Blight notices allow a landowner to require a government body to purchase their property where the landowner is unable to sell their interest in land at market value because it has been devalued by public works, such a highway or railway improvement scheme.
In its response to a government consultation on proposed reforms to compulsory purchase processes (39-page / 489 KB PDF), the BPF said there was "a need for a review of blight provisions, so as to remove a degree of fear and uncertainty of, and opposition to, schemes". It said its recommendations were "based on the experiences" of bodies such as Transport for London and the company responsible for developing the country's new high speed rail network.
The BPF recommended that the rules be changed to allow a landowner to serve a blight notice as soon as a relevant public scheme has been publically announced. It said the "requirement to prove that the property has been marketed for a minimum period (of three months) should be waived".
The trade body said the 'rateable value' limit, above which landowners are ineligible to serve blight notices in relation to commercial properties, should be raised "substantially". It said "virtually all commercial properties in London are excluded" by the existing £34,800 limit.
It also recommended the introduction of "a reverse notice to treat", which would be served on an acquiring authority by a claimant whose claim had been accepted, and would "fix … the date of valuation".
Compulsory purchase expert Raj Gupta of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: "The BPF recommendations show some misunderstanding of the blight procedures and this in itself illustrates the need for review to simplify and clarify these procedures. Certainly the key point that the BPF identifies, the need to raise the minimum rateable value limit for commercial properties, will be attractive for many businesses affected by the threat of compulsory purchase who consider the limit to be entirely artificial."
"The BPF has suggested the removal of the requirement for the property to be marketed in advance of a blight notice being served," said Gupta. "It is worth noting that the government does not require such marketing for applicants in relation to High Speed 2."