Government CPO Consultation Outcome
23 Sep 2025
9 min read
/Passle/5d9604688cb6230bac62c2d0/SearchServiceImages/2025-09-23-09-43-53-553-68d26bd909142ae1affedacb.jpg)
The Government’s response to ‘Consultation on Compulsory Purchase Process and Compensation Reforms’ in England and Wales was published on 19 September 2025, well timed ahead of the 12th Annual CPO Convention 2025 taking place in our London office today. My colleagues Gary Soloman and Jen Ashwell are speaking at the Convention – Gary is chairing the event, taking part in a panel discussion on how long a CPO should take and speaking about hope value and Jen is leading the case law update. We thought it would be helpful to summarise the content of the consultation outcome as a reference point for those attending as well as those who are interested more widely.
It includes:
- a summary of responses to the consultation (“the Consultation Summary”) with proposals to be advanced through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill; and
- a factsheet explaining how the Planning Infrastructure Bill will speed up decisions and delivery of public benefits through CPO (“the Factsheet”).
The Consultation Summary included a breakdown of responses, together with the Government’s counter response, concluding that its next steps will require primary legislation and therefore measures and procedural changes would need to be progressed and implemented via the Planning Infrastructure Bill. Of the160 responses to the Consultation, 20.7% were made up of local authorities and parish/town Councils, 13.1% were Developers/landowners and businesses, 14.4% were planning professions/professional bodies, 1.2% were community residents associations and voluntary/charitable sectors, 32.5 % were members of the public and the remaining were in the “Other” category.
A key proposal concerns the removal of ‘hope value’ and it is interesting to note from the responses that whilst there is considerable backing, concerns remain relating to discouraging private development and increasing legal challenges and difficulties both for landowners and businesses affected by compulsory purchase. A summary of the Consultation Summary responses can be found in the table below.
On the plus side, the Factsheet references further review of the CPO Guidance, funding support for the Law Commission’s consolidation of the law to make it easier for authorities to access and understand, plus regular updates to the online Compulsory Purchase Order: Register of Decisions register. These measures should increase the understanding and accessibility of information regarding CPO.
Ultimately, the Government has reinforced its objective of supporting development and public interest schemes, especially with regards to housing and infrastructure, with clear backing to accelerate delivery. Whilst the aspiration is clear and the proposed measures to improve guidance, transparency and legal consolidation are welcome, it is recognised that the legal framework must ensure fairness and so careful implementation and robust safeguards will be needed.
Summary of Responses
The Consultation included the below 22 questions of which the table illustrates the percentage of “Yes” answers and high level responses received from respondents on the opinion questions.
| Question | Yes % Responses and Opinion Comments |
| 1. Do you agree that directions to remove compensation payable for prospective planning permissions (“hope value”) should be allowed to be included in CPOs made on behalf of parish/town or community councils by local authorities under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972 where the schemes underlying the orders are providing affordable or social housing? | 61% |
| 2. Do you agree that a decision on the confirmation of a CPO which includes a direction to remove value attributed to the prospects of planning permission (i.e. “hope value”) from the assessment of compensation for land taken should be eligible, where the relevant criteria in guidance are met, to be undertaken by: Inspectors where there are objections to the order; and Acquiring authorities providing there are no objections to the order? | 64% (respectively) |
| 3. Do you agree that the decision-making function of the confirming authority relating to the making of a direction for additional compensation under Schedule 2 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 should be eligible to be undertaken by an inspector? | 82% |
| 4. Do you agree that section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 should be amended to make it clear that directions to remove hope value should apply to other heads of claim where open market value is a relevant factor in the assessment of compensation? | 67% |
| 5. Another approach to removing hope value from the assessment of compensation could be to allow the Secretary of State in England or the Welsh Ministers in Wales to issue general directions for sites which meet certain defined criteria. We would welcome examples of brownfield sites suitable for housing in your areas (e.g. through an allocation) where a planning permission has not been sought along with the reasons why. In particular, examples of sites where either: it is claimed the delivery of the scheme with minimum affordable housing provision and other obligations such as provision of public infrastructure is not viable; or the costs associated with the value associated with the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) has made the scheme unviable. | Sites included: Grosvenor Hotel in Bristol, Old Town Dock/Whitehead Steelworks in Newport, Bill House in Birmingham, Glacis Park, Mayflower House and Millbay Waterfront, the Site of former Tothill Sidings in Plymouth, a 0.88 and 0.9ha ha brownfield site in Leeds city centre, and Brooke Marine site in East Suffolk.
|
| 6. We would welcome views on why you think, in the circumstances of the example(s) given in question 5, the removal of the value associated with the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) where CPO powers are used could help deliver a housing scheme which meets the policy requirements of the local authority and how it would help address the problem outlined in the example. | Respondents noted that removing hope value from compensation would lower land acquisition costs, making it easier for local authorities to deliver housing schemes and essential infrastructure, especially on brownfield sites. This could speed up land transactions, discourage speculative holdouts, and improve scheme viability. However, it may reduce incentives for landowners and developers to bring sites forward, potentially leading to more compulsory purchase orders and associated legal challenges.
|
| 7. We would also welcome your views on whether, in the circumstances of the example(s) given in question 5, there would be any consequences of removing the value associated with the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) from the assessment of compensation as a result of the use of CPO powers and the delivery of land for housing development. | Respondents stated that removing hope value from compensation assessments when using CPO powers would reduce land costs and encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites, making affordable housing projects more viable. However, it could also discourage private development, increase legal challenges, and create difficulties for both landowners and businesses affected by compulsory purchase. |
| 8. We would welcome views on whether there are any other categories of sites, other than those listed in question 5, which would be suitable for the proposal. If so, please give reasons why you think the removal of the value associated with the prospect of planning permission (“hope value”) where CPO powers are used in those circumstances could help deliver a housing scheme which meets the policy requirements of the local authority and how it would help address the problem outlined. | Respondents highlighted the inclusion of brownfield, greybelt, and some greenbelt sites for housing, especially where affordable homes are prioritised (as per the NPPF). They supported greater use of compulsory purchase for stalled or neglected developments by local councils, but cautioned against using such powers on productive farmland.
|
| 9. Do you agree that notices and documents required to be served under the Land Compensation Act 1961, Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, Land Compensation Act 1973 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 should be capable of being served electronically if parties agree in writing to receive service in that manner or where the recipient is a public authority? | 89% |
| 10. Do you agree that the information relating to the description of land published in newspaper notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs should be simplified? | 93% |
| 11. Do you agree that where a CPO requires modification to rectify an error such as a drafting mistake or to remove a plot of land from the schedule and/or map, the acquiring authority should be able to confirm the CPO itself by making the required modification(s) providing: (a) all other conditions under section 14A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 have been met, and (b) the proposed modifications are non-controversial in the manner set out in the consultation? | 84% |
| 12. Are there any modifications which you think should or should not be capable of being made by the acquiring authority (in addition to the inclusion of additional land in a CPO without the consent of the owner) when confirming its own CPO? | Examples referenced by respondents included additional land take, amending the CPO power used, increasing rights, amending the CPO purpose, boundary changes, where modifications would be detrimental to historical negotiations, and where part of a business premises is taken this would not be a minor reduction in area as the rest of the business could become unviable. |
| 13. Do you agree that the Secretary of State should be able to appoint an inspector to undertake a decision on whether to confirm or refuse a CPO made under the New Towns Act 1981? | 75% |
| 14. Do you agree the temporary possession powers available under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 do not need to apply to the taking of temporary possession of land under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Planning Act 2008 as there are sufficient provisions under those consenting regimes which provide for the temporary possession of land? | 81% |
| 15. Do you agree there should be an expedited notice process for the vesting of interests in land and properties under the general vesting declaration procedure in the circumstances outlined in the consultation? | 78% |
| 16. If you answered positively to question 15, we would welcome views on whether there are any other circumstances where the expedited notice process for the vesting of interests in land in an acquiring authority should apply? | Respondents noted here that the expedited process should apply broadly especially where there is urgent public need, where a property poses health or safety risks or is needed for public works. Some further examples amongst others suggested that the process can also be used where the owner is deceased, in cases where subsoil rights are required only, after temporary possession or for defence and national security purposes. |
| 17. If you answered positively to question 15, do you agree those with an interest in land included a CPO should be able to enter into an agreement with the acquiring authority for their interest to vest in the authority earlier than the existing minimum 3-months’ notice period? | 94% |
| 18. Do you agree that the current loss payments should be adjusted as set out in the consultation? | 76% |
| 19. Do you agree that the method of calculating the “buildings amount” under sections 33B(10) – 33C(11) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 should be changed to “gross internal floor area”? | 76% |
| 20. Do you agree that exclusions to home loss payments should apply where one of the statutory enforcement notices or orders listed under section 33D(4) and (5) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 has been served on a person and they have failed to take the required action on the day the relevant CPO which their property is subject to is confirmed? | 76% |
| 21. Do you have any comments on the likely impact of the proposals outlined in this consultation on business interests both for the acquiring authority and claimants? | Most respondents agreed the proposals would be of benefit to both acquiring authorities and claimants. Some concerns were raised about expanding the power to remove 'hope value,' with suggestions it could harm landowners financially and contradict human rights. Negative effects on agricultural businesses from expedited processes were also noted. |
| 22. Do you consider there are potential equalities impacts arising from any of the proposals in this consultation? Please provide details including your views on how any impacts might be addressed. | There were concerns from respondents about the effect on particular groups included in the EA 2010 and as well other groups outside such as farmers and business owners in rural communities especially in relation to the removal of hope value. |
If you have any queries regarding the consultation outcome or general queries regarding CPO promotion or compensation, please contact Gary Soloman, Jen Ashwell, Liz Paraskeva or Anastasia Antoni.