New clause 18 - Procedure for authorisation of compulsory purchase by authority other than a Minister
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
9:10 am
Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)
May I set out the purposes of new clauses 18 and 19? New clause 18 recasts the existing procedure for the making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders for non-ministerial acquiring authorities. Such authorities include local authorities, regional development agencies and English Partnerships. The decision whether to confirm such orders is currently made by the relevant Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, and they are known as the confirming authorities.
New clause 19 deals with orders for the acquisition of land by Ministers, such as by the Secretary of State for Transport on behalf of the Highways Agency, or the National Assembly for Wales. The procedures for both are similar, but the terminology is different, so parallel clauses are required to achieve our intention.
New clauses 18 and 19 introduce three major changes. First, they will extend the groups of people who have a right to have their objections heard; secondly, they will introduce a written procedure; and thirdly, they will enable compulsory purchase orders to be determined in stages. I shall take each point in turn.
The extension of the category of persons who have a right have their objections heard to confirmation of a compulsory purchase order will create a fairer system. The right to appear at a public local inquiry or hearing to argue a case in front of an inspector is currently limited to owners, lessees or occupiers other than tenants who are contracted for a month or less. At present, tenants for a month or less have no such right, despite the fact that such tenants may have been in occupation for many years. They are typically tenants on short-hold tenancies that have continued after their
fixed term. It seems entirely fair that such persons should have a right to argue their case if they wish to object to a compulsory purchase order.
Another example would be a person who has a right of access across the land to be acquired—a right that is either to be interfered with or acquired under the acquiring authority's proposals. That right of access may be critical to the person's enjoyment of his land. It is only fair that he should have a right to make representations against confirmation of the order.
The new clauses will extend the category of persons with an interest in or over the land to be acquired who will have a right to object. Essentially, they cover anyone who might be able to claim compensation as a result of the implementation of the order and the scheme for which the order is made. However, given the practical difficulties that acquiring authorities might have in identifying all those with an interest in land, the new clauses do not place an absolute obligation on acquiring authorities to identify them all. For instance, it may be impractical for acquiring authorities to identify those claiming prescriptive rights across land. A person might claim a private right of way across land on the basis of use over many years. Such claims may not be written down or registered, and it may not be obvious to the acquiring authority that such a right exists.