Compulsory Purchase Reform: Consultation Responses Summary

4. Early engagement and preliminary steps

Question 9: Do you agree that early and effective engagement is best promoted through non-statutory measures (e.g. guidance) rather than legislative requirements?

Of those who responded to this question, 80% agreed that early and effective engagement is best promoted through non-statutory measures rather than legislative requirements.

Several of those who supported this view emphasised that guidance on this subject can be flexible and adaptable to different project types. Many of these responses highlighted that legislation could not provide the necessary level of flexibility. There were some suggestions as to what such guidance should cover, such as templates, models and setting expectations for what constitutes meaningful engagement. It was noted that good engagement depends on behaviours and practice rather than statutory timetables; several respondents mentioned that acquiring authorities should be able to demonstrate evidence of engagement as part of an application for CPO confirmation, which could strengthen good practice.

Those who disagreed with the proposal generally felt that non‑statutory measures are insufficient, with several mentioning that acquiring authorities often fail to follow guidance already in place. A number of those who advocated a guidance-based approach nevertheless also suggested some basic statutory requirements.

There were calls for, amongst other things, statutory engagement periods and standards, mediation requirements, a statutory duty to engage, a statutory duty to disclose ownership or tenancy information, and provision for compensation to support engagement at this early stage. It was argued that statutory provisions could make landowners feel more confident throughout the CPO process, ensuring fairness and guaranteeing engagement.

Question 10: How might early and effective engagement between acquiring authorities and affected parties be further encouraged?

Sixty-one respondents commented on this open-ended question. Many highlighted the importance of early and effective engagement and that it can help reduce conflict, avoid delays, mitigate stress on landowners, and build trust in what can otherwise be an intimidating and technical process.

As to how such engagement might be encouraged, a significant number of respondents emphasised the need for clearer national guidance. The suggestions in this regard were varied, including templates, checklists, good practice case studies, and accessible explanations.

A number of respondents also stressed the need for access to professional advice, especially for those owners or occupiers unfamiliar with the CPO process. Some mentioned that this needed to happen early and the costs reimbursed. Several respondents highlighted the importance of training and improved soft skills within acquiring authorities to build trust and avoid adversarial interactions.

Other suggestions included using single points of contact, in-person discussions, better integration between land assembly and planning processes, such as development planning and masterplan consent areas, and greater use of mediation or independent facilitation where needed. Several respondents focussed on increasing the role of good early engagement by acquiring authorities or landowners as a consideration when confirming a CPO.

A minority of respondents argued that meaningful engagement requires statutory measures, citing poor past experiences where non‑statutory guidance was ignored. These respondents stressed the need for legally enforceable standards, rights and obligations, such as mandatory early information requirements and structured engagement periods to ensure fairness and accountability. Some other responses referred to statutory requirements being too inflexible, and could lead to a ‘tick-box approach’ or used as a means of blocking projects.

Question 11: Would it be helpful to introduce a general power for acquiring authorities to require specified parties to provide information about ownership, occupation and other interests in land? Please explain your views.

There were 65 responses to the question, of which 89% were in favour of introducing a general power to require specified parties to provide information on ownership, occupation and other land interests.

Among those who supported the proposal, the key reasons were that such a power would improve accuracy, help ensure relevant parties are identified, and reduce costs and delays caused by incomplete or unclear information and issues emerging later in the process. Many noted that important interests, such as leases, servitudes, securities, or unregistered arrangements are not always traceable through existing records and that a formal information request power could assist early land referencing.

The importance of safeguards was also stressed, with several respondents arguing that the power should only be used as a backstop after acquiring authorities have attempted enquiries and ensuring it has time limits and clear scope. The need to protect commercially sensitive and personal information was also mentioned, and that professional advice and cost recovery mechanisms may be necessary to avoid additional burdens on owners.

There were some differences of opinion over the use of offences and penalties, with some respondents seeing them as necessary and others seeing them as heavy-handed or unenforceable. A couple of responses commented on the existence of similar provisions in other legislation, including the compulsory purchase powers in England and Wales – with perceptions differing, but generally the view was they had not been misused.

Some of those who did not support the proposal described it as unnecessary or intrusive and argued that it could affect trust if used prematurely. One felt existing tools/approaches already provide adequate information. Concerns were expressed about the risk of creating an antagonistic or coercive dynamic at an early stage and the potential for widening the perceived imbalance of power between acquiring authorities and landowners.

Question 12: Do you agree that acquiring authorities should have a general power of entry prior to the making of a CPO for the purposes of surveying etc?

Sixty-eight respondents answered the question, of whom 91% expressed support for introducing a general power of entry prior to the making of CPO. A total of 24 respondents, all of whom supported such a power, provided additional comments.

Many of those who commented underlined the need to carry out early surveying for various purposes, including environmental assessments, condition surveys and other preparatory work necessary to evaluate a site’s suitability for the project, to determine the amount of land needed and to assist with valuation. Where compulsory purchase is involved, these activities would also be important to justify the scheme and the use of CPO powers. The proposed power was variously described as useful, important or essential.

Pre-empting question 13 to some extent, a number of respondents noted that a general power of entry should be supported by appropriate safeguards, including reasonable notice periods, clear compensation provisions for owners/occupiers, and limits ensuring the power is used only when voluntary access cannot be agreed. Some responses elaborated on these basic requirements, mentioning, for example, sensitivities of certain land uses to interference, e.g. crops and livestock; protocols on entry and health and safety for certain sites; flexibility due to, for example, weather disrupting surveys; record keeping; reinstatement of land and reimbursement of costs incurred by owners/occupiers on professional advice.

Question 13: Does the outline proposal at paragraph 4.23 strike a reasonable balance between the needs of acquiring authorities and rights of the owner/occupier? If not, how should it be changed?

The majority (84%) who responded to the question considered that the outline proposal (paragraph 4.23 of the consultation paper) broadly strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of acquiring authorities and the rights of owners and occupiers. Thirty-seven respondents provided comments.

Respondents who opposed the proposal had concerns around misuse and insufficient protections for landowners. There were also concerns relating to disruption during sensitive agricultural periods, business operations and impacts on wellbeing. Some simply felt such a power too disruptive, that early entry must be by agreement or that adequate powers of entry already exist. One felt the proposal “needs more teeth”.

Both those in favour of and opposed to the proposal made some suggestions as to what would be needed to accompany any such power if introduced. Often these overlapped with comments made in response to question 12. Examples included:

• Minimum standards for communication.
• Requirements/expectations as to engagement prior to using powers of entry.
• Strengthened or clarified notice provisions.
• Specification of grounds of objection.
• Clarity on the timing and frequency of entry and conduct – for example, flexibility for acquiring authorities as regards weather and seasonality, and protocols for entry to certain sensitive sites.
• Dispute resolution mechanisms.
• Specification around reinstatement.
• Compensation mechanisms (including disturbance, damage or loss).
• Reimbursement of owners/occupiers for costs of professional advice.
• Rights to access land and carry out works to address safety issues or deterioration of the property.

The need to consider the role of warrants was raised, as was a concern about the test for a statutory undertaker’s right to object to certain works (as described in the last bullet of paragraph 4.23 of the consultation paper). There were also several suggestions for alternative approaches to rights of entry, such as a licence system.