Compulsory purchase row over CTLR land
Firms object to council using powers
Housebuilders have claimed the council’s planned use of compulsory purchase powers to acquire land under their control to build the Cross Tay Link Road would make it “extremely difficult” for them to reacquire any leftover land once the project is complete.
Perth-based developer A and J Stephen is pushing back against the local authority’s plans to buy plots along the corridor picked for the new road using compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) as they say they have already pledged to give up land for the project through a separate agreement.
Bosses argue a so-called Section 75 agreement they arranged with officials as part of their consent to build the Scone North scheme already obligates them to hand control of certain plots over to the council once contractors are ready to make a start on the new link between the A9 and the A93 and A94.
But the local authority believes it now needs to use CPOs to acquire the land as the pre-existing agreement does not provide “an effective mechanism for the timely acquisition of the plots”.
The dispute could become the subject of a full-blown public inquiry led by the Scottish Government later this year if neither party backs down.
If an inquiry does go ahead an employee of the government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) will be tasked to decide whether the orders should be approved or not.
Lawyers acting for A and J Stephen and another local landowner named Robin Filshie have already argued in written statements sent to the DPEA they consider it is a “fundamental principle” of compulsory purchase law that no party should have land taken away from them by force “unless it is absolutely necessary”.
Shepherd and Wedderburn have now told the DPEA in a fresh statement on behalf of A and J Stephen and Mr Filshie: “In a ‘normal’ CPO case, the acquiring authority is likely to be justified in pursuing a CPO because there is no guarantee it will ever be able to obtain the land in question to deliver the scheme. That is not the case here.
“In this case, the objectors and the council have negotiated a Section 75 agreement which regulates how the land required by the council may be used. The agreement allows the present landowner to continue to enjoy the use of his land until the council needs it for the CTLR.
“It provides a mechanism for prompt valuation and payment for the land. It provides a mechanism to ensure that any land that is not needed or used by the council is returned at a defined value.
“These are sensible and proportionate measures negotiated in good faith between the council and the objectors as part of a wider contract regulating the use of land adjacent to the CTLR. There is therefore no need for the CPO of the plots.
“The council’s approach by contrast leaves the objectors with significant uncertainty as to the timing of acquisition, the timing of any compensation payment, the prospects of being offered the right to purchase any unused land and the price which they might have to pay for that land.
“The objectors accept that, if they had no pre-existing contract with the council, the law may well permit that state of affairs. In those circumstances it might well be necessary for the council to use the ‘blunt tools’ of compulsory purchase to deliver the scheme in the wider public interest. In this case it is not.”
However lawyers acting for PKC have since told the DPEA: “The council’s position is that it is not and never has been a fundamental principle of compulsory purchase law that no party should have land taken away by force unless it is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the scheme that underpins the compulsory acquisition.
“If that was the case it would not be lawful for a promoter to promote a compulsory purchase order until each and every possible alternative to compulsory purchase had been fully exhausted regardless of the time and effort that this might entail.
“Furthermore, it would not be possible for a promoter to provide for any measure of flexibility in relation to land take whereas, in reality, a reasonable measure of flexibility is often required particularly in relation to large infrastructure projects in which the detailed design is often not completed until after a compulsory purchase order has been confirmed.”
The DPEA has yet to decide if a hearing or a public inquiry will have to be held later this year to settle the dispute. Its website only says further details of the case “will be forthcoming in due course”.