Law Commission consultation on compulsory purchase

We provisionally propose that the terms used in the legislation to refer to the counter-notice procedure under Schedule A1 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 and Schedule 2A of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 should be amended so that they are more descriptive and link more directly to the purpose of the notice.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that a counter-notice under Schedule A1 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (and Schedule 2A of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965) should be in a prescribed form, specifying the extent of the claimant’s interest in the land and the land that the claimant requires to be purchased by the acquiring authority.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that, under Schedule A1 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, a counter-notice must be served within 28 days of service of the notice required by section 6 (notices after execution of declaration) of the 1981 Act.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that the Upper Tribunal must make an order specifying a new vesting date for the land proposed to be acquired if, under Schedule A1 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981:

1. the acquiring authority refers the counter-notice to the Upper Tribunal;
2. the acquiring authority has not specified a new vesting date for the land proposed to be acquired under paragraph 12(2); and
3. the Upper Tribunal determines that the authority does not need to purchase any of the additional land.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that there should be an express mechanism for the claimant to withdraw a counter-notice in Schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981. The mechanism should make provision for a new vesting date of the original land in the general vesting declaration upon withdrawal of a counter-notice.

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that the categories of land which qualify for the divided land procedure, in Schedule A1 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (and Schedule 2A of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965), are simplified and modernised. The divided land procedure should be available where the acquiring authority proposes to acquire part only:

1. of any building; or
2. of any land belonging to a building.

(For the avoidance of doubt, we interpret these conditions so that they would be satisfied where an authority acquires a building without the land which belongs to it, or the land belonging to a building without the building.)

Do consultees agree?

We provisionally propose that the material detriment and amenity and convenience tests should continue to apply where the acquiring authority refers a counter-notice under Schedule A1 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (or Schedule 2A of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965) to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). The Tribunal shall determine:

1. in the case of a partial acquisition of a building and the land which belongs to it, whether the part proposed to be acquired can be taken without material detriment to the remainder; or
2. in the case of a partial acquisition of the land belonging to a building (without acquiring any part of the building), whether the part proposed to be acquired can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the building.

Do consultees agree?

We invite consultees’ views as to whether the amenity and convenience test plays an important role in practice where authorities are pursuing the partial acquisition of a house with a park or garden. We also invite views about whether the amenity and convenience test could be abolished, so that the only question for the Upper Tribunal would be whether the partial acquisition of a building and/or land belonging to a building would cause material detriment to the remainder.

Based on our research, we suspect that section 8(2) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (divided land provision for small parcels of rural land) is rarely used. We provisionally propose that it should be repealed.

Do consultees agree?

Are there any other points consultees might wish to draw to our attention (not covered in their answers to any other questions) relating to the procedures for the authorisation of compulsory purchase orders or to the procedures for the implementation of a compulsory purchase?