AC-2024-LON-001877 - [2025] EWHC 2132 (Admin)

In concluding that it had been demonstrated that the Scheme was funded and viable, with a realistic prospect that the Scheme would be delivered following confirmation of the Order, 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, 1065 [“Tameside”]. Further, the inspector failed to give proper or adequate reasons for those conclusions, and failed to have proper regard to a material consideration, namely the First Defendant’s inspector’s decision of 4 October 2022 not to confirm the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council (Vicarage Field and surrounding land) Compulsory Purchase Order 2021 [“the Dagenham decision”].

In concluding that the Second Defendant had taken reasonable steps to acquire the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the Premises by agreement, the inspector had failed to take into account the long history of failed attempts by the Second Defendant to refurbish JRP; and the living conditions endured by the Claimant’s family as a result of the Second Defendant’s failure to maintain the building. The inspector had misunderstood the terms of the so-called “uplift offer” made by the Second Defendant to the Claimant and to other remaining leaseholders at JRP in September 2022 and March 2023. The inspector had failed to reach any conclusion on the Claimant’s contentions that the Second Defendant was in breach of its obligations as landlord and housing authority. The inspector had failed to give proper or adequate reasons for his conclusions on these matters.

In concluding that the use of compulsory purchase powers to acquire the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the Premises was proportionate and rejecting the Claimant’s argument that compulsory purchase exceeded what was necessary to achieve the Second Defendant’s stated purposes, the inspector had failed to address the Claimant’s offer to grant a licence to the Second Defendant to enable the Scheme to be carried out. That offer obviated the need for the Second Defendant to resort to compulsory purchase of the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the premises.