• news-banner

    Expert Insights

The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 & compulsory purchase

The legal framework for compulsory purchase has been subject to piecemeal change and evolution over many years, with most major pieces of planning legislation introducing an incremental change or two. The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) is no different and include the following key changes.

Hope value

The market value of land can reflect the “hope” of getting a valuable planning permission in the future, which can mean that land is worth more than is reflected in its existing use.  For example, agricultural land on the edge of a settlement may be worth more that agricultural value, due to the prospect of getting a residential permission at some future stage. The removal of hope value from compensation can therefore mean less money is payable to landowners by way of land value and may (in theory) mean that a higher contribution towards “planning gain” (such as new community infrastructure) can be secured. However, the removal of hope value can be controversial, as where land has already traded at values reflecting hope value, existing landowners might not be fairly compensated.

As a compromise, LURA allows the local authority to apply to the Secretary of State (as the confirming authority for a compulsory purchase order) to ignore the prospect of additional planning permissions being granted in assessing compensation and applies where land is being compulsorily acquired for health, education or planning purposes (which can be broadly applied).  Accordingly, it will be for the Secretary of State to assess where hope value can be disapplied. Additional compensation might become payable in the future however, if the acquiring authority’s stated intentions as to the land acquired are not materially fulfilled, providing uncertainty for those funding development schemes underpinned by compulsory acquisition.

Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD)

Landowners can apply for a CAAD to establish what planning permissions could reasonably be expected to be granted in the absence of a scheme underpinning compulsory purchase. Under LURA, the application must identify a specific description of development proposed to be AAD on the valuation date (or the date of determination of the AAD application if earlier) – the authority may issue a certificate for a less extensive description however. Where development benefits from being AAD, planning permission for that development is taken to be a certainty. Otherwise, the prospect of another planning permission being granted (including the future prospect) is to be assessed.

Conditional confirmation

New provisions will allow the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders to be delayed until specified conditions have been discharged. For example, this could allow an order to be confirmed conditional upon the grant of planning permission.

Process

There are also powers to allow compulsory purchase orders to last longer than the current three years; to allow changes to the date of vesting after service of notice of vesting (for example to give an owner more time to relocate); to ensure publicity around orders can be found online; and facilitating the use of written representations for contested orders.

A more substantial review by the Law Commission of the compulsory purchase procedure and compensation is ongoing. The Law Commission last reviewed the system in the early 2000s, but the changes were not implemented in full. In the meantime, the changes introduced by LURA will come into force on a day the Secretary of State appoints by regulations.

Our thinking

  • Blazing a Trail in Real Estate: Inspiring Female Leaders of the Future

    Georgina Muskett

    Events

  • Unpacking the Horizon IT Scandal: Ethical Decision‑Making in Conversation with Dr Karen Nokes

    Megan Paul

    Events

  • Year of the Horse Celebration

    Edith Lai

    Events

  • Martyn’s Law: What Historic Houses Need to Know

    Naomi Nettleton

    Insights

  • Chandni Pandya contributes to an Estates Gazette Q&A on the modification of restrictive covenants

    Chandni Pandya

    In the Press

  • Navigating the Employment Rights Act 2025

    Ben Smith

    Events

  • Members of joint ventures cannot unilaterally bring proceedings on behalf of their joint venture unless specifically provided for by contract

    Henry Dalton

    Insights

  • Understanding risk-based human rights due diligence

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

  • Residential PEEPs Breakfast Panel

    Richard Flenley

    Events

  • Commonhold: Best Supporting Tenure or Leading Role?

    Sarah Bradd

    Quick Reads

  • AI and Consumer Law: Transparency, Fairness and Emerging Regulation

    Rachel Bell

    Insights

  • AI and Data Protection

    Victor Mound

    Insights

  • Can you divorce your parents in England and Wales?

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • Biodiversity Net Gain: VAT considerations for Land Managers

    Elizabeth Hughes

    Insights

  • Dewdney William Drew comments in Business Green on a recent UK Supreme Court ruling that has effectively prohibited Oatly from using the word 'milk' in its marketing

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

  • Construction News quotes Francis Ho on John Lewis shelving its build-to-rent property plans

    Francis Ho

    In the Press

  • Michael Wells-Greco and Hannah Owen write for Today's Family Lawyer on a recent UK Supreme Court case that considers whether an adoption order can be set aside on welfare grounds

    Michael Wells-Greco

    In the Press

  • eprivateclient quotes Richard Honey and Charlotte Hill on how the Property (Digital Assets) Act in the UK is impacting private clients

    Charlotte Hill

    In the Press

  • Navigating ESG Regulatory Change in Supply Chain Contracts

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

  • Sally Ashford comments in Spear's, IFA Magazine, and eprivateclient on the UK Spring Statement

    Sally Ashford

    In the Press

Back to top