A High Court judge has ruled that a Soho sex shop and brothel must be sold to Westminster council for use as residential accommodation.
The freeholder of the property at 2 Peter Street, W1, has failed in its challenge to a compulsory purchase order made by the council in July 2002.
The court accepted evidence that the property had been used for prostitution, and held that the council had power to acquire both the commercial and residential parts of the property, pursuant to its powers under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985.
Following the decision, Frances Mapstone, chief housing officer for the council, said: “We are delighted that a common sense approach has prevailed. Properties that are being used improperly, whether as offices, shops or for prostitution, diminish the number of homes that we desperately need in the city.
“The court today has sent a strong message to property owners and landlords that the improper use of properties in Westminster is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
The property, which was purchased in 1996 by a British Virgin Islands company, Ainsdale Investments, consists of two buildings linked by a courtyard.
The ground floor and basement of the front buildings are used as an unlicensed sex shop, selling pornographic videos, while the remainder has been used for many years by prostitutes and their “maids”.
Following a 1999 inspection of the premises by council officers, the council wrote to Ainsdale expressing concern as to the dilapidated state of the property.
They also maintained that, because the residential parts were being used for prostitution, the building was not properly contributing to the housing stock in the area.
In November 2000, the council resolved to subject the property to a compulsory purchase order.
An inspector, after viewing the property, held that a compulsory purchase order would be appropriate and within the powers conferred by section 17 of the Housing Act 1985.
The court today upheld the decision, stating that the inspector had not erred in his application of section 17, and had been “fully entitled to conclude that the acquisition of the commercial part of the property was incidental to the purchase of the residential part.”
References: EGi News 14/05/04
