Orders are orders if the need is compelling

Many organisations within both the public and private sectors now subscribe to the idea of compulsory purchase as a means of unlocking development potential. Is this faith in the power of compulsory purchase to deliver regeneration well placed? Well, largely, yes. The programme of housing renewal undertaken by the likes of Manchester council and a number of London boroughs has clearly delivered a transformation on many large housing estates where major investment was needed.

In Manchester, for example, recent schemes at Longsight and Piccadilly provide an exemplar of the appropriate use of compulsory purchase powers. Similarly, the targeted use of these powers has in many parts of the country secured the renaissance of town and city centres.

In the case of both housing renewal and town centre regeneration programmes, delivery is secured by way of a partnership between the regional development agency, a private sector developer and the local planning authority. More often than not it is the council that exercises compulsory purchase powers in order to facilitate the project.

Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 equips councils with wide-ranging powers. A local authority may have power to compulsorily acquire any land in their area if it believes that it will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment or the improvement of that land or where the acquisition of that land is necessary to achieve the proper planning of the area. However, the exercise of such powers is not unfettered; compulsory purchase may only be exercised where it will secure the improvement of the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of the area in question. Argument as to what exactly constitutes such an improvement can be time-consuming and contentious.

‘While compulsory purchase can kick-start urban regeneration, such powers should not be taken for granted’

While compulsory purchase can kick-start urban regeneration, neither the exercise nor the confirmation of such powers should be taken for granted. Government policy states that: “A compulsory purchase order should only be made where there is a compelling case in the public interest. An acquiring authority should be sure that the purposes for which it is making a CPO sufficiently justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the affected land.”

This is an issue most acutely felt in the case of town centre redevelopment where there may be rival schemes competing for the support of the local authority and the RDA. While the private sector plays a key role in regeneration, should any scheme be developer-led where it seeks to rely upon the compulsory purchase powers available to the council? In 2003, the secretary of state refused to confirm a CPO in Hull where objectors to the proposed order alleged that the scheme was developer-driven. In the secretary of state’s view, such an allegation was not a material consideration; however, he held that the need for the proposed retail development was. Though he accepted that there was a degree of need, it was not sufficiently compelling to justify compulsory purchase of the lands in the public interest.

Opposition by landowners or rival developers who may be equally capable of delivering the scheme can jeopardise the “preferred” scheme and indeed the overarching objective of regeneration, at least in the short to medium term. In the recent past a number of town centre schemes, in particular those based around enhanced retail provision, have either failed at enquiry or been withdrawn. In such cases, the local planning authority in effect backed the wrong horse.

Compulsory purchase can be an effective means of securing regeneration, but its use should only be considered following a comprehensive and robust assessment of the merits of a particular proposal relative to the fact that an authority will be seeking to deprive a landowner of his rights.