A Newham landlord has failed in his challenge to a compulsory purchase order by Newham London Borough Council. The council had ordered that Terry Peart’s vacant, derelict property should be returned to residential use in the light of local housing shortage.
Paul Oakley, counsel for Peart, sought permission to challenge the validity of the decision pursuant to section 23(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. He argued that the council and the Secretary of State had failed to give sufficient consideration to Peart’s claim that his own proposal to convert the premises into six bedsits was more likely to alleviate housing needs than the council’s action.
He also claimed that the landlord’s right to the ownership of property, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had been infringed in that Peart, now aged 59, had been prevented from securing for himself the possibility of future retirement income.
Refusing the application, Chadwick LJ held that Peart had not been prevented from securing his financial position because he could invest his compensation in another property. He said that such an argument was “unsustainable”, particularly where, as in this case, the property was not the landlord’s home.
He added that the council and the Secretary of State had correctly taken into account the landlord’s past history of inactivity in respect of the property, and were entitled to conclude that the decision could not be challenged under section 23(2).
Peart v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Court of Appeal (Auld and Chadwick LJJ) 25 February 2003.
Paul Oakley (instructed by Heath & Buckeridge, of Maidenhead) appeared for the applicant; the respondents did not appear and were not represented.
References: PLS News 26/2/03
