There is a distinction between the service requirements under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 for obtaining a compulsory purchase order of land and the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 which settles the terms of acquisition, including compensation. The acquiring authority is not required to serve a notice to treat where it is unable to identify the owner of land subject to compulsory purchase.
In The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport v Persons Unknown [2023] UKUT 53 (LC), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has clarified an important practical point about the acquisition of land subject to compulsory purchase where the ownership of interests in land is unknown.
The case concerned the acquisition by the applicant of land at Hazel Grove to facilitate the provision of a new relief road linking the A6 to Manchester Airport which was completed in 2018. The applicant was unable to identify the owners of five small parcels of land along the route of the road. A determination was obtained from the Tribunal under Schedule 2 to the 1965 Act of the amount of compensation payable for each of the five parcels of land but the applicant was unable to vest the land in itself by deed poll because the Court Funds Office refused to accept the compensation payments as no notice to treat was given.
Before a CPO is confirmed under the 1981 Act, a notice explaining the process and how to object must be published in local newspapers and given to every qualifying person, including an owner, lessee, tenant or occupier of the land. Where an owner remains unknown despite reasonable enquiry, the notice can be given by delivering it to someone on the land or leaving it on or near the land. Once a CPO has been confirmed, a confirmation notice and a copy of the order must be served on those same persons as well as published in local newspapers and affixed to a conspicuous object on or near the land.
However, the 1965 Act only requires the acquiring authority to give notice to treat to all persons interested in the land so far as known after making diligent enquiry. In the case of absent and untraced owners, the Tribunal must be satisfied as to the steps taken to identify them before determining the compensation due. No notice to treat was required in this case and the Tribunal directed the Court Funds Office to accept the compensation to enable the applicant to acquire the land.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
