Compulsory Purchase Reform Practitioner Advisory Group minutes: January 2025

Attendees and apologies

• Fiona Simpson, Chief Planner Scottish Government, Co-Chair
• Tom Winter, Head of Development Management and Compulsory Purchase, Scottish Government
• Alan Cameron, Planning Policy Manager, Scottish Government
• Jean Waddie, Planning Policy Manager, Scottish Government
• Anastasia Pseiraki, Planning Policy Officer, Scottish Government
• Dougie Bowers, Valuation Office Agency
• Elaine Farquharson-Black, Brodies
• Rob McIntosh, Aberdeenshire Council
• Keith Petrie, FG Burnett
• Iulia Toch, Glasgow City Council
• Michael Duguid, Transport Scotland
• Gillian Baillie, Gillian Baillie Planning
• Dougie Bowers, Valuation Office Agency

Apologies

• Roseanna Cunningham, Co-Chair

Items and actions

Papers 

• Minutes of previous practitioner advisory group (PAG) meeting [06.11.24] (agenda item 2)
• Engagement update (agenda item 3)
• Confirmation procedures – part II (agenda item 4)
• Taking possession and title (agenda item 5)
• Scoping paper: compensation (agenda item 6)

Agenda item 1 – welcome, introductions and apologies 

Agenda item 2 – minutes of previous meeting and actions arising

Minutes for meeting 4 were agreed.

Progress on actions from the previous meeting were discussed, including data on the costs of advertising compulsory purchase orders (CPOs). Some information had been provided by members already – although Scottish Government (SG) officials indicated that additional data is likely to be required for the purposes of future impact assessments etc.

There was a short discussion on the future consultation; a specific question arose about how this would address potential measures to speed up unopposed cases. SG officials suggested that the consultation is likely to explore various options e.g. CPOs not going to Ministers if no objections are received, or the previously discussed option of Ministers having power to remit unopposed CPOs back to the acquiring authority. One member felt there could be risks of challenge without SG oversight; another member suggested this could be mitigated if technical check was still offered.

• action: SG to consider further the point about the technical check

Agenda item 3 – looking back: engagement since last PAG meeting

SG officials summarised the stakeholder engagement that has taken place since previous PAG meeting in November.

It was mentioned that discussions with the Scottish Land Commission and Future Economy Scotland had taken place since the papers for this meeting had been issued, noting their particular interest in compensation and possible future workshop(s) on the subject.  It was also noted that ongoing discussions have taken place with Network Rail concerning their enabling powers.

The most substantive piece of engagement since previous PAG was the Progress Report published in December 2024. Members queried if any feedback was received from stakeholders and if any data was available to show how often the report has been viewed. SG officials commented that limited feedback has been received to date, although there have been small number of specific queries.

• action: SG officials to check clicks received on report on the scot.gov website

Agenda item 4 – confirmation procedures part II (building block 3)

Duration of a CPO

SG officials summarised the emerging proposals set out in the paper:  i) confirmation notices to be published within 6 weeks of confirmation; ii) provision for longer or shorter implementation periods than standard three years; iii) provision for ‘stopping the clock’ in the event of legal challenge. These were then discussed by the group.

PAG members were in general agreement of publishing notices within a 6 week timeframe, where straightforward cases are concerned, it was noted however that the timeframe could be challenging for larger and complex projects. Members similarly agreed with stopping the implementation clock for legal challenges.

Most members were comfortable with maintaining the current three year implementation period, with the option of lengthening or shortening the timeframe depending on the details of the case and any potential difficulties. One member opposed lengthening the timeframe and suggested that the current statutory period is too long, and could perhaps be reduced to a maximum of one year. Other members disagreed,  pointing out that particularly for larger/complex projects there is a significant amount of work to be carried out (e.g. construction procurement) which could be put at risk by an unreasonably short implementation period.

One member asked about who would decide the length of the implementation period if flexibility in this regard were introduced. SG officials suggested that although this is only an emerging proposal, it is envisaged as being something to be determined by the confirming authority but it would be open to the acquiring authority to make their case for a longer/shorter period, potentially via the Statement of Reasons. 

One member asked about whether statutory blight provisions were being considered as part of the reform programme, noting that current provisions are quite restrictive and result in few blight notices are accepted. There was a brief discussion around this point and SG officials indicated that this would be considered further.

Challenges to a CPO

All members agreed that retaining the current grounds of challenge and the 6-week time limit within which challenges must be brought is appropriate.

Digitisation

The subject was discussed in detail during PAG Meeting 4 and SG officials noted that options will need to be explored through consultation. Rather than repeat previous discussion of the potential issues and options, the paper underlined the need to manage expectations around what can be achieved through legislative reform alone.

Members noted that key aspects of the CPO process, including submissions to SG, are already digital. It was agreed that a balance needs to be struck given not all people have access to (or familiarity with) digital means. It was also pointed out that the ease with which digital documentation can be uploaded sometimes leads to ‘information overload’, which actually can undermine rather than improve transparency and accessibility. The tendency for large numbers of lengthy digital documents to be uploaded to websites was highlighted.

The Group agreed with the emerging proposal that provisions regarding CPO notices, publicity etc should be included in secondary legislation given the pace of technological change.

A member also noted that guidance on ‘softer’ engagement techniques should be made available to acquiring authorities.

There was a brief discussion of the increasing use of AI within planning and built environment field, in particular to prepare generic objection letters.

Special category land

SG officials outlined the ‘special category land’ provisions in the 1947 Act which can trigger a special parliamentary procedure. Comments were invited on the questions in the associated paper; officials were also interested to find out if PAG members had direct experience of the topic.

A mix of views on the principle of retaining special category land provisions were expressed by the Group. Some PAG members supported the removal of the provisions altogether – in the interests of simplicity and to help reduce conflict and delay during the promotion of CPOs. Several members felt it was unfair that certain types of land benefited from additional protection and their owners have an additional opportunity to object to a CPO compared to private landowners. The point was made that if special category land provisions were removed, the standard process would continue to apply and the public interest in the CPO would be tested in the usual way – including the impact of protected or designated land being included in the order. Affected owners and the public would still have the option to make objections. It was also noted that most of these land types had bodies charged with their protection and are capable of making their case through the standard process.

Other members were in favour of simplifying the provisions, updating some of the descriptions/ definitions and providing clarity on the process as a starting point.

It was noted that some of the types of Special Category Land may be considered more sensitive than others, and could have implications for parliamentary handling.

Agenda item 5 – taking possession and title (building block 4)

SG officials introduced and summarised the paper which was structured around three main parts: legislation and guidance, current procedures and proposed new procedures, which was broken down into the elements of notification, counter-notices, timing and conveyancing.

Current procedures (general vesting declaration and notice to treat) 

As regards to the principle of introducing a single procedure for implementing CPOs, members of the group were supportive of using the General Vesting Declaration procedure, which has proven to work well in the past with reasonable timescales. It was noted that members had not encountered the Notice to Treat procedure in a long time.

Proposed new procedures - notification

There was a discussion about notification, if the same people would need to be notified as at the making and the confirmation stage, and the requirements for notifying short- term tenants.

Members commented that having a single list of people covering everyone for awareness would be beneficial.

It was noted that the current legislation is confusing as acquiring authorities need to notify heritable creditors at the implementation stage, but not (at present) when the CPO is made or confirmed.

As regards short-term tenancies, a member expressed the concern that tracing this type of tenant can be difficult and can overburden acquiring authorities. They were concerned about a legislative requirement in this regard. SG officials highlighted that the requirements for notifying short-term tenants were less onerous at implementation than for making and confirmation. Another comment was that a requirement to demonstrate reasonable endeavours were made to identify short-term tenants should be satisfactory.

It was pointed out that there can be overlap with other legal duties e.g. not making people homeless, which can prompt notification of certain tenants despite the lack of a requirement to notify them under CPO legislation itself.

Proposed new procedure – counter-notices/ objections to severance

There was a discussion on severance and around how the new the procedure should deal with objections to only part of a person’s land being acquired.

Several PAG members made the observation that severance is an incredibly complex and confusing procedure that needs greater consistency and simplicity. The different timescales that apply to manufacturing and agricultural land for instance create issues and this was noted by members as something that needs to be streamlined.

Members agreed that the acquiring authority should be able to secure the land included in the CPO immediately. It was noted that at present acquiring authorities can be put in a ransom situation and be unfairly forced to acquire additional land to prevent delays, rather than waiting for an LTS judgement.

It was suggested that a single list of land types and procedure should be implemented, and the timescales should be longer and should be aligned.

A member highlighted the material detriment test as another issue that needs a clear definition alongside greater consistency being required regarding when a notice to treat can be served. It was noted that affected parties are not always aware of their right to serve a counter-notice.

Proposed new procedure – timing

There was a brief discussion around reducing the time periods associated with GVD (declaration of making then 28 days before the making of the GVD then 2 months) prior to implementation of a CPO.

The issue is how to strike an appropriate balance between having a quicker time for acquiring authorities to take entry while allowing enough time for landowners and occupiers to respond, including serving notices of objection to severance. This would be in the context of the 6 week period post CPO confirmation for any court challenge to it.  

Some members were not in favour of shortening the 2 month timescale, which gives affected parties the opportunity to vacate the property/land. This was supported by the fact that the acquiring authority still has three years to implement the CPO subject to the General Vesting Declaration dates and has complete control over that timescale. Members also noted that it’s wise for acquiring authorities not to proceed until the six weeks have passed, given the risk of a court challenges in that period.

Proposed new procedure – conveyancing

Members were invited to share their views on the conveyancing issues raised in the associated paper.

As to the question of a new single procedure, that would give acquiring authorities a clean title and would extinguish any burdens and servitudes. The majority of PAG members were in support of the position as it would give authorities a clean slate to work on without any discrepancies. It was also noted that this would be especially important for regeneration projects.

A member commented that with voluntary acquisition a clear title and agreement would be ideal, and if there were any issues perhaps the amount of compensation could be affected. On this point another member agreed with having a note on the register to state that the title has been cleared, which would make things easier.

The conversation moved on to the issue of acquiring authorities being uncertain if they already own smaller parcels of land within larger projects and in effect leaving gaps in the CPO, which prevents them from acquiring a clean title. It also leaves them vulnerable to the fact that during the CPO process, someone may make a claim to land that has been omitted, which would change the form of a title.

A member commented that acquiring authorities would like to be allowed to include land they already own in the General Vesting Declaration. This wouldn’t prevent anyone coming in later with a claim of title, which could simply be dealt with as with as a compensation claim.

On the question of securities, a member commented on the current practice by some acquiring authorities of asking claimants to sign a “deed of discharge and receipt” for the sums agreed as settlement of their claim. Registration of the general vesting declaration extinguishes all charges or burdens registered in the title, unless preserved in the Order, as confirmed. Thus, a discharge is no longer necessary, as it was superseded by the GVD procedures, so maybe this aspect of the CPO claims process could be clarified.

Agenda item 6 - looking forward: scoping compensation (building block 5)

SG officials outlined their thoughts on how the compensation building block could be structured and invited comments on this and the proposed approach to engagement, including the holding of a workshop on compensation. The associated scoping paper suggested that the building block could be structured around: A. Value of Land Taken; B. Consequential Losses; C. Loss Payments; D Other Matters (e.g. advance payments, time limits, short tenancies, Crichel down Rules).

Members of the group were generally supportive of the proposed structure and breakdown of key issues, and commented that the latter could be expanded as necessary. One member asked about whether compensation where no land taken (e.g. Part 1 claims) would be covered.

Members of the group briefly flagged issues that they regarded as particularly in need of reform, such as the statutory planning assumptions and Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAADs).

The proposed stakeholder workshop was welcomed. There was a brief discussion of potential invitees. It was agreed that a roundtable could usefully help to clarify how the current compensation rules work and the difference between key concepts such as development value and hope value. On the latter, one member suggested that there was a need for myth-busting – and evidence – around the extent to which this is paid to affected landowners in practice.

SG officials confirmed that paper(s) would be issued to invitees prior to the workshop.

Agenda item 7 – date and venue of next meeting

There was a discussion around the timing of the proposed workshop (ideally March) and how this would relate to next PAG session. The possibility of having both on the same day was raised although it was acknowledged that this would be a very long day.

• action: SG officials to canvas availability for workshop and to consider further the potential timing of next PAG meeting.

Agenda item 8 – any other business

N/A