You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Second inquiry into Aylesbury CPO opens
The fresh inquiry into a compulsory purchase order (CPO) for the Aylesbury Estate opened today in Southwark.
Southwark Council is continuing its attempts to compulsorily purchase homes from leaseholders on the estate, which it is regenerating in partnership with Notting Hill Housing, and the three-week process began with statements of case from both sides.
Southwark Council’s previous effort to compulsorily purchase homes on the Aylesbury Estate was rejected by housing secretary Sajid Javid.
Since then, the council has continued to demolish other areas of the estate and many leaseholders have accepted offers from the council on their homes. The current CPO inquiry relates to only three remaining leaseholders.
READ MORE
Martin Whitehead, the government inspector appointed to hear evidence, said he wanted to consider the following main issues:
- Whether Southwark has negotiated with leaseholders
- Whether it has a clear idea of how the land is to be used
- Density and infrastructure, and how they interact with the local plan
- The well-being of the area
- Funding and delivery
- Whether any alternative scheme would work
- The Equality Act
- The leaseholders’ human rights
- Whether there is a public interest for the acquisition
In their statement of case, campaign groups 35% and Aylesbury Leaseholders Action Group argued that the council had not offered leaseholders enough compensation for their homes.
Their lawyer noted: “The effect of the affordability gap on leaseholders is evidenced by [statement writer] Anna Minton in relation to [leaseholder] Ms Robinson, whose current offer for her property stands at £225,000, whereas a two-bedroom flat in phase 1a has a market value of £602,000.”
He argued that the council ought to offer leaseholders like-for-like replacement homes in order to respect their human right to respect for their homes. This was council policy when the Aylesbury Area Action Plan was adopted in January 2010, but was withdrawn in December 2010.
Melissa Murphy, representing the council, argued that there was sufficient public interest to outweigh any interference with leaseholders’ human rights.
She also claimed that opposition to the CPO had been “exaggerated, for agitational reasons, by campaign groups and individuals whose principal points are not linked to the interests of the remaining leaseholders”.
