Permitting Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) on a conditional basis

The concept of permitting CPOs on a conditional basis has been aired and discussed in the Government’s planning reform working paper, “Speeding Up Build Out” (the ‘Working Paper’), published 25 May 2025.

There are many questions about what this means in practice and how acquiring authorities should proceed in promoting CPOs. Although the details are not known, we do know that Section 183 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 comes into force on 18 February 2026, giving confirming authorities the power to confirm a CPO conditionally. 

The new power

In essence, Section 183 of the LURA 2023 will enable a confirming authority to confirm a CPO subject to conditions, rather than to simply confirm (without or without modifications) or refuse it.

Where a CPO is conditionally confirmed:

• the compulsory purchase powers will not become operative unless and until the confirming authority has determined that the specified conditions have been satisfied and can therefore be discharged.
• the CPO will lapse if: 
  • the confirming authority does not receive, within the prescribed period, an application from the acquiring authority inviting it to determine that the conditions have been met; or
  • such an application is made, but the confirming authority determines that the conditions have not been met.

The procedure for applying to discharge conditions is to be set out in secondary legislation.

Where the confirming authority determines that the conditions have been satisfied:

• the acquiring authority will be required to publish a 'fulfilment notice'; and
• the effect of the fulfilment notice will be to confirm that the CPO has become operative.

 Likely approach to conditions

There is, as yet, limited detail on how far confirming authorities will be prepared to go in terms of conditionality, or how tightly conditions will be framed. However, it is likely that conditions will need to:

• be clear and objective, so that it is possible to say with certainty whether they have been met; and
• relate closely to matters that have already been tested through the CPO process (for example, the progress of a landowner’s alternative scheme, or the securing of planning permission and funding), rather than introducing wholly new concepts at the confirmation stage.

Notwithstanding that, the Working Paper indicates how conditional confirmation is expected to be used in practice. The Working Paper explains that, at present, CPOs can only be confirmed, rejected, or withdrawn. It further sets out that where a CPO is rejected because a landowner has put forward an alternative proposal for the land, and the landowner then fails to progress that proposal, the acquiring authority has to restart the CPO process, with associated delay and cost.

To address this, the Working Paper explains that:

• conditional confirmation is intended to allow the compelling case for a CPO to be established earlier in the land assembly process, particularly on sites where landowners have put forward alternative proposals.
• conditions could be framed so that a landowner must progress an alternative scheme within a specified timescale and, if they fail to do so, the CPO powers can then be 'switched on'.
• the policy aim is to de risk the use of CPOs on stalled or complex sites, so that the mere existence of alternative proposals carries less weight in the decision-making process.

Separately, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has illustrated how conditionality might work in practice in a presentation to the Compulsory Purchase Association. One example given is where an acquiring authority promotes a CPO in parallel with securing funding. It suggests that the inspector could conditionally confirm the CPO with the powers only becoming operative once the outstanding funding has been secured.

Risks and points to watch

A key question will be how conditionality is taken into account when applying the compelling case in the public interest test.

Although the Working Paper presents conditional confirmation as a tool to support CPOs on more complex or stalled sites, there is a risk that conditions could be used to bridge evidential gaps that ought properly to be addressed during the decision making process i.e. at an inquiry. If that were to happen, it could increase the risk of judicial review, for example on the basis that the decision-maker has deferred key issues which should have been resolved at the point of confirmation.

Next steps

We are monitoring the emerging detail (including any updated CPO guidance and secondary legislation) and will prepare a briefing note once there is greater clarity on:

• the circumstances in which conditional confirmation is likely to be used;
• the form and content of conditions; and
• the procedure for applying to discharge conditions and publishing fulfilment notices.

In the meantime, if you have any questions about how these reforms may affect your current or planned CPO strategy, please let us know.

Stay in the know — follow our LinkedIn page for legal insights that matter.