Compulsory Purchase Reform Practitioner Advisory Group minutes: June 2025

Attendees and apologies

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

Apologies

• Roseanna Cunningham, Co-Chair

Items and actions

Papers

• Minutes of previous Practitioner Advisory Group (PAG) [28.01.24]; (agenda item 2)
• Consequential loss (agenda item 4)
• Loss payments (agenda item 5)
• Advance payments (agenda item 6)

Agenda item 1 – welcome, introductions and apologies 

Before the meeting got underway, PAG members were welcomed to the Glasgow City Chambers by Mairi Miller (GCC Director of Legal and Administration) and Christine McInnes (GCC Legal Manager for Corporate and Property Law).

Agenda item 2 – minutes of previous meeting and actions arising

Minutes for meeting 5 already agreed by email.

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

Scottish Government (SG) officials referenced the Compensation Workshop held on 31 March 2025 as the key piece of wider engagement since the previous PAG meeting. SG Officials met with the Scottish Land Commission and Community Land Scotland after the workshop to discuss loss payments. Officials highlighted that the Housing Bill and Land Reform Bill have created some additional pressures in recent weeks because CPO-related amendments to both have been lodged at Stage 2. It was noted that Paul Sweeney MSP (Lab) has expressed interest in matters relating to compulsory purchase reform, and in doing so pointed to the proactive approach taken by GCC. Officials also mentioned that they recently met with East Renfrewshire Council to discuss the reform work. This was on the back of a Ministerial visit to the Shanks site in Barrhead.

Agenda item 4 – compensation: consequential loss

SG officials provided a summary of the discussion paper, which focussed on two key topics: Injurious Affection and Disturbance. Starting with the former, officials outlined the key policy questions for consideration, including PAG members views on the “before and after” method of valuation, the set-off of betterment and accommodation works.

Injurious affection

It was pointed out that the Scottish Law Commission suggested mandating the "before and after" valuation approach. A member of the group noted that although this method is applied in approximately 90–95% of cases, there are a small minority of cases where the concurrent approach is more appropriate. They therefore cautioned against mandating a universal approach. It was acknowledged that translating all potential scenarios into precise policy or legal language would present a significant challenge. Another participant expressed agreement, emphasising that a single valuation approach should not be universally applied.

As regards when valuation takes place, one member stressed that this should be as at the date of vesting. Another member suggested that early access to and entry onto land may assist with carrying out ‘before and after’ valuations, insofar as doing so can help the acquiring authority ascertain the pre-existing condition of the land (which may affect its value). A member expressed strong opposition to betterment set-off and suggested it should be abolished. Another member supported the concept in principle but noted that, in practice, cases involving betterment are extremely rare. It was agreed that it is often very difficult to prove, and parties can incur significant cost in resolving disputes over the existence and/or extent of betterment.

It was observed that perspectives on betterment often differ depending on whether one is representing a local authority or a landowner. it was pointed out that acquiring authorities effectively fund betterment through public works, hence abolishing the current set-off provisions would raise questions of fairness. On the other hand, it was noted that landowners who are not subject to compulsory purchase benefit from any betterment whereas those whose land is taken have this set off against their compensation – which also raises fairness questions. SG officials acknowledged that the issue is closely linked to the broader topic of land value capture – and questions about what the most appropriate/fair mechanisms to pursue this are. The need to balance the interests of the public purse with those of individual property owners was emphasised.

Members of the PAG agreed that the issue of betterment should be explored further through the forthcoming consultation, recognising that while such cases are few, they raise important concerns.

The group was asked whether statutory provisions are needed to enable acquiring authorities to carry out accommodation works in agreement with claimants.

The collective response from the group was that no such statutory provision is required: currently accommodation works are carried out on a voluntary, case-by-case basis. Members of the group saw little benefit in placing works on a statutory footing. It was suggested that the wide range of circumstances in which accommodation works may or may not be appropriate would make it challenging to draft legislation that is fair and workable.

There was a general consensus that accommodation works can often lead to more complications than solutions. It was suggested that greater clarity is needed around the cut-off date for such works, or alternatively, that the relevant legislative provision should be removed entirely.

It was also suggested that, in the absence of a statutory requirement, there should be a clear provision stating that acquiring authorities are not obligated to carry out works for owners. Concerns were raised about cases where accommodation works might require planning permission, raising the question of who would bear the associated costs. One member observed that certain works, such as roads over severed land, could be considered part of the main scheme rather than accommodation works.

Disturbance

The discussion started with the question of whether the right to disturbance should be expressly provided for in statute. Members of the group agreed that – unlike accommodation works – it should.

Members then discussed whether the principles of disturbance (remoteness, causation etc) should be codified. It was noted that the Law Commission (for England and Wales) had raised this question in its recent consultation. One participant felt that trying to codify each of the ‘Shun Fung’ principles would be very complicated and could have unintended consequences; they felt that it would be better to enshrine the right to disturbance in legislation but not to seek full codification.

One participant highlighted that following the ‘Ramac’ judgement, a claimant’s right to disturbance is curtailed in cases involving part acquisition. They suggested that this position needs to be reversed through new CPO legislation. The group agreed that this matter should be included in the upcoming consultation.

As regards the start date from which disturbance claims run, the discussion paper suggested that this should be when the date CPO notices are published, with the quid pro quo that claimants’ duty to mitigate their losses would run from the same point. Some participants were comfortable with this approach. One member of the group expressed apprehension that this could lead to an increase in claims, including for matters not covered by disturbance – notably the costs of objecting to a CPO. Another member suggested that there could be abortive costs if a CPO is not confirmed. However, it was pointed out that this proposal would reflect current case law, rather than representing a departure from current practice – but would provide greater certainty and clarify expectations.

In relation to relocation/extinguishment, it was suggested that flexibility is required for businesses that may not be easily relocated or whose operations are closely tied to ownership of the property. Attention was drawn to the definition of a business, and how online businesses or those without a physical premises should be treated.

A question arose about when the right to disturbance ends. In response, it was noted that this is effectively when there is a full and final settlement, which could be when the case is determined by the Lands Tribunal.

The group agreed that personal circumstances should be taken into account when considering what disturbance costs are reasonable – and that this should replace the provision for extinguishment when a person is over 60. It was also agreed that the impecuniosity rule should be removed.

There was a brief discussion around statutory discretionary payments, with the general view that these should either be statutory (i.e required) or non-statutory (i.e voluntary). One participant concluded that such matters may be more suitably addressed through internal policy rather than formal legislation.

Agenda item 5 – compensation: loss payments

Home loss payments (HLPs)

SG officials talked through the paper provided in advance, highlighting the similarities and differences between the approach in Scotland and in England & Wales, with the key point of difference being that the minimum/maximum payments are significantly lower in Scotland.

The first part of the discussion focussed on qualifying criteria, and then moved onto how the amount should be calculated. A member expressed support for a two-year qualifying period for HLP eligibility (rather than the current one-year period). They felt that this longer qualifying period would reduce the scope for gaming the system for financial gain – and would reflect that those who have occupied a property for longer are likely to have more of an emotional attachment to it. The latter being relevant because loss payments seek to acknowledge the stress/hardship of being subject to compulsory purchase. Under this suggested approach, eligible claimants would receive a flat rate rather than an amount linked to the value of the property.

Another member of the group instead suggested retaining the current system (10% of market value) but that the minimum and maximum payments should be increased so that they are more closely aligned with England and Wales. However, others were concerned that this could significantly increase costs for regeneration CPOs. SG officials acknowledged that it would be helpful to model the potential impacts of different approaches, which could be done by drawing on real-world (but anonymised) cases. This would help to understand the implications in terms of compensation costs, and is likely to be expected by Parliament.

Group members were invited to share their views on the UK Government’s proposed approach to exclude or restrict HLPs in cases where certain statutory notices concerning the condition of the land or property have not been complied with. Other compensation entitlements would be unaffected. Similarly, if a property owner complies with notices and carries out remedial works, and is later affected by a CPO, they would still qualify for HLP.

A concern was expressed by one participant that this would be an additional ‘hit’ to claimants, especially as the value of compensation may be reduced by a property being in a state of disrepair. Another member of the group indicated that it would be unfair if such a measure penalised tenants who are not responsible for ensuring a property is in a good condition. There was more sympathy for ensuring that where an acquiring authority incurs costs in carrying out repairs, and this has the effect of increasing the value of a property, these costs should be recoverable by the authority if CPO is subsequently required. 

On the issue of alternative housing assistance, it was proposed that if an acquiring authority helps displaced occupiers to relocate - such as by offering priority access to housing - this might warrant flexibility and could potentially eliminate the entitlement to a home loss payment.

A member shared experience of schemes that progressed through both statutory and voluntary routes, ultimately requiring the use of CPO powers. The group also discussed situations where properties had not been maintained, and valuations were lowered due to the cost of necessary repairs.

Farm loss payments (FLPs)

The group generally agreed that FLP should be abolished. In terms of what might replace FLPs, one member suggested the introduction of Business Loss Payments applicable to non-residential interests. It was suggested that these would be based on a % of the market value of the property, split between the owner and occupier – with the latter receiving the larger share.

There was a short discussion around whether it would be regarded as inconsistent if HLPs were reformed such that a fixed/flat rate were paid but any successor to FLPs were linked to the value of the land taken.

It was noted that the financial impact of losing a farm business - specifically, the loss of profit - is typically reflected in the valuation of the land itself. Another member offered a contrasting perspective, stating that FLPs are not primarily about land value but rather about recognising the personal impact and stress associated with the loss of a livelihood. It is much more difficult to find new land for farming than to find a new house.

SG officials acknowledged that further policy development would be required to explore these issues in further detail given the complexity involved. As regards loss payments, the forthcoming consultation is likely to focus on high level/strategic questions rather than detailed policy design.

Agenda item 6 - compensation: advance payments and interest rates

Advance payments

The group discussed the challenges surrounding the timing and processing of advance payments, particularly the frequent delays in making such payments. One group member explained that these delays are often due to internal administrative arrangements within acquiring authorities: for example, needing to obtain delegated authority from the relevant committee or awaiting decisions from finance departments. However, in other authorities, officials may have delegated power to make payments. Payment approvals cannot typically be granted at the time the CPO is authorised, as compensation figures are not yet known, meaning further approval must be sought at a later stage. Such delays can make it challenging to meet the statutory three-month timeframe for making payments.

It was noted that making advance payments is a statutory duty and cases have been taken to the ombudsman in the past, who can award compensation. One participant felt that there is a need for awareness-raising within acquiring authorities of the implications of late advance payments.

Questions were raised about whether local authorities could alter their internal procedures to prevent such delays. It was noted that finance departments generally dislike unresolved CPOs and might be more responsive if required to pay higher interest on delayed payments. Legal recourse was briefly discussed, with one member asking whether non-payment might be actionable in the Sheriff Court.

At present, advance payments are made following a request by a claimant. A suggestion was made that provision should be made that would enable acquiring authorities to make a formal offer of an advance payment, with a fixed period for the claimant to respond - after which interest liability would be capped.

There was also support for clarifying the definition of a compensable interest in land. It was suggested that property owners should bear responsibility for providing contact details of lenders, rather than requiring local authorities to investigate this. The group discussed wider challenges involving heritable creditors, especially identifying the appropriate contact person within large companies for whom compulsory purchase is unfamiliar.

The group discussed the information that needs to be gathered from claimants, and the use of ‘Form 9’ (1). One member emphasised that some updates to Form 9 would be useful. In addition, members were invited to consider whether specific options or limits regarding interest rates should be included in the forthcoming consultation.

There was some support from a couple of participants for increasing the interest rate on outstanding compensation so that it is at or above the base rate.

A group member noted that delays in payment are sometimes caused by creditors, with local authorities having to wait before funds can be released. It was mentioned that, in practice, funds can be placed in interest-bearing accounts until compensation is due. However, it was also pointed out that finance teams may only estimate the interest rather than formally managing the funds in such accounts.

Standard claim forms

There was a short discussion on the use of standard claim forms. There was general support for the introduction of one, with acknowledgement that the challenge would be ensuring it was not so complicated as to discourage use. A participant noted that their organisation does not currently use claim trackers, emphasising instead the importance of maintaining good engagement with claimants throughout the process.

Another PAG member expressed concern that a requirement to issue standard forms could place additional administrative burdens on acquiring authorities, particularly in cases involving standard securities and heritable creditors.

Agenda item 7 - looking forward: towards the consultation

Officials confirmed that the consultation paper is scheduled to be published in mid September and that their focus for the coming months will be drafting this and associated documentation. Although no further PAG meetings are planned before the consultation is launched, it was acknowledged that it may be helpful to seek practitioners’ views on certain matters not covered in previous meetings (e.g. time limits). PAG members were content that such issues could be dealt with by email.

Agenda item 7 – any other business

Meeting concluded and SG officials thanked all PAG members for giving up their time to participate and for the valuable insights and expertise provided; the group complimented SG officials on work undertaken so far.

 

• footnote 1:  This form is provided in The Compulsory Purchase of Land (Scotland) Regulations 2003, and is prescribed under paragraph 2(!)(b) of schedule 15 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as the form for a claimant to provide information about their name and address and the land in question.