Complex regeneration schemes commonly require change to be delivered across multiple different land ownership parcels. In order to deliver comprehensive change the necessary land may need to be delivered in a certain sequence or certain parcels may need to be combined to allow the new urban structure to be created. For example a different street and block pattern may be required to allow the density to be sensitively increased- and this may cross multiple different landowners parcels and may have to be delivered all in one go for it to work as a place.
Landowners won’t bring their land forward for redevelopment unless they have a commercial incentive to do so. If change requires a very large number of landowners to bring their land forward for development, they are very unlikely to all reach agreement or all do that, unless perhaps they all received a significant payout more than their land is really worth.
Crucially, with some regeneration schemes the land value resulting from the redevelopment may well be less than or the same as the sum of the cost of relocating the existing businesses elsewhere, and the value of the site based on its current uses. This commonly happens in London where the scarcity of industrial land can make it worth more on that basis than as housing. In such a scenario, there is no commercial reason for the landowners to redevelop. Furthermore, even if there was, many would not bring their land forward, perhaps for emotional reasons, the hassle factor of moving a business or would want to hold out in the (perhaps false) hope of achieving greater value in future. This would mean that change would not happen at all, or perhaps worse with change happening in an uncoordinated and piecemeal fashion. Perhaps resulting in poor quality change scattered in amongst the retained uses you are trying to replace.
Therefore, compulsory purchase powers are one of the most important tools for enabling large scale urban change, for they are the only means of ensuring comprehensive change can be delivered. Delivering change comprehensively is key to ensuring that a place in need of regeneration substantively changes. By providing certainty of creating a better place, a place likely to be of greater value once achieved, it allows the difference in value to support making the regeneration deliverable without receiving huge amounts of public subsidy.
Crucially compulsory purchase powers prevent landowners artificially ransoming important regeneration or infrastructure schemes, meaning that any surplus money can be used to cut the delivery cost of fund more affordable housing rather than line the pockets of greedy landowners.
In many cases the public sector can partner with the private sector in some form to enable the comprehensive delivery of the land required to deliver important private schemes that achieve the public sector's objectives as explained below:
When land is acquired the people affected are entitled to compensation which is governed by a large number of very dull legalistic rules, the detail of which I am not going to bother you with.
The overarching principle of these rules is fairness. The affected landowner should be put back in the position they were prior to the acquisition so far as money can. In addition to this there are a number of statutory and discretionary mechanisms that are intended to mean most affected landowners actually do marginally better from having their land compulsory purchased than they would if they sold their land or business on the open market- assuming the compulsory purchase hadn’t happened. Although this isn't what most people claim and isn't what the press regularly prints.
Acquiring land by compulsion is one of the most draconian things the State can do, so to ensure compulsory purchase accords with human rights obligations it is vital that:
1) Land is only acquired by compulsion if there is a compelling case int the public interest to deliver the proposed scheme.
2) Landowners affected are afforded the opportunity to object to the acquisition of their land and have material objections considered by an independent party during a public inquiry.
3) As set out previously, landowners never receive less than the amount their land could have been sold for on the open market and also receive compensation for the cost of moving or affecting/losing business, for it would be fundamentally unfair and conflict with human rights obligations if the State could take land and assets and give the owner less than their assets are worth.
Very nearly the end- move to section 24, if you pass the kitchen on the way grab a glass of wine.
Comments