Confirmation of compulsory purchase order — Difference between date of sealing and date registered as sealed — Whether CPO a forgery — Whether failure to make CPO within 28 days — Whether an irregularity — Whether applicant prejudiced — Application dismissed
The applicant is the owner of 43 Fitzroy Street, London W1, a house in multiple occupancy. On February 13 1987 the second respondents, Camden London Borough Council, made a control order under section 379 of the Housing Act 1985. On March 11 1987 they approved a compulsory purchase order in respect of the premises. The CPO was sealed on June 30 1987 but it was not entered as sealed in the register kept by the second respondents until July 1 1987. The applicant applied to quash the decision of the first respondent to confirm the CPO under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 on the grounds that the CPO was a forgery and that because of a procedural irregularity in not making the CPO within 28 days of the control order, as required by para 22 of schedule 13 to the 1985 Act, the applicant had been prejudiced.
Held The application was dismissed.
The CPO was not ultra vires for having been made more than 28 days after the control order. There was no precise scheme under the Housing Act 1985 for making a CPO following a control order. The applicant had not been prejudiced by the misdating of the CPO; it made no difference that the public inquiry had been conducted on the basis of an earlier date.
Barry Payton (instructed by Iqbal & Co) appeared for the applicant; Nigel Pleming (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; and John Burton (instructed by the solicitor to Camden London Borough Council) appeared for the second respondents.
