Housing Act 1985 — Right to buy — Whether land acquired for development — Whether house used as housing accommodation — Whether used as temporary accommodation pending development — Council’s appeal allowed
By a lease dated February 13 1980, the appellant district council granted a 10-year lease of Spital Farmhouse, Banbury, Oxfordshire, to the respondent. The land on which the house stood was acquired by the Banbury local board of health in 1879 for sewerage works, appropriated by Banbury Borough Council in August 1972 under the provisions of the Town Development Act 1952, and acquired by the appellants on local government reorganisation in April 1974. The respondent covenanted to carry out certain works to the premises and to use the house as a private residence in single occupation. In January 1983 the respondent gave notice of his right to buy and His Honour Judge Clark, in the Banbury County Court (July 22 1988), made a declaration that the respondent had, by virtue of section 118 of the Housing Act 1985, a right to acquire the freehold and that his lease was a secure tenancy.
The district council appealed, contending that the respondent did not have a secure tenancy. Para 3, Schedule 1 to the 1985 Act provides that “A tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the dwelling-house is on land which has been acquired for development and the dwelling-house is used by the landlord, pending the development of the land, as temporary housing accommodation”.
Held The appeal was allowed.
(1) The judge was correct in deciding that, for the purposes of Schedule 1, the date of acquisition was April 1974. (2) However, he was in error in deciding that it had not been then acquired for “development”. Section 254(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 had the effect of continuing with a successor council the purposes of its predecessor at the time of local government reorganisation in April 1974. Accordingly the land had been acquired for development purposes. (3) The house was used by the appellants as housing accommodation by letting it for use as a residence and it was irrelevant that they were not fulfilling any duty to house the respondent. (4) The house was being used for temporary housing accommodation pending development. On the evidence development was intended by the appellants and it did not matter that the development proposed might not be the same as that intended at the time of the land’s acquisition.
Harry Sales (instructed by the solicitor to the Cherwell District Council) appeared for the appellants; and Charles Fay (instructed by Shoosmiths & Harrison) appeared for the respondent.
