Top-up fees: a growing risk for councils
Prohibitions orders, assessments and the HSSRS
Highways, kerbs and intervention levels
Local government reorganisation and historic liabilities
The status of co-opted members
Open Justice Principle – Where are the lines drawn in care proceedings?
What's the best way to manage conflict between colleagues in schools and colleges?
Scrutiny of professionals working in Children Act litigation
Teacher dismissed after joking about 'whacking' a pupil: was the decision fair?
Fear of harm and plans for adoption
Electronic and workplace balloting for statutory union ballots
Issues Resolution Hearings, threshold criteria and adequacy of reasons
Foster carers and manifestation of religious belief
Contempt, disclosure failures, and information governance
The ‘Hillsborough Law’, senior leaders and prevention of critical harm
Hoarding and learning from inquests – safeguarding to prevent tragic outcomes
Judging the use of AI
The Hammad appeal – Housing authority responses to homelessness in England and Wales
Natural justice and costs in the Court of Protection
The Procurement Act 2023: 10 months on, how is it going?
Costs, detailed assessment and misconduct
Airport expansion, EIAs and emissions
Boosting localised procurement - Reform to Section 17 LGA 1988
The Autumn Budget and Public-Private Partnerships
Calculation of Biodiversity Net Gain
The new National Licensing Policy Framework
The Social and Affordable Homes Programme: key points
Caravan site licensing and planning control
From 1925 to 2025
Licence revocation appeals and a change in circumstances
Self-neglect and capacity
Renewal of telecoms leases and building safety regulation
Procurement Act 2023: Anticipating and avoiding procurement disputes
Access injunctions: legal pathways to forced access and decants
Preparing for heat network regulation: timelines, obligations, and next steps
The lost enforcement of section 21
Housing case alert - November 2025
Section 21 - It’s not over yet
Expert evidence in housing conditions claims
Inquests and Housing
Wolverhampton Traveller injunctions – where are we now?
Is there a discretion to extinguish CIL?
Balancing public interest and planning control – accommodation of asylum seekers
Meaning of father in s2 Children Act 1989
A “43 moment” for the local government workforce
Section 193 LPA 1925: public access to commons and waste land
Growing apart?
Political and mayoral assistants
PFI expiry and employees
Welsh-medium inquests and the death register
The future of housing: What procurement and contracts teams need to know
No liability for sap falling on the public highway
Weapons in Cardiff educational settings: new guidance for schools
Public Sector High Court Litigation in 2025: Key trends so far
Enjoying the challenge
Abandoning procurements: risky business
The surge in Subsidy Control litigation
Dispersal of asylum seekers
Causation and being “homeless intentionally”
Strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England
Facts still very much matter
Court of Appeal rules on exclusions once again
Faith-based oversubscription criteria
How to place children abroad after Re M
Fact finding in the Court of Protection
Discrimination arising from disability: did a school discriminate against a pupil when it excluded her?
Care cases involving multiple allegations
SEND and pupils absent due to health needs
Granting of parental responsibility
Confidentiality clauses and severance payments in FE colleges and Academy Trusts
The importance of an adequate mortgagee exclusion clause
Managing AI Risks in Local Government
Reconciling Conflicting Private and Public Interests on Large-Scale Infrastructure Projects
Subsidy Control – top tips for public authorities referring measures to the CMA's Subsidy Advice Unit
Awaab’s Law and Fitness for Human Habitation – the same, but different?
Daylight/sunlight material consideration for planning purposes
Article 4 Directions in Wales
Not all fun and games
Children law update - October 2025
Where now for the ‘right’ to park?
Zip-wires in caverns
Fix it fast: How “Awaab’s Law” is forcing action in social housing
Housing management in practice: six challenges shaping the sector
The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 and rent paid during periods of unfitness
From the front line of HMO licensing
Housing case alert: September/October 2025
DCLG revises guidance for councils on use of CPO powers to save community assets
- Details
Local authorities will be required to take seriously all viable requests put to them by voluntary and community groups for the compulsory purchase of a threatened community asset, under revised guidance issued by the government today.
Councils will also have to respond formally to those requests, outlining the reasons behind their decisions on whether or not to use their powers.
The changes are contained in a new appendix to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 06/2004 Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules. It is to be made available for download here.
The DCLG said the appendix would remind authorities that, “as with any compulsory purchase, they must be able to finance the cost of the scheme (including the compensation to the owner) and the Compulsory Purchase Order process either from their own resources, or with a partial or full contribution from the requesting organisation”.
“In order to assess whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for a compulsory purchase order, councils will have to ensure (as they must for all orders) that there is a viable scheme for the asset and that there are no other impediments to the scheme going forward. Local authorities should ask those making the request for such information that is necessary for them to do so.”
This information could include:
- the value of the asset to the community
- the perceived threat to the asset
- the future use of the asset and who would manage it (including a business plan where appropriate)
- any planning issues, and
- how the acquisition would be financed.
Planning Minister Greg Clark said community groups with viable, fully financed schemes can currently feel shut out of the process, left without a voice in shaping local plans, as councils do not have to engage with them or acknowledge their contribution.
Clark said the guidance had been revised because some groups were not in a position to wait to take advantage of the government’s proposed Right to Buy, which is contained in the Localism Bill and allows them to bid to buy assets when they come up for sale.
“Communities often have good ideas for making better use of these buildings or assets but are thwarted by negligent owners interested only in rising land prices,” the DCLG also said.
The DCLG suggested that the revised guidance would help groups to take action quickly. It insisted that the new approach would not mean “special treatment or an automatic green light but it might mean that communities know that their hard work and enthusiasm will not simply be met by a blank face or stuck at the bottom of a never ending in-tray”.
The Planning Minister said: "Communities often feel powerless when they see local assets going to waste. Voluntary and community groups who know their area best should have more of a say in determining how their neighbourhoods develop and local authorities - acting in the best interests of local people - should take seriously all viable requests put to them for the compulsory purchase of a threatened community asset.
"Community groups would of course have to pay a fair price for the asset, as well as the costs incurred by the local authority. But they should be given the opportunity to save their village shop, the last remaining pub or bring dilapidated buildings back to life to help preserve the character and social fabric of their neighbourhood."
Local authorities will be required to take seriously all viable requests put to them by voluntary and community groups for the compulsory purchase of a threatened community asset, under revised guidance issued by the government today.
Councils will also have to respond formally to those requests, outlining the reasons behind their decisions on whether or not to use their powers.
The changes are contained in a new appendix to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 06/2004 Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules. It is to be made available for download here.
The DCLG said the appendix would remind authorities that, “as with any compulsory purchase, they must be able to finance the cost of the scheme (including the compensation to the owner) and the Compulsory Purchase Order process either from their own resources, or with a partial or full contribution from the requesting organisation”.
“In order to assess whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for a compulsory purchase order, councils will have to ensure (as they must for all orders) that there is a viable scheme for the asset and that there are no other impediments to the scheme going forward. Local authorities should ask those making the request for such information that is necessary for them to do so.”
This information could include:
- the value of the asset to the community
- the perceived threat to the asset
- the future use of the asset and who would manage it (including a business plan where appropriate)
- any planning issues, and
- how the acquisition would be financed.
Planning Minister Greg Clark said community groups with viable, fully financed schemes can currently feel shut out of the process, left without a voice in shaping local plans, as councils do not have to engage with them or acknowledge their contribution.
Clark said the guidance had been revised because some groups were not in a position to wait to take advantage of the government’s proposed Right to Buy, which is contained in the Localism Bill and allows them to bid to buy assets when they come up for sale.
“Communities often have good ideas for making better use of these buildings or assets but are thwarted by negligent owners interested only in rising land prices,” the DCLG also said.
The DCLG suggested that the revised guidance would help groups to take action quickly. It insisted that the new approach would not mean “special treatment or an automatic green light but it might mean that communities know that their hard work and enthusiasm will not simply be met by a blank face or stuck at the bottom of a never ending in-tray”.
The Planning Minister said: "Communities often feel powerless when they see local assets going to waste. Voluntary and community groups who know their area best should have more of a say in determining how their neighbourhoods develop and local authorities - acting in the best interests of local people - should take seriously all viable requests put to them for the compulsory purchase of a threatened community asset.
"Community groups would of course have to pay a fair price for the asset, as well as the costs incurred by the local authority. But they should be given the opportunity to save their village shop, the last remaining pub or bring dilapidated buildings back to life to help preserve the character and social fabric of their neighbourhood."
Sponsored articles
Walker Morris supports Tower Hamlets Council in first known Remediation Contribution Order application issued by local authority
Unlocking legal talent
Principal Lawyer - Planning, Property & Contract
Contracts Lawyer
Legal Director - Government and Public Sector
Senior Lawyer - Planning, Property & Contracts Team
Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory)
Locums
Poll






