Compulsory Purchase and Compensation

Department of Transport,
Local Government and the Regions

Response from the Open Spaces Society, March 2002

1

The Open Spaces Society, founded in 1865, is Britain’s oldest national conservation body.  A registered charity, we campaign to create and conserve common land, village greens, open spaces and rights of public access, in town and country, in England and Wales.  We have 2330 members consisting of individuals, organisations and local authorities. 

2

We are the leading pressure group concerned with the protection, management and public enjoyment of common land, village greens and open spaces, and we are consulted by DEFRA and the National Assembly for Wales on all applications for works on common land made under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, section 23 of the National Trust Act 1971 and similar legislation.

 

Chapter 1
 

3

We are concerned that unless the proposals are delivered as a whole package there is unlikely to be a positive step forward.  If any of the core elements are omitted it will undermine the effectiveness of the review and increase uncertainty.  To achieve the aims of the paper will require substantial reordering of the legislative framework and primary legislation, for which at present no allocation has been made for parliamentary time.  [1.1]
 

4

A lot of work is being deferred eg to the Law Commission, and this may lead to further delay.   [1.4]
 

6

Fundamentally people object to state intervention and the enforced sale of property and open space.  Increased compensation will not necessarily speed up or improve the system.  [1.7]
 

7

We believe that the current system allows for the acquisition of land and is being used for this where the purpose is for regeneration and the change is not necessary merely for this purpose.  [1.8]
 

8

It is essential to strike a fair balance, not only between the needs of acquiring authorities and owners but also where open space or common land is the subject of an order so that equivalent exchange land is given.   [1.9]
 

9

We are concerned that piecemeal change in the system will undermine the effectiveness of the review.  [1.10]
 

10

We welcome the publication of information booklets and the procedures manual.  [1.11]

Chapter 2
 

11

We believe that if this is delivered as a whole package to clarify the system it will be a positive step, but we are concerned that much work is being left to the Law Commission and a lot of further work is still necessary in view of the complexity of current legislation.  [2.1/2.2]
 

12

Whilst we appreciate the need for acquiring land for regeneration we believe current powers do allow this.  [2.5]
 

13

There is a need for a clear unambiguous system.  [2.6]
 

14

We are concerned that providing a broad base for compulsory purchase orders rather than specific planning permission is potentially exchanging one problem for another. 
 

15

There will still be the basic problem that costs have to be underwritten by a government agency or a developer and this has not been satisfactorily addressed.  [2.7]
 

16

We remain concerned that any interim guidance will not be able to deliver a simpler, faster system because of the need for primary legislation for some of the proposed changes, and this will lead to further difficulties.
 

17

It is unlikely that there would be interest in land where full planning permission has not been given and we would oppose this proposal.  [2.10]

Chapter 3
 

18

We are concerned about the proposal to clarify the provisions relating to the application of special parliamentary procedures.   The Acquisition of Land Act 1981 lays down a procedure to be followed by government departments, public authorities, statutory undertakers and local authorities when common land (including town or village greens) is acquired by them compulsorily or is appropriated for another purpose.
 

19

We believe it is essential in order to preserve common land that this process is retained, to ensure that exchange land is given and that it is ‘not less in area and equally advantageous to the public’.  The code under 1981 act provides a substantial defence for common land and public open spaces, the effect being that in the majority of cases where common land has to be used for instance for public works, exchange land is given.
 

20

There are of course other acts giving compulsory purchase powers to public authorities which incorporate the 1981 act code where commons or open spaces are concerned, including housing acts, forestry acts and new town acts.  It is essential that the principles of the code in the 1981 act are retained to prevent loss of common land and open space.
 

21

We are concerned at the proposal to repeal section 17 of the Acquisition of Land Act, but are also surprised that nothing is said about sections 18 and 19 for dealing with National Trust land and open spaces.   It is unclear whether this implies that they will remain but we must insist that they do.  However they are not wholly satisfactory at present for instance if the owners of the land, National Trust or local authority, support the acquisition and are prepared to sell by agreement there is nothing which can require special parliamentary procedure in accordance with the 1981 act and this does lead to loss of vulnerable land.
 

22

It is essential that this process remains intact so that every effort is made to find suitable exchange land which the promoters might not otherwise do, leading to loss of land.
 

23

If there are to be new inquiry procedure rules to implement the proposed legislative changes there must be full consultation.  [3.4]
 

24

We welcome the proposal to widen the definition of statutory objector and believe this should be extended to those who have a right to use the land, for instance in the case of common land and village greens.  [3.5]
 

25

We remain concerned that the emphasis on procedures to speed up the process does not lead to vulnerable open space being lost.  [3.8]
 

26

There must be further consultation and/or strict criteria in place before establishing as a general principle the power to confirm a compulsory purchase order in stages and to widen powers to amend orders. 
 

27

We welcome the proposal to require registration, as local land charges, information about compulsory purchase orders and would ask that consideration be given to requiring registration of exchange land particularly where common land is involved.  [3.9]
 

28

We are disappointed that the CPPRAG recommendation that there should be an independent ‘adviser’ to investigate complaints into the handling of compulsory purchase orders by acquiring authorities, has not been upheld.  We believe such a system would lead to a more transparent process. [3.13]

Chapter 4
 

29

In theory a unified compensation code to simplify the system is welcome.  However it needs to be fair to ensure that those who are affected by compulsory purchase orders are adequately compensated.  There is no doubt that there will be increased cost for the acquiring authority.  [4.2]
 

30

The list of proposed new legislation in this area is extensive and we would question when parliament would be able to consider the new legislation.  If these issues are not dealt with together, it will only lead to greater uncertainty.  [4.4]

Chapter 5
 

31

We support the retention of the concept underlying the Crichel Down rules and for their proposed extension to apply to all bodies with compulsory purchase order powers.  [5.3]

Summary
 

32

We support in general terms the need to clarify the existing complex system.  However we are concerned that many of the proposals refer further work to the law commission.  Unless there is clear consolidated legislation it will increase the uncertainty and undermine the effect of the review.
 

33

We believe that the potential rise in compensation may result in schemes becoming financially unviable.
 

34

There is a lack of detail on how potential new legislation will be filtered down to all parties affected by compulsory purchase orders.
 

35

However, our main concern is in respect of the proposals to amend or repeal section 17 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 which we oppose.  We believe it is essential that the code of principles enshrined in the 1981 act is retained in respect of common land and open spaces, particularly in respect of exchange land and the special parliamentary procedure.  If these principles and processes are not retained, it will lead to loss of land to the detriment of the public.

Nicola Hodgson
Case Officer
Open Spaces Society

March 2002