Case for reform of compulsory purchase strong says Faculty

According to the commission, current legislation is largely out of date and not fit for purpose.

“It makes the work of those seeking to use the system more difficult, and it does not provide those affected by it with a clear view of how it operates,” says the commission.

In response to a discussion paper, the Faculty said it agreed that the legislation should be repealed and replaced by a new statute.

“There is a strong case for reform … the Faculty agrees with the Commission’s view that the aim should not merely be to consolidate, but where appropriate to fill in the gaps and to reflect the courts’ decisions in the new legislation,” the Faculty stated.

One area where the Faculty supported the status quo was in the ability of statutory objectors to insist on an inquiry into a compulsory purchase order (CPO).

The commission noted in its paper that a single objector could delay the progress of a development, adding: “That may be entirely appropriate, having regard to the importance of the issues for the individual landowner. On the other hand, it could be argued that a single objector, perhaps owning only a small part of the land covered by the CPO, should not be able to delay the project. It would be possible to introduce a requirement that only a given percentage of the affected landowners, or only a landowner of a given percentage of the land being acquired, should be able to insist upon an inquiry or hearing being held.”

The Faculty said it was “strongly of the view” that there should be no restrictions on the circumstances in which a statutory objector could insist on an inquiry.

“The state’s right to acquire private property from private individuals and companies, whilst necessary, has been described by the courts as a ‘draconian’ power and is one which should only be exercised after due consideration and due process,” said the Faculty.

“The right to an inquiry should be absolute for anyone that could be directly affected by a CPO, regardless of the size of their property. It is important that there is an opportunity for evidence to be led and witnesses to be cross-examined. The right should therefore be to an inquiry rather than a hearing.

“The Faculty considers that the right to an inquiry is an important element in ensuring that compulsory purchase law remains compliant with the (European) Convention (on Human Rights).”

The full submission can be read here.