Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about excluding legal and professional fees from compensation payable by local authorities to persons whose properties are, in certain circumstances, subject to a compulsory purchase order; and for connected purposes.
That is a mouthful, so let me explain what I mean. Across our country, in towns, villages and city centres, there are buildings that tell a story. Some tell a story of success—an old department store brought back into use as housing, a former bank transformed into a community hub or an empty shop becoming a thriving new local business—but too many tell a different story. There are buildings with boarded-up windows, leaking roofs and even trees growing out of them, in a famous case in Stafford town centre. There are buildings left to deteriorate year after year while local people look on in frustration. They are right to be frustrated, because those buildings are not simply an eyesore; they drag down neighbouring businesses and homes, discourage investment, create safety concerns and undermine confidence in the future of our high streets and town centres. In too many cases, those buildings are not victims of circumstance, but of neglect—neglect by owners who have allowed their properties to fall into serious disrepair while communities bear the consequences.
In my own constituency, the former jobcentre in Greyfriars has become a notorious example of what happens when responsibility is abandoned. Left to rot by its owners, it has been vandalised, it has become overgrown, and it is now a magnet for antisocial behaviour. It is also a danger, with fires that have put other local buildings at risk. However, this Bill was originally inspired by a much-loved country pub in the village of Sutton in my constituency. It was bought six years ago by someone who wished to develop the site, but planning permission was refused. In the six years it has lain empty, it has deteriorated beyond recognition. It has been stripped of its period features by criminals, and not only is it now a blight on the village, but it is dangerous, attracting antisocial behaviour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) has shared with me the ongoing saga of Northgate House in her constituency—despite years of effort, that eyesore still dominates the Darlington landscape. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), one rogue landlord is blighting entire town centre streets such as Boulevard and Waterloo Street. He is refusing to bring his properties back into use and is allowing them to rot, bringing the local area down with them. People cannot understand why communities are expected to live with the consequences of landlord neglect while local authorities are left carrying the burden of putting things right.
Councils do have the power to act—where necessary, they can use compulsory purchase orders to acquire neglected properties and bring them back into productive use. Those powers are an important tool, but there is a problem. Under the current system, when a council has exhausted all other avenues and is forced to pursue a compulsory purchase order, it is generally expected not only to pay the owner for the property, but to cover that owner’s legal and professional fees. In other words, a council can find itself paying the bills of the very person whose neglect has created the problem in the first place. That is not fairness, it is not accountability, and it is certainly not conducive to the regeneration of our towns.
The principle behind my Bill is simple: there should be no reward for neglect. That is why I launched my “no reward for neglect” campaign; it is why people up and down the country have signed petitions, written to me and shared examples of neglected buildings at the heart of their communities; and it is why I am bringing this Bill before the House today. The Bill would remove the automatic entitlement to recover legal and professional fees where an owner has deliberately allowed a building to fall into disrepair and that neglect has contributed to the need for compulsory purchase.
To be clear, this is not a blanket removal of rights, nor is it aimed at the vast majority of property owners and landowners who work hard, meet their obligations and contribute positively to their communities. It is directed at a specific problem: those who allow properties to deteriorate year after year, ignore opportunities to improve or sell them, and then profit from their inaction while the public purse bears the cost. In those circumstances, the public purse should not fund those owners’ legal and professional costs as well. Indeed, a similar principle already exists in our heritage system. For listed buildings, we recognise that owners should not benefit from creating the circumstances that require public intervention. This Bill applies the same common-sense principle to compulsory purchase.
If we are serious about revitalising our towns and high streets and delivering growth in every postcode that people can feel and see, we have to be honest about the barriers that councils face. Many local authorities are reluctant to pursue compulsory purchase, even when the public interest is clear. Partly that is because of complexity, and partly it is because of capacity—our councils have been starved of resources—but very often, it is because of cost and risk. Council leaders know that every pound they spend on enforcement is a pound that is not being spent on frontline services. They know that legal costs can escalate and that they are likely to end up paying not just their own advisers, but those acting for the neglectful owner. That creates hesitation, and hesitation allows the decline to continue.
If we want councils to use the powers that Parliament has given them, those powers need to be practical, not just theoretical. This reform would remove one important barrier, and at a crucial moment. The Government have rightly renewed their focus on high streets, regeneration and tackling dereliction, but successful regeneration is about more than just bricks and mortar. What matters is not simply taking neglected buildings out of the hands of absentee landlords, but what we choose to do with them next. Organisations such as Power to Change have highlighted the enormous potential of vacant high street space, and we know that the high street of the future will include homes, public services, cultural spaces, workspaces and community hubs alongside traditional businesses.
Councils hold powers that community organisations, local charities and residents just do not have. Where appropriate, councils should use them to unlock opportunities for community businesses, social enterprises and local organisations with the commitment and knowledge to keep those buildings productive for the long term. Indeed, I would love to see compulsory purchase used more often as a route into community ownership, because when local people have a stake in a building’s future, they have a stake in its success, and the rewards of regeneration are felt by the people who live there, rather than extracted elsewhere.
This Bill will not solve every challenge facing our high streets. It will not bring every neglected building back into use overnight, but it does address a clear unfairness and strengthen accountability. It sends a message about where responsibility should lie. Those who own buildings have responsibilities as well as rights. Communities should not have to live with the consequences of landlord neglect, and councils should certainly not have to pay for it. The people of Stafford know exactly what that looks like when they walk past our former jobcentre. Communities across Britain know exactly what it looks like, too. This Bill is ultimately about fairness, accountability and a simple principle: those who neglect buildings should not be rewarded, while those committed to the future of their communities should be empowered. There should be no reward for neglect. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Leigh Ingham, Dan Aldridge, Chris Bloore, Dr Beccy Cooper, Maya Ellis, Tom Hayes, Adam Jogee, Lola McEvoy, Melanie Onn, Sarah Smith, Gareth Snell and Alan Strickland present the Bill.
Leigh Ingham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 179).