High Court rejects challenge to compulsory purchase order made by council ahead of tower block redevelopment

Mr Justice Mould dismissed a judicial review brought by the claimant leaseholder against Newham and the Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government, whose inspector confirmed the notice.

The claimant took the case under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

Newham said it wanted to purchase the flat because it indeed to carry out a comprehensive redevelopment and improvement of James Riley Point to deliver refurbished homes, a community centre and improved public realm

James Riley Point is a 23-storey tower block with 132 flats. The claimant has lived there with her family since 1994m, and since 2002 as a leaseholder.

The claimant advanced three grounds of challenge. The first was that in concluding the scheme was funded and viable, the inspector failed in his duty of reasonable inquiry, applying the principle stated in Secretary of State for Education v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014.

Her second ground was that the inspector failed to take into account the long history of failed attempts by Newham to refurbish the block and the living conditions the family endured as a result of these failings.

She said the inspector failed to reach any conclusion on her contentions that Newham was in breach of its obligations as landlord and housing authority.

The third ground was that compulsory purchase was disproportionate to achieving the refurbishment as she had offered to grant Newham a licence to enable the scheme to be carried out.

Mould J said on the first ground that it was clear from the inspector's reasoning that he asked himself whether the information before him was sufficient to enable him to draw his conclusions on whether the scheme was funded, viable and likely to be delivered within a reasonable timescale.

“He concluded that it was sufficient for that purpose,” the judge said. “In doing so, he considered and rejected the claimant's argument that there was a clear need for independent assessment and scrutiny of the costs budget approved by cabinet, that no reasonable conclusion could be drawn about the funding and delivery of the scheme in the absence of such an independent assessment and that there was no proper basis for concluding that the requisite loan would be forthcoming from [the Public Works Loans Board].”

Mould J said he was unable to conclude the inspector acted Wednesbury unreasonably in reaching those conclusions and his reasons were proper and adequate.

He also said there was “no substance” in the argument that the inspector misinterpreted the CPO Guidance.

Rejecting the second ground, Mould J said the claimant had argued that a settlement offer by Newham exposed her to the risk of being left without compensation in an unrefurbished home on an upper floor of an otherwise uninhabitable tower block and the inspector needed to reach a judgment as to whether Newham had been in breach of its covenants as landlord and of its duties as local housing authority.

Mould J said it was wrong to say the inspector failed to take account of the prolonged period of uncertainty over plans for regeneration of the block.

“His task was not to review the reasons why matters had taken so long,” he said. “The relevant question for him was to consider whether [Newham] had made appropriate arrangements to accommodate the impact of the current refurbishment proposals under the scheme on remaining leaseholder…”

Mould J said: “I do not accept that the inspector fell into legal error, in finding that the issues over mismanagement of [the block] and the alleged failure of [Newham] to fulfil their duties as landlord and housing authority were not material to his decision whether to confirm the order.”

The third ground also failed as Mould J said there was “an obvious air of unreality about the claimant's case on this ground”.

He said the inspector concluded that although the parties had not been able to reach agreement, that was not the result of any failure by Newham to take reasonable steps in the negotiations.

Mould J concluded: “The inescapable fact was that on the evidence before the inspector, those negotiations had not resulted in terms on which both parties could agree.”

He added: “I am unable to accept that the inspector failed properly to address the claimant's argument that the use of compulsory purchase powers to acquire her leasehold interest in the premises was excessive.

"Nor is his reasoning inadequate to explain why he rejected that argument, in the light of the evidence before him.”

Mark Smulian