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

In the introduction to his decision letter [“DL”], the inspector said that the main grounds of objection to the Order advanced by the Claimant and her family were as follows –

In DL6, the inspector said that the Departmental guidance on compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules published in 2019 [“the CPO Guidance”] identifies matters to be considered in deciding whether to confirm a compulsory purchase order. He said that he had used the CPO Guidance as the structure for his decision.

In DL7 to DL14, the inspector considered the national and local planning policy framework relating to the Scheme. He concluded that the Scheme was supported by national and local planning policy and that planning permission had been obtained in respect of the Scheme.

In DL15 to DL21, the Inspector assessed the degree to which the Scheme would deliver social, economic and environmental benefits. He concluded that the Scheme would bring a number of significant benefits, including comprehensive, transformative change to this site in the Carpenters Estate, contributing to the Second Defendant’s ambition to provide mixed-use development with delivery of much needed housing including mainly affordable homes, and economic and environmental benefits. Given these benefits and the need to regenerate JRP, he found there to be a compelling case for the acquisition of the land included in the Order.

In DL22 to DL26, the inspector set out his assessment of and conclusions on the proposed funding arrangements, the viability and the deliverability of the Scheme. He concluded that the Second Defendant had demonstrated that the Scheme was funded and viable, and that there was a reasonable prospect of its delivery within a reasonable time. As the inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on those matters form the subject matter of ground 1, I shall set them out when I consider that ground of challenge below.

In DL27 the inspector turned to the outstanding objections from the Claimant and her family. For present purposes the relevant topics are his consideration of the objectors’ case that the Second Defendant had failed to make reasonable efforts to negotiate with the Claimant and her family; and his assessment of the objectors’ argument that the Second Defendant’s decision to resort to making the Order was an excessive use of their powers.

The inspector addressed the first of those topics in DL28 to DL35. He concluded that the Second Defendant had taken reasonable steps to acquire the Order land by agreement, including the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the Premises. As his reasons for so concluding form the subject matter of ground 2, I shall return to them in more detail when I consider that ground of challenge.

In DL36 to DL38 the inspector set out his analysis and conclusion in relation to the Claimant’s argument that the Order represented an excessive use of power. He said that one of the factors to be taken into account in considering whether to confirm a compulsory purchase order, is to ask whether the purpose for which the land is to be acquired could be achieved by means other than compulsory acquisition. It may be necessary to consider the appropriateness of any alternative proposals to or locations for the Scheme which may have been put forward, during the process of making and seeking confirmation of the Order. At DL37 and DL38 he concluded that the use of compulsory purchase powers was necessary and proportionate in this case. The validity of that conclusion is challenged under ground 3 of this claim.

In DL 49 the inspector mentioned the Objector’s reliance on the Dagenham decision. He said that he had been provided with neither a full copy of that decision nor an explanation of how it related to the decision whether to confirm the Order in this case. He therefore gave the Dagenham decision only limited weight. The inspector stated his overall conclusions in DL51 and DL52 –

“51.

The Scheme underpinning the CPO is wholly in accordance with the development plan and has the benefit of planning permission.

52.

I am satisfied that the Scheme would substantially contribute to the achievement of the promotion or improvement of the economic, social, and environmental well being of the area, and that these purposes could not be achieved by other means. Financial resources are also in place for the Scheme. The Order would interfere with the human rights of the Objectors, but I consider that the interference is proportionate and that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that the regeneration of the James Riley Point site takes place. Overall, and having taken all matters into account, I conclude that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the acquisition of the Order Land”.