![AC-2024-LON-001877 - [2025] EWHC 2132 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Ground 1 – Viability
Ground 1 – Viability
The issue
The Claimant’s challenge under ground 1 is to the validity of the inspector’s conclusions that the Scheme was funded and viable, and that there was a reasonable prospect of its delivery within a reasonable timescale. The Claimant contends that the inspector failed to fulfil his Tameside duty of reasonable inquiry in reaching those conclusions. It was contended that the inspector had failed to act in accordance with the CPO Guidance. He failed to have regard to the Dagenham decision, which was a material consideration in assessing whether the Scheme was viable and deliverable. It was argued that the inspector had failed to give proper, adequate and intelligible reasons for his conclusions.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Ground of challenge
- The inspector’s decision letter
- Legal and policy framework
- Ground 1 – Viability
- The CPO Guidance
- Funding and delivery arrangements – the Second Defendant’s case
- Funding and delivery arrangements – the Second Defendant’s evidence
- The March report
- Overview and scrutiny process
- The Claimant’s case on viability and funding
- The parties’ closing submissions
- The inspector’s conclusions
- Submissions
- Discussion
- Ground 2 – Reasonable efforts to acquire by agreement
- The CPO Guidance
- The factual background
- Revised draft agreement and uplift offer
- March 2023 discussions and correspondence
- The Claimant’s objection
- The Second Defendant’s response
- Evidence at the public inquiry
- Closing submissions
- The inspector’s decision
- Submissions
- Discussion
- Ground 3 – excessive use of compulsory purchase powers
- CPO Guidance
- The parties’ contentions
- The inspector’s decision
- Submissions
- Discussion
- Conclusions