Compulsory Purchase Reform: Consultation Responses Summary

11. Assessment of impacts

Question 118: Do you have any comments on the draft BRIA provided in the Annex?

Relatively few respondents responded to this question. One hundred respondents either indicated that they had no comment on the draft business and regulatory impact assessment (BRIA) or didn’t answer the question at all.

Of the seven respondents who commented, one felt the BRIA covered the salient points. Of the others, most suggested that the BRIA could go further or had particular omissions. Certain areas were identified where the analysis could be improved, especially in relation to practical costs, policy context and a wider range of impacts on those subject to a CPO. Specific concerns included the administrative and financial burdens on local authorities and small businesses, the need to include consideration of net zero and energy infrastructure policy; the positive effects on housing delivery via unblocking stalled sites and the re-use of empty homes; and issues such as financial, social and emotional costs on those subject to a CPO.

One response felt that the way any reforms were implemented (and the nature of future CPOs) would determine outcomes. Another felt they would need to see a full BRIA and referred to omissions such as costs related to compulsory sale and compulsory lease orders. One response suggested the BRIA should reassure lenders and investors regarding respect for property rights and having strong safeguards.

Question 119: Do you consider that any of the options and proposals in this consultation document would impact (positively or negatively) on people with protected characteristics? Please provide details.

Seventy-seven respondents did not answer this question. Of the 30 who did, three said they had no comment. Of the rest, about half did not consider that the options and proposals in this consultation document would impact (positively or negatively) on people with protected characteristics.

One other respondent indicated that any impacts on people with protected characteristics would not be ‘disproportionate’; another that impacts would be no greater than on other people. One response suggested impacts would be dependent on whether the individual felt they had been treated unfairly due to their having a protected characteristic. One other respondent specified they had not identified any property law impacts.

Some responses focussed on the future use of CPO powers, rather than the proposed reforms themselves. One respondent indicated that to the extent that the proposals lead to more proactive use of CPO to bring empty homes back into use, this would bring benefits for all. Two others said addressing more empty homes would have an impact on those with protected characteristics. Another stated that whether any possible impacts would be positive or negative would depend on the individual CPO.

Two local authorities stated that further assessment such as an environmental impact assessment (EIA) would be required; as EIA relates to specific development projects this was presumably reference to the assessment of individual projects where CPO powers are used.

One individual provided detailed comments, arguing that several of the proposals risk exacerbating the negative and disproportionate impacts that compulsory purchase can have on people with protected characteristics, particularly regarding disability and age. They suggested that the compulsory purchase process can adversely affect individuals’ mental health and cause financial insecurity, and that such impacts are not necessarily restricted to those with protected characteristics.

Question 120: Do you consider that any of the options and proposals in this consultation document would affect children’s rights and wellbeing? Please provide details.

There were 30 responses to this question, three of which were ‘no comment’. Of the other 27 responses, 16 (59%) said they did not consider that any of the options and proposals in the consultation would affect children’s rights and wellbeing. One other respondent said they saw no direct impacts on the basis children owning land would have professional representation. Two others referred to their response to question 119, that they did not consider there would be impacts or disproportionate impacts on those with protected characteristics.

Of the remaining eight responses, one saw no property law impacts but considered that clarity and efficiency in the process may indirectly reduce disruption where residential property is involved. One thought there might be impacts in this regard, but could not say whether they would be positive or negative, whilst another respondent thought impacts would be positive.

A couple of responses focussed on the future use of powers, rather than the proposed reforms themselves. One respondent indicated that to the extent that the proposals lead to more proactive use of CPO to bring empty homes back into use, this would bring benefits for all. Another respondent said that such impacts would depend on the individual CPO.

There was a detailed response from an individual concerned that compulsory purchase can have profound and lasting effects on children’s rights and wellbeing. The respondent went on to detail these concerns and necessary safeguards to accompany reform.

Question 121: Do you consider that any of the options and proposals in this consultation document would have significantly different impact on island communities from other communities? Please provide details.

As with previous questions in Chapter 11, the majority of respondents did not answer the question at all (77) or said they had no comment (5). Seventeen (68%) of the other 25 respondents considered that the proposals would not have significantly different impact on island communities from other communities. Another respondent did not know, but found it hard to envisage the process having different impacts on island communities.

Of the remaining seven responses, one respondent suggested that there were potential impacts due to the difficulty of securing alternative premises in the same area within an island community. Another respondent stated that property impacts may be amplified where ownership information is limited and where professional resources are less accessible, reinforcing the need for simplicity in this context. It was not necessarily clear whether these were comments on the proposals or compulsory purchase generally.

One very detailed response was received from an individual which argued that island communities are particularly vulnerable to compulsory purchase due to limited land availability, stronger ties between land, livelihood and identity and fewer realistic relocation alternatives. They added that this can have disproportionate impacts of various kinds that are not adequately reflected in compensation provision, and that legislation must recognise these issues, rather assume a “one size fits all” approach.

One respondent noted that the proposals would impact positively, whilst another said that potential impacts may be positive or negative for island communities depending on the individual CPO. As with question 119, two local authorities commented that an EIA would be required, again presumably a reference to the effects of a specific CPO project, rather the reforms themselves.

Question 122: Do you consider that any of the options and proposals in this consultation document would impact (positively or negatively) on people who are socio-economically disadvantaged? Please provide details.

Relatively few (31) respondents answered this question. Of these, 3 indicated they had no comment while 10 commented that they did not consider the proposals would impact (positively or negatively) on people who are socio-economically disadvantaged. One other respondent thought that basing compensation on ‘equivalence’ should mean no such impact.

Three respondents made general observations on such impacts: one thought such impacts would not be disproportionate, another that they were possible but they could not say if they would be positive or negative; and the third that such impacts would only be positive.

Amongst the remaining 14 respondents, one individual felt many of the proposals risk having a disproportionately negative impact on people who are socio-economically disadvantaged, building on a system they felt already has an imbalance in favour of acquiring authorities, and detailed their concerns.

A number of others raised specific issues where proposed reforms could deliver positive impacts. These included the removal of the impecuniosity rule, legislative support for advance payments, and reviewing the valuation methodology for disputed compensation. One response referred to how some CPOs – especially for residential redevelopment – can have particular impacts on owners/ occupiers who are disadvantaged, and that this needs special consideration regarding certain aspects of compensation. Another referred more generally to having clear, accessible procedures and early information potentially reducing confusion and dispute, so supporting fairer outcomes.

Four respondents referred to the potential impacts that the future use of compulsory purchase powers could have. For example, using CPOs to deal with vacant and derelict land, support the re-use of empty homes, and deliver regeneration projects could have positive or negative impacts, depending on the specifics of the scheme. As with questions 119 and 121, the same two local authorities referred to EIA requirements.