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

The Claimant’s written objections to confirmation of the Order were submitted by her solicitors on her behalf on 8 August 2023. They did not raise the issues of viability, lack of funding and uncertainty over delivery of the Scheme as particular points of concern at that time.

On 30 January 2024, shortly before the start of the public inquiry, the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Second Defendant’s solicitors summarising the Claimant’s objections to confirmation of the Order. In that letter, the Claimant’s solicitors stated –

“We have real concerns regarding the viability of the scheme. We have requested disclosure of the underlying viability statements, i.e. the Target Cost Plan and Updated Financial Appraisal referred to in the Acquiring Authority’s report to its Cabinet meeting of 9 March 2023. However, given the history of this scheme we do not consider the authority has demonstrated that the scheme will be viable. It is apparent that the figures and viability have not been subject to independent analysis. In the case of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council CPO in 2021 the order was not confirmed. The refusal by the Inspector was based on doubts about the viability of the project and the lack of updated viability appraisals. In the circumstances, we would be grateful if the above-mentioned viability statements could be sent to me as soon as possible and included in the bundle of core documents.”

The Claimant instructed a chartered surveyor, Adam Rhead of Gerald Eve LLP, to give evidence at the public inquiry. In his expert report dated 6 February 2024, Mr Rhead stated that he specialised in compulsory purchase and compensation matters and had advised both claimants and acquiring authorities. He said that his instructions had asked that he consider whether there was a compelling case in the public interest to confirm the Order. Section 7.5 of his report was headed “Viability”. He referred to the requirement stated in paragraph 13 of the CPO Guidance that acquiring authorities must show that all the necessary resources are likely be available to deliver the scheme within a reasonable timescale. He referred to the March report and stated –

“Some of the information in the Cabinet Report - the Target Cost Plan and Updated Financial Appraisal - has been withheld by the Council. It is unclear whether the Council has sufficient funds available to complete the Scheme or that these funds are ringfenced given recent press releases issued by the Council on the ‘unprecedented challenges facing the borough’ (Appendix AR8). To date the Council has not disclosed key documents necessary to demonstrate that the scheme is viable.”

On 15 February 2024, the Second Defendant’s solicitors emailed to the Claimant’s solicitors two tables containing the Updated Financial Appraisal and Target Cost Plan. The tables showed a breakdown of the total project cost of £78.1M, and funding from GLA grant (£12M) and long-term debt (£66.1M). Compulsory purchase costs were not disclosed on the basis that they were exempt information.