The Law Commission

PART 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1     Compulsory purchase is of vital social and economic importance. If large-scale capital projects improving local and national infrastructures are to be implemented, if inner cities are to be regenerated, if land is to be logically and efficiently assembled for the advancement of public purposes, the role of compulsory purchase is absolutely crucial. Exciting and innovative though development may be, it exacts a heavy toll on owners and occupiers whose land is taken, and a fair balance must always be maintained between the public and the private interests at stake. Any civilised society according due respect to its members' rights must ensure that those whose lands are expropriated are fully compensated for the loss they have sustained and at the same time provide processes for the implementation of compulsory acquisition which are both expeditious and transparent. 1.2     It is striking, therefore, to anyone who has encountered the current operation of the law of compulsory purchase in England and Wales, how difficult to locate, complicated to decipher, and elusive to apply it is. The principles are to be found in a multiplicity of Acts of Parliament which date back to 1845 and which have never been subjected to the rigour of consolidation, still less of codification. There are also major questions which are not answered by those statutes and which require resort to, and reasoning from, the plethora of case law that has inevitably developed. As a result, those unfortunate enough to be caught in the process of compulsory acquisition will find no solace in a clear statement of legal principle indicating the mutual rights, obligations, privileges and duties of the acquirer and the acquired, for none exists. The compromise of disputes over the issue, and questions over the extent, of the acquisition and the compensation payable to the dispossessed, is, to put it mildly, not assisted by this sorry state.

Government and the Law Commission

1.3     Government has accepted the case for reform. In July 2000, the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group ("CPPRAG"), established by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions ("DETR"), published its Final Report which recommended simplification and codification of the "complex and convoluted" legislative basis of the "unwieldy and lumbering creature" that is compulsory purchase law. CPPRAG recommended reference to the Law Commission in order to prepare the necessary legislation to consolidate, codify and simplify the law. 1.4     Following publication by the Commission of a Scoping Paper, the Lord Chancellor formally referred compulsory purchase law to the Law Commission in July 2001 at the instigation of the Minister for Housing and Planning in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions ("DTLR"). The terms of reference were:

To review the law (legislation, case law and common law rules) relating to compulsory purchase of land and compensation, with particular regard to

(i) The implementation of compulsory purchase orders;

(ii) The principles for the assessment of compensation on the acquisition of land;

(iii) Compensation where compulsory purchase orders are not proceeded with;

(iv) Compensation for injurious affection;

and to make proposals for simplifying, consolidating and codifying the law.

As part of the Review, the Law Commission will give priority to consideration of the rules relating to the disregard of changes in value caused by the scheme of acquisition.

1.5     Government (DTLR) formally responded to CPPRAG in December 2001 in a "Policy Statement", Compulsory Purchase and Compensation: delivering a fundamental change. This accepted that "the most basic step" in the process of modernisation would be to "consolidate, codify and simplify the legislation as soon as the opportunity arises", and Government undertook to work with the Law Commission to achieve this objective. In the foreword to the Policy Statement, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the then Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration, stated:

The current arrangements for acquiring land do not function effectively, and all too often are a barrier to progress and a nightmare for the owner of the land. There is an urgent need for change. We have spent a long time reviewing and consulting on the best ways of achieving that. Now is the time for action. There is a need for clearer powers, which are much simpler to use; a speedier process; and better compensation arrangements.

1.6     The Law Commission published two Consultative Reports in the course of 2002. In July, it published a Consultative Report on Compensation, dealing with items (ii) and (iv) in the terms of reference. In December, it published a Consultative Report on Procedure, not only dealing with items (i) and (iii), but also, with the specific agreement of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister ("ODPM"),^[1] dealing with the making and authorisation of compulsory purchase orders. 1.7     In July 2002, Government (ODPM) published a Policy Response Document setting out in the light of consultation on the Policy Statement its proposals for a simpler, fairer and quicker system, and indicating the following procedural reforms it was minded to introduce by legislation:

(1) Confirmation of unopposed orders by acquiring authorities;

(2) Consideration of objections by means of written representations where that is agreed by objectors;

(3) The definition of dates from which various compensation entitlements arise (in particular, making clear that determination and valuation of assets should ordinarily occur at date of entry or date of vesting);

(4) Affording all persons with interests in or rights over the subject land (including tenants) the right to be treated as statutory objectors and to be heard at an inquiry;

(5) Reduction of the overall time limit for completing the compulsory purchase process following confirmation, by reducing to 18 months the period for service of notice to treat (or making a vesting declaration), and reducing to 18 months the period of effectiveness of such notice;

(6) Increasing the effectiveness of the notice of entry, once served, to a maximum period of three months;

(7) Provision of compensation for actual losses where a compulsory purchase scheme does not proceed (an issue being considered by the Law Commission);

(8) Encouragement of easier access to the Lands Tribunal, including looking at the possibility of repealing section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (which presently restricts awards of costs);

(9) Provision for confirmation of orders in stages so that difficulties relating to part of a site should not delay progress on the remainder; and

(10) Giving all authorities powers to acquire land compulsorily for mitigation works where such works are being prejudiced by delay in agreeing acquisition.^[2]

1.8     Several of these reforms have already been effected by Part 8 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004:^[3]

(1) Unopposed orders may now be confirmed by the acquiring authority if certain conditions are met;^[4]

(2) A "written representations procedure" may be invoked, if the objector consents, in certain circumstances;^[5]

(3) Orders are to be publicised by site notices;^[6]

(4) The range of persons who qualify as statutory objectors is widened;^[7]

(5) Legislation now states the "relevant valuation date" for the purposes of valuation in accordance with rule (2) in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961;^[8] and

(6) Compulsory purchase orders may now be confirmed in stages if certain conditions are met.^[9]

Final Report on Compensation

1.9     In December 2003, the Law Commission published its Final Report on Compensation.^[10] Although (as had been agreed with Government) this Report contained no draft Bill, it set out its recommendations in the form of a Compensation Code, as an indicative framework for future legislation. This was consistent with the aims of the project; namely to review, in a collaborative venture with ODPM, the law of compensation for compulsory purchase, to sort out the existing law, and to make recommendations for the general content and shape of a future code and for repeals of existing legislation. 1.10     The Compensation Report was warmly received. The Lands Tribunal, itself responsible for the determination of disputes as to compensation payable for compulsory purchase, and uniquely positioned to comment on the operation of the current law, welcomed the report, through its President George Bartlett QC, as:

… an outstanding analysis of the law of compensation and the difficulties that it currently presents to claimants and acquiring authorities. The proposed Compensation Code would, we believe, substantially remove the major difficulties. It is readily understood and should be capable of straightforward application in the great range of claims that arise where land is compulsorily acquired.^[11]

1.11     On 29 April 2004, the House of Lords delivered its decision in the case of Waters v Welsh Development Agency^[12], which involved consideration of some of the principal issues dealt with in the Compensation Report, notably the rules relating to the disregard of changes in value caused by the scheme of acquisition. Their Lordships were strongly critical of the existing law, and highly supportive of the case for legislative reform. In the words of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood:

It is to be hoped that your Lordships' opinions on this appeal coupled with the Law Commission's exemplary report may pave the way for further legislation.^[13]

1.12     Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, with the agreement of the majority of the House, specifically approved the statement of Lord Justice Carnwath in the court below to the following effect:

The right to compensation for compulsory acquisition is a basic property right. It is unfortunate that ascertaining the rules by which compensation is to be assessed can involve such a tortuous journey through obscure statutes and apparently conflicting case law as has been necessary in this case. There can be few stronger candidates on the statute book for urgent reform or simple repeal than section 6 of and Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961.^[14]

Scope and extent of this Report

1.13     In our view, the case for reform of compulsory purchase procedure is as strong as that for reform of the principles for assessment of compensation. The direction of reform may, however, be subtly different. The twin problems affecting the law of compensation are (i) a number of specific major issues, such as project disregard, which require extensive treatment, and (ii) the current presentation of the law in a disparate array of sources, which requires radical overhaul and restatement by way of codification. In the context of procedure, the main problem is an unevenness of quality in the relevant statutory materials. The legislation governing implementation by general vesting declaration is relatively modern, being consolidated in the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, and does not require major surgery. The statute governing implementation by notice to treat (the Compulsory Purchase Act) on the other hand, although itself dating from 1965, contains rules which are largely derived from the first half of the 19^th century. Much of the language is archaic and obscure, and many parts are out-dated or even obsolete. 1.14     The review is not entirely comprehensive, as there are certain aspects of compulsory purchase procedure that have been omitted from its scope.^[15] Most notably, we have not addressed the application of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. As we explained in the Consultative Report, there are pragmatic reasons for leaving the 1845 Act alone, and while we would prefer to see its repeal in the medium, we have accepted for the purposes of this project the view of ODPM that wholesale repeal of the Act could give rise to significant and unforeseeable complications. 1.15     Much of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 was based on the 1845 Act, some sections being lifted wholesale from one to the other with little modification. This was consistent with the main objective of the 1965 Act, namely to consolidate the Lands Clauses Acts^[16] as applied by the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946. It was recognised in 1965 that the Lands Clauses Acts would remain on the statute book, albeit constituting a code "of which little use will be made."^[17] There were three reasons which caused concern that repeal of the 1845 Act would lead to errors of inadvertent omission, and unwitting alteration, of the existing law:^[18]

(1) The 1845 Act was partly adoptive and partly not. So far as it was adoptive, it had been adopted with innumerable variations of modification by a long series of Acts both public general and local. Moreover, the 1845 Act was automatically incorporated (and not simply applied) unless it was specifically excluded in the special Act;^[19]

(2) Many of the 1845 Act's provisions had been overtaken, without being repealed, by the property legislation of 1925; and

(3) At some of the most important points the 1845 Act proceeded by inference rather than by specific enactment. Thus, instead of conferring a right to compensation, it assumed the existence of such right and concentrated on the method of assessing the amount (which meant that case law had filled the gaps and would need to be codified - a task outside the then scope of consolidation).

1.16     We set out on this project with a view to recommending the final repeal of the 1845 Act. As we proceeded further, however, we realised that the obstacles identified in 1965 still existed and that repeal continued to carry the risks outlined above. It was not in any event a priority task:

Since the 1845 Act has very limited application, cases will rarely arise where the courts will need to intervene. Moreover, those private or local Acts which have incorporated the 1845 mechanisms for particular works or projects will almost certainly have been time-limited in their operation.^[20]

1.17     In consequence, this Report does not contain any recommendations for the reform or the repeal of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. 1.18     Nor have we considered the costs rule contained in section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Government has accepted that this is one of the obstacles "currently deterring claimants from making full use of the Tribunal's expedited procedures",^[21] and the Lands Tribunal has argued the case for the conferment of full discretion as to awards of costs. It is not, however, part of our current reference, and we understand that it is being pursued separately by Government. 1.19     In addition, there are certain specific areas of compulsory purchase law which are the subject of separate governmental review:

(1) Those categories of land for which special rules apply relating to authorisation and implementation;^[22]

(2) The minerals code contained in section 3 of and Schedule 2 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;^[23]

(3) The Transport and Works Act 1992.^[24]

1.20     Our terms of reference do not expressly include consideration of the authorisation of compulsory purchase. We have, however, found it necessary, and have obtained the consent of ODPM, to deal with certain aspects of the authorisation process. 1.21     There are two concerns about the authorisation process which were frequently expressed in the course of our consultation and which we should record, but in relation to which we do not make formal recommendations. First, delay in the process is often being attributed to the time taken by the confirming authority in confirming compulsory purchase orders submitted to it. This concern led some consultees to propose that there should be statutory time limits applicable to the confirmation stage. We doubt that this would be practicable in view of the vast differences in the scope, complexity and sensitivity of orders being submitted, but we hope that confirming authorities will heed this concern and review their working practices to ensure that the confirmation process is conducted as expeditiously as possible. Secondly, we were informed by two consultees (the Country Land and Business Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers) that a number of acquiring authorities, in their experience, fail to produce adequate statements of reasons in support of the compulsory purchase order being made. We doubt that this is a matter for primary legislation (matters of form, such as the prescribed form of compulsory purchase orders themselves, are normally dealt with by secondary legislation) but we would draw attention to the need for acquiring authorities to make the process as open as possible,^[25] by following the ODPM guidance,^[26] and by ensuring that the description of purpose in the order is given in "precise terms"^[27] in accordance with the 2004 Regulations.

Structure of this Report

1.22     In this Final Report we review the procedure applicable to compulsory purchase. In explaining our recommendations, we adopt a chronological approach to the process of compulsory acquisition. We therefore begin with the process of authorisation, examining how compulsory orders are first made, and, following consideration of objections, are (or are not) confirmed. We then consider the implementation of orders, including the means whereby title in the subject land is transferred to the acquiring authority. We review the current procedure for divided land, and the effect of compulsory purchase orders on those with rights over the land being acquired. Finally, we examine the legal implications, including liability to compensate, where compulsory purchase orders are not proceeded with by the relevant authority. 1.23     Most Parts of this Report are divided into numbered sections, each comprising a relatively discrete element of the procedure, leading in most cases to recommendations for reform. We first set out the existing law, then outline the deficiencies we have identified in the course of the project and the provisional proposals made in the Consultative Report on Procedure to deal with them. We then explain the views expressed to us during the consultation process, discuss those views against the background of the proposal and any further relevant matters, and finally formulate those recommendations we consider to be necessary and appropriate. 1.24     As we stated in our Consultative Report on Procedure, "We remain strongly of the view that the ultimate aim should be the consolidation of the existing statutes, as amended, into a single Procedural Code."^[28] The necessary precursor to the implementation of such an objective is the identification of those provisions which require repeal, and those which require restatement, and that is the main task we have set ourselves in formulating our recommendations for reform at this stage. Unlike the Final Report on Compensation, we do not present those recommendations on reform of procedure as a Code, although in bringing them together as we do at the end of this Report we have attempted to set them out in such a way as to be readily comprehensible and easily accessible. 1.25     We have found this approach essential in order to ensure that we treat the intricacies of the process with the necessary detail. We realise, however, that it is important that we do not lose sight of the bigger picture, and it may be useful at this stage to set out an overview of the process, with reference to the current law and the major respects in which our recommendations will advance its reform.

Overview

Authorisation

1.26     The process of compulsory acquisition is commenced by an order being made and publicised by the acquiring authority. The acquiring authority then decides whether to submit the compulsory purchase order for confirmation by the confirming authority, following which objections or representations may be made to the confirming authority by those opposing the acquiring authority's plans. If objections remain unresolved, the Secretary of State (as confirming authority) will usually hold an inquiry or effect their resolution by a written representations procedure. 1.27     In Part 2, we review the processes of making and confirmation, and recommend that a single procedure, and consistent terminology, be adopted whether or not the acquiring authority is a government department. We consider the statutory powers of acquiring authorities to enter and survey land prior to making a compulsory purchase order, and recommend expansion of such powers subject to necessary measures to protect land owners. We review the procedure for publicising the making of a compulsory purchase order and note the amendment to the existing law effected by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. We consider the circumstances in which those affected by a compulsory purchase order may challenge the order before the High Court, either by the statutory review procedure contained in Part IV of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 or by judicial review, and we make recommendations for the rationalisation of these means of challenge.

Implementation

1.28     Once the compulsory purchase order has been confirmed, the acquiring authority has two means of implementation available: the "notice to treat" procedure or the "general vesting declaration" procedure. The main features of the two procedures are as follows:

(1) Notice to treat involves service of a statutory notice on each landowner affected inviting them to make a compensation claim and requesting them to negotiate ("treat") with the authority as to the appropriate amount payable. Entry is effected by service of a notice of entry, which may be served at the same time as, or subsequently to, the notice to treat. The authority may then enter and take possession of the subject land not earlier than 14 days after giving notice of entry.

(2) Execution of a general vesting declaration offers the acquiring authority a quicker, more direct route to acquisition of title. It is a one-stage process which vests title in the acquiring authority without the need for a formal conveyance or investigation of title.

1.29     Government has already determined that these two alternative processes of implementation of a compulsory purchase order should be retained. In Part 3 we review both processes. We recommend the abolition of the apparently obsolete procedure for implementation contained in Schedule 3 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. We then consider the notice to treat machinery with particular reference to problems of service, and to the consequences of non-compliance, either on the part of the acquiring authority ("unauthorised entry") or the owner of the subject land ("refusal of entry"), and make recommendations for reform of the relevant legislation. We recommend the removal of distress as a means of enforcing payment. 1.30     We review in outline the general vesting declaration procedure. We do not consider that the procedure itself, being relatively modern, presents many difficulties. Those recommendations for reform which we do make relate to time limits, and to specific applications of the procedure to "divided land" and to "existing rights" in the subject land. These are dealt with in detail in later Parts of the Report. Finally, we make recommendations for the registration of certain steps in the process of compulsory purchase as local land charges in order to give notice to potential purchasers of the subject land.

Time

1.31     It is important that the process of compulsory purchase is capable of expeditious operation. This has two specific aspects. First, the implementation process must operate within time constraints, so that landowners do not have the prospect of compulsory purchase hanging over them for an unacceptably long period of time. Secondly, claims for compensation must be referred to the Lands Tribunal within a defined period of the acquisition so that they do not become "statute-barred". 1.32     We consider these two main issues relating to time in Part 4. First, we examine the operation of time limits during the process of implementation, in particular how long an acquiring authority has to exercise its powers following confirmation, and how long notices to treat, and notices of entry, remain valid following service. We recommend a reduction in the time available to implement an order once confirmed, and to act upon a notice to treat once served. We also recommend that there should be a limited time within which an authority may act upon a notice of entry. 1.33     Secondly, we review the operation of the law of limitation as it applies to the reference of claims for compensation for compulsory purchase to the Lands Tribunal. We recommend that there should be standardisation of the limitation provisions as they apply to implementation by notice to treat and by vesting declaration and that the claimant should be required to claim within six years of the date they knew, or ought to have known, of the taking of possession of the subject land or its vesting in the acquiring authority. This period would be reduced to three years (with a "long-stop" period of ten years) in the event of implementation by Government of the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its Report on Limitation of Actions.^[29] We also make recommendations concerning the time within which a claimant should be required to bring an action to recover compensation following agreement with the authority, determination by the Lands Tribunal, or payment into court.

Transfer of Title

1.34     The process of implementation of a compulsory acquisition is concluded by the transfer of title from the landowner to the acquiring authority. For the most part, completion of the transfer is governed by the ordinary law relating to the sale and purchase of land. It has been considered necessary, however, to make special provision in previous legislation for the enforcement of the landowner's obligation to complete the acquisition over and above the remedy of specific performance: the "deed poll procedure" which vests title in the acquiring authority where the landowner has failed to convey, or to make good title. Acquiring authorities may also be faced with owners who cannot be traced, who suffer from incapacity, or who are unable or unwilling to deal with the authority. In each of these cases, special procedures have been developed whereby the authority pays into court the sum of compensation prior to execution of a deed poll. 1.35     In Part 5 we review the enforcement by the acquiring authority of the obligation to transfer title on the part of the owner of the subject land. We make recommendations for the simplification of the "deed poll procedure". We consider, and reject, the case for statutory recognition of a vendor's lien arising on the entry into possession of the subject land pending payment of compensation. We recommend, in the interests of flexibility and simplification, the repeal of those provisions requiring prescribed forms of conveyance on completion of the compulsory purchase and setting out in elaborate detail the costs payable by the acquiring authority. 1.36     We then consider how the current legislation deals with the problems outlined above: where owners of the subject land have limited powers to deal with it; where owners cannot be traced or are unwilling to deal (or are prevented from dealing) with the acquiring authority; and where, subsequent to entry upon the subject land, it is discovered that certain interests have been overlooked. We make recommendations for the reform of the procedures applicable in each of these cases. We then consider the statutory machinery relating to payment into court as it applies to these procedures for transfer of title.

Service of Notices

1.37     The procedures of compulsory purchase are heavily reliant on efficient provisions concerning service of notices on landowners and other interested parties. 1.38     In Part 6 we review the current law relating to the physical means of serving statutory notices and recommend rationalisation.

Divided land

1.39     Where part of an owner's land is subject to compulsory purchase, that owner may in certain circumstances compel the acquiring authority to take the whole. The current law is complex, being dependant on both the subject matter of the acquisition (in particular whether the land includes buildings and whether it is agricultural) and the method of acquisition (notice to treat or general vesting declaration) employed by the acquiring authority. 1.40     In Part 7 we review this statutory regime. We recommend the adoption of a single unified procedure for divided land applicable whether implementation of the compulsory purchase order is by notice to treat or by general vesting declaration.

Interference with rights

1.41     During the course of the process of compulsory acquisition, the acquiring authority will have to deal not only with the land being acquired but also with interests over that land, such as easements and covenants benefiting neighbouring land (referred to in this Report as "private rights"), minor tenancies not themselves being compulsorily acquired, mortgages and rentcharges, and even public rights of way. There are currently distinct statutory procedures for dealing with each of these kinds of interest. 1.42     In Part 8 we review the effect of a compulsory purchase order on private rights. We recommend that, in the absence of the acquiring authority electing to extinguish such rights, it should be presumed that they are overridden to the extent necessary to allow works to be carried out pursuant to the compulsory purchase order. We recommend a procedure for cases of extinguishment enabling those affected to object prior to confirmation of the order. 1.43     We also consider the effect of a compulsory purchase order on those holding minor tenancies, and we recommend reform so to achieve consistency between the notice to treat and general vesting declaration procedures. We briefly review the effect of compulsory purchase on mortgages and rentcharges, and on public rights of way. We do not recommend reform other than restatement of the law in more modern language.

Abortive orders

1.44     A compulsory purchase order will not necessarily result in the compulsory acquisition of the subject land. The acquiring authority may decide that it no longer wishes to pursue its initial objectives, or to carry them out in the way it had envisaged, or circumstances may change such as to make the original project no longer realistic or desirable. There is currently no specific right to compensation for those suffering loss as a result of the abandonment or withdrawal of compulsory purchase proposals prior to service of notice to treat, although there may be some limited redress by invocation of the statutory provisions concerning blight. There is also no transparent procedure for the notification of withdrawal or abandonment of compulsory purchase orders to those affected. Government has accepted the case for reform in these two respects. 1.45     In Part 9 we review the effect of a compulsory acquisition being aborted, whether by express withdrawal by the acquiring authority or otherwise. We consider the case for a procedure whereby those affected are given proper notification of the progress of the acquisition, and for the payment of proper compensation for loss or expense incurred as a result. We make recommendations concerning liability to compensate, including circumstances in which such liability should be excluded. We also make recommendations concerning withdrawal of notice to treat.

Acknowledgements

1.46     We have been greatly assisted in the completion of this project by the responses submitted to the Consultative Report. In Appendix C we list all those who have responded. We are also grateful for the continuing support and assistance of Lord Justice Carnwath, who as Chairman of the Law Commission from 1999 until 2002 instigated and then led the compulsory purchase project. We have also been greatly assisted in completing this Report, and finalising our recommendations, by two consultants with considerable practical experience of the machinery of compulsory purchase, Alan Cook of Nabarro Nathanson and Richard Owen of Drivers Jonas.

Note 1    The government department which, in succession to DETR and DTLR, currently has responsibility for planning and compulsory purchase.    [Back]

Note 2    See Consultative Report on Compulsory Purchase Procedure: Law Com CP No 169, para 1.11    [Back]

Note 3    The 2004 Act obtained Royal Assent on 13 May 2004. Part 8 came into force on 31 October 2004.     [Back]

Note 4    Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 102(2), inserting section 14A into the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.    [Back]

Note 5    Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 100(6), inserting sections 13A and 13B into the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.    [Back]

Note 6    Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 100(4), amending Acquisition of Land Act 1981, s 11 and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 100(7), substituting Acquisition of Land Act 1981, s 15.    [Back]

Note 7    Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 100(5), amending the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, s 12 and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 100(6), replacing the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, s 13.    [Back]

Note 8    Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 103(2), inserting section 5A into the Land Compensation Act 1961. This is the date by reference to which the value of the land being acquired is to be assessed for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable: in essence, it is the date on which possession is taken.    [Back]

Note 9    Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 100(6), inserting section 13C into the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.    [Back]

Note 10    Towards a Compulsory Purchase Code - (1) Compensation: Final Report (2003) Law Com No 286; Cmnd 6071.    [Back]

Note 11    Lands Tribunal in Law Commission press release 13 December 2003 concerning publication of Towards a Compulsory Purchase Code - (1) Compensation: Final Report (2003) Law Com No 286; Cm 6071.    [Back]

Note 12    [2004] 1 WLR 1304.    [Back]

Note 13    Ibid, para 164.    [Back]

Note 14    Ibid, para 3 citing Waters v Welsh Development Agency [2002] 4 All ER 384, para 116, per Carnwath LJ (CA). See further Ocean Leisure Ltd v Westminster City Council (2004) 43 EG 144, paras 34-39, per Carnwath LJ.    [Back]

Note 15    See Law Com CP No 169, paras 1.20-1.33.    [Back]

Note 16    For the purposes of this Report “The Lands Clauses Acts” means, unless the contrary intention appears, the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts Amendment Act 1860 and any Acts for the time being in force amending the same: see the Interpretation Act 1978, s 5, Sched 1.    [Back]

Note 17    Notes on Clauses in the Compulsory Purchase Bill (1964).    [Back]

Note 18    These are set out as in Law Com CP No 169, para 1.29.    [Back]

Note 19    Special Act is defined in Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, s 2 as an Act “which authorises the taking of lands for the undertaking”.    [Back]

Note 20    Law Com CP No 169, para 1.30.    [Back]

Note 21    Policy Response Document (ODPM, July 2002), para 12(ix).     [Back]

Note 22    Land of statutory undertakers; local authority-owned land; National Trust land; common, open space and allotment land; listed buildings and land within conservation areas; burial grounds; and ecclesiastical property.     [Back]

Note 23    This code re-enacts parts of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.     [Back]

Note 24    Not only is government currently reviewing the procedures of the 1992 Act, its impact goes beyond the law of compulsory purchase.     [Back]

Note 25    The non-statutory “statement of reasons” will ordinarily act as the basis for the acquiring authority’s “statement of case” which is required to be served where an inquiry is to be held into remaining objections: see Compulsory Purchase by Non-Ministerial Acquiring Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1990, r 7.    [Back]

Note 26    Circular 06/2004, para 35 and App R (replacing ODPM Circular 02/2003).    [Back]

Note 27    See Compulsory Purchase of Land (Prescribed Forms)(Ministers) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No 2595), reg 3(a)(i), Schedule, Form 1, para 1 and note (f) on “purpose”.    [Back]

Note 28    Law Com CP No 169, para 1.17.    [Back]

Note 29    Limitation of Actions (2001) Law Com No 270.    [Back]