Reforms to MHCLG’s Compulsory Purchase Guidance 2026: Implications for promoters and landowners

On 17 June 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published its updated ‘Compulsory Purchase Process: Guidance’ (Guidance), replacing the January 2025 edition. The updated Guidance signals a more flexible approach for promoters progressing complex projects, particularly around conditional confirmation of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs). Although the Guidance does not fundamentally change the underlying legal tests, the revisions will allow CPOs to be confirmed subject to conditions, enabling promoters to progress schemes while resolving outstanding matters. In turn, this is expected to reduce delays, avoid the need for re-determination, and support more timely delivery of complex projects.

Key takeaways

1. Conditional confirmation of Compulsory Purchase Orders

The most significant development in the revised Guidance is the explicit recognition of conditional confirmation of CPOs. The Guidance provides that the confirming authority (CA), as defined under paragraph 28 of the Guidance, may conditionally confirm a CPO even where impediments remain outstanding, subject to the imposition of ‘pre-exercise conditions’ under s.13BA of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA 1981). A CPO may be conditionally confirmed where the CA considers that the acquiring authority (AA) has established a compelling case in the public interest but there remains an outstanding impediment to the delivery of the underlying scheme which could be overcome by imposing a pre-exercise condition(s). In practice, this marks a shift away from an “all or nothing” approach at the point of confirmation. Rather than refusing an order where impediments remain, confirming authorities may now allow schemes to proceed subject to clearly defined conditions. This enables promoters to manage residual risks post‑confirmation, maintain programme momentum, and avoid delay associated with re-making or re-submitting orders.

Where the CA considers the imposition of pre-exercise conditions in granting conditional confirmation for a CPO, it must first give both the AA and any objectors the opportunity to make representations. There is no prescribed or standard time limit for AAs to satisfy these pre-exercise conditions. The Guidance clarifies that pre-exercise conditions should:

1. be used sparingly to overcome a clear obstacle to delivery;
2. be capable of being fulfilled by the AA;
3. be clear, concise and worded objectively;
4. not duplicate planning regime conditions; and
5. be used in limited and exceptional circumstances.

The Guidance also clarifies that pre-exercise conditions should not be imposed where the:

1. CPO is already fully justified and a compelling case in the public interest exists;
2. condition deals with matters unrelated to land acquisition; or
3. condition relates to compensation assessment or determination which is governed by a separate legal framework

The CA will issue a decision letter that confirms the conditionally confirmed CPO, the pre-exercise conditions imposed, the deadline for AA to apply to confirm compliance and the reasons for imposing those conditions. The statutory notice which must be served and affixed to land by the AA under s.15 ALA 1981. Relevant objectors can make written representations in response to the application but can only comment on whether the pre-exercise conditions have been met. The conditional confirmation is provisional, and the CPO cannot be implemented until all the pre-exercise conditions are satisfied and formally confirmed by way of a fulfilment notice. Where the CA is satisfied that the AA has met the pre-exercise conditions, and makes the CPO, the AA must serve a copy of the CPO and the fulfilment notice on affected persons, affix the notice on the land, and publish the notice in a local newspaper.

The CA has powers to extend the usual time limit for exercising CPO powers. This applies for both the notice to treat and general vesting declaration (GVD) routes.  Normally, at least 3 months’ notice must be given before taking possession under a GVD, however earlier possession is permitted in exceptional circumstances where:

1. the land is unoccupied (or occupied unlawfully);
2. it is unfit for ordinary use due to disrepair, neglect, contamination etc; and
3. no person with an interest is able to serve a counter-notice.

Where all three conditions are satisfied, possession can be accelerated to a 6-week timeframe. A person may challenge the AA’s decision, and the AA must provide a written response on receiving the challenge notice. If challenged correctly, the AA must amend the GVD and revert to the three-month notice period, notifying those impacted by the GVD.  

2. Electronic service of notices

Electronic service of compulsory purchase documentation is now permitted in certain contexts through delivery to an e-mail address or uploading it to a website (instead of physical delivery) provided that the recipient has agreed in writing to receive notices or documents through such electronic means. It is important for AAs, CAs, inspectors, local authorities, and statutory undertakers to note that they may be served notices or documents electronically, even where they have not specifically agreed in writing, where certain conditions are met as listed under paragraph 25.6 of the Guidance.  Affected parties should therefore ensure that robust internal processes are in place to monitor and manage electronic communications, including designated inboxes, clear responsibility for reviewing incoming notices, and prompt escalation procedures to avoid missing key procedural steps or deadlines.

The Guidance also provides further information on advance payments of compensation, decision powers to confirm CPOs, engagement, and mitigation which are not considered as part of this article.

Taken together, the updates signal a move towards a more delivery-focused approach to compulsory purchase, where the emphasis is on managing – rather than eliminating – risk at the point of confirmation. This is likely to benefit well-prepared promoters, while requiring landowners to adapt how and when they raise objections.

Author: Jebaraj Jebakumar

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at June 2026.  For more information see our terms & conditions.