Well‐being and the democracy of compulsory purchase

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to consider the powers under which compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) are made, including the “well‐being powers” of local authorities, the procedural and policy requirements which must be met for a CPO to be confirmed and how all of those fare in terms of meeting democratic and human rights.Design/methodology/approachThe paper outlines the key CPO policy tests and process formalities and discusses what the acquiring authority needs to show to be successful, where the balance of power lies and how aspects of the process may be fair or unfair for landowners, particularly those without significant fighting funds. The research moves on to look at the wider issues of how democracy and human rights are represented and held up in the CPO process, concluding that while there are rights to property and a home, the qualifications to these mean that the public interest can often quite easily override these “basic” rights.FindingsAfter briefly looking at the related issue of the “privatisation” of city centre road networks, such as in Liverpool, the paper finishes by comparing CPOs under the new nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, suggesting the concept of a new “national well‐being” test in which the national interest in the scheme will be weighed against local impacts. The paper concludes that the lack of clarity around procedure for that regime raises the risk for all involved of delay and further uncertainty from legal challenges.Originality/valueThe paper contains an analysis of the place of democracy in the compulsory purchase of land for well‐being purposes, including a consideration of the balance between national well being and democracy in the Planning Act 2008.