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

The inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on those matters are stated in DL28 to DL35 of his decision.

“28.

The CPO Guidance sets out that acquiring authorities are expected to provide evidence that meaningful attempts at negotiation have been pursued or at least genuinely attempted. Paragraph 19 details what acquiring authorities should consider when negotiating. The AA must demonstrate that it has taken reasonable steps to acquire all the land and rights in the Order by agreement. Compulsory purchase is intended as a last resort. Furthermore, the CPO guidance is clear that it is necessary for the acquiring authority to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to acquire all the land and rights included in the Order by agreement.

29.

However, it is also clear that ‘if an acquiring authority waits for negotiations to break down before starting the compulsory purchase process, valuable time will be lost. Therefore, depending on when the land is required, it may often be sensible, given the amount of time required to complete the compulsory purchase process, for the acquiring authority to: plan a compulsory purchase timetable as a contingency measure; and initiate formal procedures’.

30.

The Objectors argue that the intention to redevelop or refurbish JRP has been a protracted event, spanning over some 20 years. During this period, it is argued that the Council has allowed JRP to deteriorate to the point that it has made living there a challenge, especially as the Objectors live on the 21^st floor and the only working lift was closed down in 2021 as a result of the Council failing to source replacement parts. The Council did enter into discussions with the Objectors and three other families that held the freehold to their properties in September 2022 and again in early 2023. At this time, the Council agreed that an uplift of £1 million would be paid, should the Scheme fail. However, the Objectors did not enter into the agreement within the timeframe insisted on by the Council as they sought legal advice over its terms and conditions. Furthermore, as the agreement was tied to a grant from the Greater London Authority, the offer of a £1 million uplift in the event of the Scheme's failure was withdrawn. The Objectors argue that no meaningful efforts to negotiate have been made by the Council since the withdrawal of the agreement.

31.

As the Objectors state, the redevelopment or refurbishment of JRP has been mooted for over 20 years. Indeed, from 2020 extensive advertising, workshops, and consultation on the proposed masterplan to regenerate Carpenters Estate was undertaken, culminating in the Council balloting occupiers through the Landlord Offer from 19 November - 14 December 2021. This essentially asked the community whether it agreed to the regeneration of Carpenters Estate, which included JRP. Moreover, the Landlord Offer made it explicit that resident homeowners in JRP would have several options open to them and should a voluntary agreement not be reached, the Council may, as a last resort, apply for a compulsory purchase order to compulsorily acquire their property. The Objectors voted in favour of the Landlord Offer.

32.

The Objectors have had to vacate their home and move into temporary accommodation and have not been able to readily access the flat and their personal effects within JRP. However, the Objectors have been rehoused as a family unit, close to JRP, and the Council have adapted the property to ensure that it meets their needs. The Objectors still reside at the property, rent free and can continue to do so until the works at JRP are complete. The Objectors then have the options available to them, as set out within the Landlord Offer.

33.

The evidence from the Council is comprehensive and fully demonstrates how it has attempted to negotiate with the Objectors in compliance with the CPO guidance. Therefore, based on the evidence before me I consider that the Council acting as the Acquiring Authority has adequately demonstrated that they entered into meaningful negotiation with the Objectors subject to the Order. In addition, although the Objectors stated that offer letters from Savills were never received and the offers were not followed up, it is clear from the Acquiring Authority's evidence that discussions regarding the purchase of Flat 128 JRP had been taking place between the Objectors and the Council.

34.

Although I acknowledge Dr Savaranamuthu’s statement that the other three freeholders “just gave up”, none of the other freeholders/owners of those properties provided any evidence to support this assertion either written, or orally during the inquiry. Moreover, the Acquiring Authority has stated that once the works to JRP has been completed, the Objectors are free to move back into their newly refurbished property, and in the event that the Scheme is not completed, an enhanced payment to the value of the flat as if it were refurbished, would be made.

35.

Thus, I am satisfied that the Acquiring Authority has attempted to negotiate the vacant possession of Flat 128 at JRP. In reaching this conclusion I accept that collectively the Objectors’ connection with the Order Land would have made any negotiation very difficult. In this respect I can fully understand their unwillingness to sell their interest in the land or being unable to reach an agreement. However, a failure to ultimately reach an agreement does not mean that the negotiation process was flawed. Therefore, I conclude that the Acquiring Authority have taken reasonable steps to acquire all the land and rights included in the Order by agreement”.

It is also relevant to note the following reasoning in DL38 –

“I note the current state of the building, which is uninhabitable, the protracted history of decanting, the alleged mismanagement of the building’s maintenance and the tenancy agreement, the antisocial behaviour, and disturbances caused by filming at JRP. However, these matters are not material to the issue at hand”.