Two weeks ago, Hounslow Council used a CPO to acquire land that had been earmarked for a significant residential development.

However, Richard Harwood OBE QC, a barrister at 39 Essex Chambers, told Development Finance Today that while CPOs can be justified, the law should be made clearer for those on the receiving end.

“The system is broadly fair, but is archaic and bewildering to those caught up in it,” Richard warned.

“The reforms of the last few years, including the present Neighbourhood Planning Bill, need to be continued.

“Compulsory purchase procedure and compensation needs to be clearer and put in the language of the 21^st century rather than the 19^th.”

Fair?

Compulsory purchases must be in the public interest in order to be considered justified.

Furthermore, the scheme has to be sufficiently important to override the homeowner’s rights, such as a large redevelopment or a problem that needs resolving.

Many bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase rights, though the Department for Communities and Local Government claim that the greatest users of CPOs are local authorities and the Highways Agency.

Homeowners who receive a CPO are entitled to the market value of their current interest plus a 10% home-loss payment to recognise the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

Richard Guyatt, partner at Bond Dickinson LLP, explained that compulsory purchases are intended to leave no one better or worse off as a result of the acquisition.

Despite this, Richard admitted that the process was often seen as unfair, and that greater communication could avoid unnecessary conflict.

“As well as the uncertainty caused by proposals for compulsory purchase, it is often the case that affected parties do not receive 100% of the costs they have incurred relating to compulsory purchase processes.

“Fees are often used as a weapon (by both sides).

“Reducing conflict with an earlier emphasis on dialogue would greatly reduce costs.”

Infrastructure

Under the current parliament, some £100bn has been committed to spending on boosting Britain’s infrastructure.

With this investment comes housebuilding, as developers are drawn towards potentially higher property values and accessibility.

Despite this, Ashley Ilsen, head of lending at Regentsmead, insisted that the government must strike a balance between improving infrastructure and protecting people’s rights.

“The issue of forcing people to move homes can be one of the biggest hindrances to making essential improvements to infrastructure.

“When I used to live in China in 2010, they were in the midst of one of the biggest infrastructure upheavals in modern history and in order to do this there wasn’t too much in terms of people having rights to stay in their homes – it was much more of an ultimatum!

“Thankfully, in the UK we are leagues ahead in terms of human rights.

“However, this can swing too far the other way where at times it really is imperative and greatly beneficial for the economy to make these improvements.”