes, what should that higher threshold be? Please explain your answer.

• No, the same threshold should apply
• Yes, 1 hectare
• Yes, 5 hectares
• Yes, 10 hectares
• Yes, other (please specify)

11. What alternatives could achieve these policy objectives which increase the benefits while reducing risks? Please explain your answer.

3. Give public sector users cost-free access to information held on all HMLR title registers

Our proposal

We are proposing to allow cost-free access to information held on all HMLR title registers for public sector users, including residential properties. This proposal would only allow access for public sector users to view title registers for information purposes. It would not remove fees where the request relates to dealing with land, such as buying, selling, leasing, mortgaging or transferring property. Public sector users would not be exempt from payment of the usual fee for official copies of the register needed for legal transactions.

Why we are proposing it

Our engagement has suggested that the public sector is sensitive to costs associated with accessing information and will make significantly more use of title registers if they can obtain free access to necessary information, especially in local authorities and law enforcement agencies. As described above, this will support policymaking, local planning, regeneration, engagement with landowners, enforcement of regulations, and stopping illicit finance.

Considerations

We are not proposing blanket or unrestricted access for anyone working in the public sector. Access would be subject to appropriate controls, including terms and conditions or data sharing agreements. These would require public sector users to confirm that their proposed use of the information is lawful, necessary and proportionate, and that it supports a legitimate interest connected to their public functions. Public sector users would also be responsible for complying with their own data protection obligations when using the information.

Questions

12. To what extent do you agree the public sector should be provided routes to cost-free access to information on all HMLR title registers? Please explain your answer.

• Strongly support
• Somewhat support
• Neither support nor oppose
• Somewhat oppose
• Strongly oppose
• Don’t know

13. What benefits might come from giving the public sector cost-free access to information held on all title registers? Please give examples of how you or others could use this data including which types of public sector organisation which would benefit from access.

14. What risks might come from giving the public sector cost-free access to information held on all title registers? How could these be mitigated?

15. What alternatives could achieve these policy objectives which increase the benefits while reducing risks? Please explain your answer.

4. Give all users cost-free access to information held on HMLR title registers linked to commercially owned and significant land holdings

Our proposal

We are also proposing to give all users cost-free access to information held on HMLR title registers for the properties contained in the UK and Overseas Companies, and significant land holdings datasets. This will not include changes to fees for the Official Copies normally required for legal transactions. We are proposing to introduce proportional limits on access, for example restricting bulk access.

Why we are proposing it

In combination, the UK and Overseas and significant land holdings datasets will mean data is freely available on the ownership of most registered land in England and Wales. However, title registers contain other valuable data including owner correspondence addresses, details of leases, restrictive covenants, easements, agreed notices and other charges. We believe that providing free access to this information would increase its use and improve understanding of ownership and the rights and interests affecting land, supporting land market efficiency, development, spatial planning and community engagement.

Considerations

Unrestricted access could allow users to copy large amounts of data automatically and republish it elsewhere. This could create privacy risks and lead to unofficial copies of the register being created outside HMLR’s control. To reduce this risk, we are proposing proportionate usage limits to prevent unrestricted access to the data. In line with HMLR’s normal terms and conditions, automated extraction and republication of data from title registers will not be permitted.

Data protection and privacy issues are also relevant, as title registers contain personal data such as correspondence addresses or third-party personal data and this proposal would potentially make this personal data easier to access. We expect titles relating to significant land holdings owned by individuals to be more likely to contain personal data than titles owned by companies. We will also work on a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) following this consultation to inform our approach to protecting personal data. We will consider further mitigations based on the DPIA process and responses to this consultation.

In terms of wider privacy concerns, we consider that increasing access to the title register supports a legitimate objective, by providing information that is necessary to understand the legal effect and context of entries appearing on the register, including easements, rights of way, restrictive covenants and other interests affecting land.

This information is already available from HMLR for a fee and supports the efficient operation of the property market by helping people understand land ownership, control, rights and obligations affecting land. The proposal is about whether controlled cost-free access to this existing information for certain properties could make it easier for wider uses relating to the land market, housebuilding, community activities, spatial planning and other economic activities.

After consultation, the government will assess the proposals to understand any potential interference with Article 8 rights and whether it would be lawful, necessary and proportionate. We will also carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment to inform measures to protect personal data, including any safeguards needed before final decisions are made.

Questions

16. To what extent do you agree with allowing cost-free access to information held on all HMLR title registers linked to properties in the UK and Overseas Companies dataset? This represents around 16% of titles, covering around 30% of land in England and Wales. Please explain your answer.

• Strongly support
• Somewhat support
• Neither support nor oppose
• Somewhat oppose
• Strongly oppose
• Don’t know

17. To what extent do you agree with allowing cost-free access to information held on all HMLR title registers for the properties linked to the significant land holdings dataset described above? Depending on thresholds chosen, this represents about 1-5% of properties, covering approximately 50-65% of land in England and Wales. Please explain your answer.

• Strongly support
• Somewhat support
• Neither support nor oppose
• Somewhat oppose
• Strongly oppose
• Don’t know

18. What benefits might come from providing all users with controlled cost-free access to title registers, such as a PDF, rather than just data with owners’ names? Please give examples of how you or others could use this data.

19. What risks or unintended consequences might come from providing all users with controlled cost-free access to title registers, such as a PDF, rather than just data with owners’ names? How could these be mitigated?

20. What alternatives could achieve these policy objectives which increase the benefits while reducing risks? Please explain your answer.

5. Extend public sector access to other users acting in the public interest 

Our proposal 

We are proposing that some non-public-sector users should be able to apply for special access to HMLR data where they can show a clear public interest objective. This could include, for example, regulators and researchers. This might cover limited data sharing and/ or limited cost-free access to title registers, including residential properties, with clear limitations on access and how this data is used.

We are proposing this would be governed by broad rules, with the application of these rules considered on a case-by-case basis by HMLR. We are proposing this should include ensuring access is:

• based on a specific and evidenced public interest use case,

• subject to assessment rather than automatic entitlement,

• lawful, proportionate and secure,

• designed to prevent commercial advantage without public benefit, misuse and speculative large-scale access.

Why we are proposing it 

Journalists, researchers and others already use HMLR data to inform the public, including through the Freedom of Information process. We understand that some public interest uses may not be well served by existing routes. This proposal would provide a clearer, controlled route for access where there is a specific public interest objective.

Considerations 

We are proposing that applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis with guidelines designed to prevent misuse as above, such as the requirements for secure storage, user authentication and periodic review. Data access would follow data protection rules including proportionality, data minimisation, ensuring secure access, and audit. We will also work on a full Data Protection Impact Assessment following this consultation. We will consider further mitigations based on the DPIA process and responses to this consultation.

We recognise that this type of access framework could raise questions about fairness, transparency of decision-making, access to personal data, and whether access arrangements could unintentionally benefit particular organisations. We welcome evidence on these issues and on potential mitigations.

Questions

21. To what extent do you support the introduction of a public interest access framework? Please explain your answer. - Strongly support - Somewhat support - Neither support nor oppose - Somewhat oppose - Strongly oppose - Don’t know

22. What benefits might come from the introduction of a public interest access framework? Please give examples of how you or others could use this data.

23. What risks or unintended consequences might come from the introduction of a public interest access framework? How could these be mitigated?

24. What alternatives could achieve these policy objectives which increase the benefits while reducing risks? Please explain your answer.

6. Accelerate completion of the register of title by exploring options including linking land public payment schemes to registration of the land 

Our proposal 

As set out in the Government’s Land Use Framework, despite registration being mandatory since 1990, around 10% of land in England and Wales remains unregistered, with approximately 58% of this unregistered land being agricultural and a further 20% natural landscapes. Therefore, we are exploring options to close this gap.

These options could range from encouraging completion to making registration a condition for public payment schemes relating to land use.  This would support HMLR’s objective of accelerating completion of the land register. Through this consultation, we are seeking views on options available, including potential risks and adverse impacts of introducing a land registration requirement.

We will engage with the Welsh Government to explore options for supporting land registration in Wales, recognising that while land registration is reserved, the administration of relevant public payment schemes in Wales is devolved.

Why we are proposing it 

While 90% of land in England and Wales is now registered, completing the register would provide substantial economic and practical benefits. Registration guarantees ownership, reduces the risk of fraud, supports efficient property transactions and portfolio management, and improves transparency about who owns land. HMLR has taken a range of approaches over time to increase the registration of unregistered land in England and Wales, including proactive work to encourage participation in its Voluntary Registration Programme. This included incentives such as reduced registration fees for participants. We are now exploring options, including whether linking access to land public payment schemes to land registration could help accelerate completion of the register of title.

Stakeholders, including developers, land promoters, infrastructure providers, environmental regulators, environmental and farming organisations, local authorities, Homes England and community organisations, consistently identify unregistered land as a barrier to development, land assembly and engagement with land. These delays range from the routine time and cost of establishing ownership to more significant cases where unknown ownership or outstanding registration issues prevent making progress on entire developments. Completing the register would also support public transparency by helping the public better understand land ownership patterns and identify the ultimate beneficiaries of public payment schemes linked to land use.

We have undertaken an initial assessment of the impact on registration volumes and HMLR’s capacity to absorb additional applications, supported by qualitative evidence on the benefits of accelerating registration. This consultation will help build the evidence base and inform any subsequent detailed impact assessment.

Considerations 

We want to avoid these proposals leading to reduced access to land payment schemes. This is why we welcome views and evidence on this from respondents on options, and potential risks or adverse effects on certain groups of these options. We will supplement these responses with further engagement and exploration of risks and mitigations.

We are particularly interested in potential impacts on certain types of land management payment recipients. We are committed to a model that does not negatively impact tenant farmers where the land they rent is unregistered due to inaction of their landlord or any delays to the registration process.

The impacts on HMLR will also need to be carefully considered to avoid impacting other HMLR customer services. Assuming registrations of land included in public payment schemes relating to land use, were spread over a 6-year period, we estimate this would require HMLR to invest around £3-8m a year in additional caseworkers (equivalent to 0.6% to 1.5% of current HMLR income) (see Annex B).

If we were to consider linking eligibility for public payment schemes relating to land to registered land, this could be seen as a means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring accurate verification, reducing the risk of fraud and error, helping with efficient administration of public funds and supporting a comprehensive system of land registration.

We recognise that linking registration to eligibility for public payment schemes could impose costs and administrative burdens on some landowners. We are particularly interested in views and supporting evidence on whether such an approach would be proportionate, what alternatives could achieve similar outcomes, and what exemptions or transitional arrangements would be required.

Questions

25. To what extent do you agree that action should be taken to encourage the completion of the register of titles? Please explain your answer. - Strongly support - Somewhat support - Neither support nor oppose - Somewhat oppose - Strongly oppose - Don’t know

26. To what extent do you agree with our proposal that in the long term, land should normally need to be registered with HMLR to receive government funding for land-based activities? Please explain your answer. - Strongly support - Somewhat support - Neither support nor oppose - Somewhat oppose - Strongly oppose - Don’t know

27. What benefits might come from linking land payments to registration? Please give examples of how you or others could use this data.

28. What risks or unintended consequences might come from linking land payments to registration? How could these be mitigated?

29. What alternatives could achieve these policy objectives of completing the register of titles which increase the benefits while reducing risks? Please explain your answer.

7. Exploring introductions of safeguards and wider powers to suppress or restrict access to information 

Our proposal 

We are seeking views on whether HMLR should firstly, introduce safeguards for their publications, and secondly have powers to suppress or restrict access to information on the register of titles in limited circumstances where public access could create a significant risk of harm. These might include a formal application process for individuals who can provide evidence of serious risks, such as personal safety concerns, domestic abuse, harassment, intimidation or other vulnerabilities, or those with national security concerns.

Suppression would involve legislative change to restrict public access to certain titles in any form, potentially including restricting the ability of the public to download certain titles.

Safeguarding would relate to changes to HMLR policies governing the content of, and access to, non-statutory services (such as public datasets). Depending on the service in question this might include things like user authentication; monitoring and audit arrangements; limits on bulk access; restrictions on automated extraction; allowing opt outs for vulnerable individuals; or terms and conditions governing reuse

Why are we proposing it 

As proposals in this consultation could increase publication of, and access to, HMLR information, we want to understand whether additional safeguards are needed to ensure that greater transparency is delivered responsibly. We recognise that making information easier to find, combine and reuse may raise concerns for some individuals, particularly where publication could affect personal safety, privacy or security. HMLR has also received correspondence, including letters from Members of Parliament on behalf of constituents, asking for personal information to be removed from the register of title. This consultation therefore seeks evidence on the types of risks that may arise, whether existing protections remain sufficient, and whether HMLR should have additional powers to suppress or restrict access to information in limited circumstances where there is clear evidence of a significant risk of harm.

Considerations 

Any safeguards or suppression arrangements would need to be carefully targeted, so they protect individuals at genuine risk while preserving the openness and reliability of the register. The consultation asks whether safeguards or suppression should be available where there is clear evidence of risk and what evidence should be required.

Questions

30. To what extent do you agree with the proposal that HMLR introduce safeguards in limited circumstances where publication creates a significant risk of harm?  Please explain your answer. - Strongly support - Somewhat support - Neither support nor oppose - Somewhat oppose - Strongly oppose - Don’t know

31. To what extent do you agree with the proposal that HMLR have powers to suppress or restrict access to information in limited circumstances where access creates a significant risk of harm?  Please explain your answer. - Strongly support - Somewhat support - Neither support nor oppose - Somewhat oppose - Strongly oppose - Don’t know

32. Which of the following risks are of greatest concern and, in your view, may justify restrictions on access to information in certain circumstances? Please explain your answer. - personal safety concerns; - harassment, stalking, or intimidation; - risks related to domestic abuse-related or coercive control; - fraud, identity crime or financial exploitation; - reputational harm; - misuse of personal information; - national security; - international relations; - other (please specify)

33. Have you experienced, observed or become aware of any risks arising from the publication of or access to information held by HMLR or similar organisations? Please provide evidence or examples where possible.

34. What evidence should an applicant be required to provide when seeking suppression of information?

8. Equality and Impact Considerations

Under the Public Sector Equality Duty, the government is required to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010,

• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it,

• encourage good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it

On consideration of the effect these proposals may have on people with protected characteristics under the Public Sector Equalities Act 2010, our initial assessment is that they would have no adverse impact.

We have considered that certain sections of the population might be more vulnerable to fraud or criminal activity than others. The government is mindful of its obligations under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Respondents are invited to provide evidence on whether the proposals could have differential impacts on persons who share protected characteristics and whether any mitigating measures should be considered.

35. Do you consider there to be any risks of these proposals relating to impacts on specific protected characteristics? Please explain your answer.

Annex A: Terminology and abbreviations in this document

Basic Payment Scheme (BPS): a former agricultural payment scheme that paid farmers and land managers based mainly on the eligible land they managed. In this document, BPS data is used to help estimate land linked to land-based payments.

Charge: an entry on the title register showing that someone has a legal financial interest in the land or property, usually because money is owed. A mortgage is a common example.

Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA): an assessment used to identify and reduce risks to people’s personal data before decisions are made about how information will be used or shared.

Data sharing agreement: a formal agreement between organisations that sets out what data will be shared, why it is being shared, how it can be used, and what safeguards must be in place to protect it.

Easement: a legal right to use another person’s land for a specific purpose, such as access, drainage, pipes or cables.

Freehold: ownership of land or property for an unlimited period. A freehold owner owns the property outright, subject to any rights, restrictions or charges recorded on the title register.

Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR): principles for making data easier to find, access, combine with other data and reuse.

Gross Value Added (GVA): a measure of the value added to the economy by an activity, sector or area.

Inspecting a title register: viewing the information in a title register. This lets a customer read what the register says, but it is not the same as buying an Official Copy for use as formal evidence.

Lease: a legal agreement that gives someone the right to use land or property for a set period of time. The lease will usually set out the rights and responsibilities of the leaseholder and the freeholder.

Official Copies: official HMLR-issued copies of title registers, title plans or other register documents. They are normally used as formal evidence in legal, conveyancing or other official processes.

PropTech: technology used in the property sector. This can include digital tools, data services and software that help people understand, manage, buy, sell, develop or use land and property.

Public interest access: access to HMLR information for a specific purpose that benefits the public, such as research, public scrutiny, regulation or other work that supports public understanding or public services.

Public payment schemes relating to land: schemes where public money is paid to people or organisations for activities linked to land or land use. This may include payments for farming, environmental improvements, nature recovery, woodland creation or other land management activities.

Public sector: organisations that provide public services or carry out public functions, such as central government, local authorities, police forces and other public bodies.

Registered land: land where ownership and other legal interests have been recorded by HMLR on the land register. This allows people to check who owns the land and what rights or restrictions affect it.

Registered properties: properties that have been entered on the land register and given a title number by HMLR. A registered property may include land, buildings, or both.

Register of title: the official record held by HM Land Registry for a registered piece of land or property. It shows information such as who owns it, the type of ownership, and any rights, restrictions, charges or other interests affecting it.

Restrictive covenant: a legal restriction that limits what an owner can do with their land or property. For example, it may restrict building work, certain business uses or changes to the property.

Suppression or restricted access: limiting access to information that would otherwise be available, where there is a clear reason to do so, for example to protect someone at serious risk of harm.

Title plans: plans held by HMLR that show the general boundaries of registered land. They should be read with the title register.

Title registers: the records held by HMLR for registered land. A title register usually shows who owns the land, the type of ownership, and rights, restrictions, charges or other interests affecting the land.

Unregistered land: land that has not yet been entered on the land register. Ownership is usually proved through title deeds or other historic documents.

Annex B: Calculations

Contribution of significant land holdings dataset to economic growth

In the build-up to the 2021 Spending Review, HMLR developed a Data Valuation Model. This aimed to value HMLR’s public data in its current state, as well as to evidence the value uplift expected by applying Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR) enhancements.

Evidence on use was collected from desk research as well as external stakeholder engagement meetings with a mix of public and private sector organisations, and a survey issued to additional customers. It considered impacts on direct users only in terms of increasing capability, revenue generation and cost-savings. Then whether the impact was economic, social, environmental or financial, and the scale of that impact adjusted for how critical HMLR data was to those users. In general, the value of the data is primarily in relatively small but numerous impacts. The model and results were not published, but a case study of the valuation was published by the Geospatial Commission which provides further detail on the methodology.

The original model estimated that the UK and Overseas Companies ownership datasets boosted the economy by £65-119m a year in 2021 prices, with an expectation this would rise by up to 12% once FAIR enhancements were made. HMLR reviewed this in 2025 and adjusted the value to £77m to £139m. Some of the FAIR enhancements are being made now so this value should rise further.

The proposed significant land holdings dataset would increase the coverage of HMLR’s public ownership datasets from around 16% of titles and 30% of land across England and Wales, to around 21% of titles and 95% of land. Given the significant land holdings dataset would be directly analogous to these other ownership datasets, we can estimate its contribution to the economy by extrapolating from the results of HMLR’s valuation of the other public datasets. Based on the increase in coverage of the title register (16% to 21% of titles), we estimate that even if the information in larger titles is no more valuable than the information in smaller ones, the significant land holdings dataset would boost the economy by a further £22 million to £41 million.

Estimating the amount of unregistered land in receipt of land payments, the costs to HMLR of registering it, and the proportion of land payment claimants affected

HMLR analysis found that owners of three-fifths of all unregistered land in England were in receipt of a Basic Payments Scheme (BPS) payment in 2023 (as well as more than two-thirds of unregistered land in Wales). Future land payment programmes are expected to have a similar distribution. Therefore, if all land in receipt of land payments was registered, we would expect this to capture around three-fifths of remaining unregistered land in England.

Based on the distribution and density of registered land titles in land receiving BPS payments, we estimate the unregistered land in England which received BPS payments in 2023 is equivalent to about 71,000 to 288,000 additional Land Registry titles (with a midpoint of 180,000). Drawing on data on the distribution and density of all registered land titles we have further estimated that remaining unregistered properties in England will amount to around 1.8 million additional land registry titles (and around 0.15 million in Wales). Therefore, we estimate that this proposal would lead to the registration of approximately 10% of remaining unregistered titles. Most of the remainder would be small urban titles which will largely not be impacted by the reforms proposed here, however, we should expect some of them to be subject to existing registration triggers over the coming decades.

Using data on the typical time taken to work on first registrations, we estimate that if registrations of land included in public payment schemes relating to land use were spread over a 6-year period, HMLR would need to recruit between 68-172 additional full-time employees to avoid impacts to other services. This would cost between £3 million to £8 million each year (0.6% to 1.5% of HMLR’s current annual income). Registrations would not increase until at least 2029, meaning this will fall in the next Spending Review period.

While this would have a major impact on reducing unregistered land, it would not affect most land payment claimants as most land linked to public land payments is already registered. 84% of individual Basic Payment Scheme payments in 2023 were for land parcels that were more than 95% registered. Since the remaining 5% is likely most often a boundary error from comparing the Rural Land Register and HMLR datasets, we estimate that 84% of properties claiming land management payments would be unaffected by this proposal.