Compulsory purchase plans under fire over legal doubts

Without a hard and fast definition of “sustainable development”, Scotland’s farming and landowning bodies are opposed to extending compulsory purchase powers into this area.

And introducing such powers in the Forestry and Land Management Bill currently being scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament would run the risk of undermining relationships between the farming and forestry sectors.

Giving evidence to the rural economy committee, NFU Scotland’s deputy director of policy Andrew Bauer said that there was no objection to many of the proposals in the bill – but there were “serious concerns” over proposals to allow compulsory purchase of land to “further the achievement of sustainable development”.

Following recent complaints about the way in which existing compulsory purchase powers had been used by roads authorities, he said the union was concerned.

“The Scottish Law Commission recently concluded that Scottish compulsory purchase legislation is not fit for purpose, and we would agree with that,” said Bauer.

“We also have concerns that while ‘sustainable development’ is a widely accepted term, it merits clarity and guidance on its application, not just in this bill but in other pieces of legislation,” he added.

Stating that the Law Society of Scotland had expressed legal uncertainty over the term “sustainable development”, he said: “However positive the intentions behind the proposal, the severe shortcomings of the compulsory purchase process and the ‘blank cheque’ that ‘furthering the achievement of sustainable development’ represents means that NFU Scotland is opposed to the proposed expansion in these powers.”

His thoughts were echoed by SLE chairman David Johnstone, who said that while there had been a compulsory purchase mechanism for forestry purposes for more than 50 years, these had never been used.

“It therefore seems completely unnecessary to extend it, when co-operation rather than legal conflict should be the route,” he said.