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

The inspector addressed the question whether the proposed use of compulsory purchase powers was excessive in DL36 to DL38 –

“36.

One of the factors in considering whether to confirm a CPO is if the purpose for which the AA is proposing to acquire the land could be achieved by any other means. This may include considering the appropriateness of any alternative proposals/locations put forward by others.

37.

The Objectors argue that the Acquiring Authority's requirement to acquire all of their legal interest in the property is disproportionate as the flat is already vacant. Moreover, the Objectors are willing to stay in their emergency accommodation for a further three years, until the works are completed. A licence or arrangement to allow temporary access into the flat is also agreeable to allow the refurbishment works to be undertaken.

38.

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. In order to achieve the policy objectives, set out above, the development has to take place on the Order Land and its surroundings. Despite the purported offers from the Objectors, no alternative Scheme or agreement has been put forward which would meet the policy objectives and the comprehensive regeneration of the Order Land which is clearly essential to enable the provision of affordable housing that is needed in the area. It is therefore clear that the purpose for which the Council is proposing to acquire the land cannot be achieved by any other means and the use of the CPO as a last resort is proportionate to achieve the aims set out above”.