Section 151 Officer Monitoring Officer

Transcription

1 Subject: Borough of Rochdale (Brunswick Street, Rochdale) Compulsory Purchase Order 2012 Status: For Publication Report to: Rochdale Township Committee Date: 11 th July 2012 Report of: Director of Planning and Regulation Author Author: Gez Wood Comments from Statutory Officers: Section 151 Officer Monitoring Officer Tel: Key Decision: No 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 This report seeks approval to progress the Borough of Rochdale (Brunswick Street, Rochdale) Compulsory Purchase Order 2012 and recommends that Township Committee consider the associated implications of the Human Rights Act Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that Rochdale Township Committee resolve to: 1.1 Authorise the Borough of Rochdale (Brunswick Street, Rochdale) CPO 2012 utilising the powers within S.226 (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act Authorise the Service Director, Corporate Services to undertake the necessary legal procedures 1.3 Consider the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, namely reaching a view on whether there is a breach of the Act in place in the compulsory acquisition of the land within the Order 2.0 Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 The proposed Order relates to a small area of land marked in red on the plan titled Borough of Rochdale (Brunswick Street, Rochdale) CPO The Order lands are on the periphery of land already in Council ownership. 2.2 The Order Land is required to make the residential development of the wider site viable. 2.3 Sufficient weight of evidence has been provided to establish that the proposed development is in the public interest, complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 and is both viable and deliverable. It is therefore considered that a case can be made for the acquisition of the Order Lands by means of a CPO using powers provided by S.226 (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 2.4 The Township Committee is recommended to consider the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 in order to ensure that the Council discharges its duty in relation to this legislation. 3.0 Consultation undertaken and proposed 3.1 The purchase and clearance of Brunswick Street was completed by agreement circa The negotiation was undertaken by Rochdale Development Agency acting on behalf of the Council using funding provided by the HMR programme with the site being acquired for residential development. Consultation on the acquisition and after-use was undertaken with former occupiers and the wider community as part of that process. 3.2 More recently the Regenda Housing Association has indicated interest in the site for the development of 3 houses. It is likely that a planning application will be submitted in the near future and this will be the subject of local consultation. 3.3 A copy of this report was circulated to relevant Heads of Service, for information and comment. Where possible and appropriate those views are reflected in the body of the report. 4.0 Alternatives and Risks: 4.1 To not proceed with development would not be in line with the Council s commitment to the provision of a new housing in the area and the retention of the site without the funding to treat and maintain it would not be in the public interest. 4.2 To proceed with development and use the land at risk without seeking to address the ownership issue would be open to challenge and would not meet the requirements of funding agencies. 4.3 To obtain a defective title indemnity insurance. Indemnity insurance may well be necessary in this case as a stopgap because the Housing Association funding timescales and the CPO procedure cannot be reconciled and without insurance the funding and development opportunity is likely to be lost. However insurance in isolation, ie without a CPO, would essentially leave the matter unresolved until title could be established through adverse possession which could take as long as 12 years. A CPO is the only way to resolve the issue in a shorter timescale and is therefore considered to be a better option. 5.0 Main text of report: 5.1 The Order Lands lie approximately 0.6 mile to the north-east of Rochdale Town Hall and comprises the full width of the alleyway that provided access to the rear and south side of former dwellings Nos Brunswick Street, a total area of approximately 63 square metres. 5.2 Title to the properties Brunswick Street was acquired on behalf of the Council during the period but the acquired ownerships did not include the alleys The Order Lands are required to facilitate a housing development specifically in relation to the provision of garden, car-parking and circulation areas. The proposed housing will provide for a recognised housing need in the area on what is otherwise likely to remain a vacant, un-maintained plot. Development is therefore considered to contribute to the social and environmental well-being of the area.

3 5.4 Funding for the development is in place and initial appraisal of the proposals by Regenda HA suggests that there are no planning constraints. Regenda HA have indicated that they need to commence development within the current financial year. 5.5 Ownership of the Order land is not registered and the owner(s) cannot be identified which makes acquisition by agreement impossible, therefore it is believed that acquisition of the former alleys by means of a CPO is the only means of ensuring that title can pass to the developer in reasonable time. 5.6 The Order Lands once formed part of a communal access for Brunswick Street and adjacent properties. The area of the Order Lands is no longer used or required for access. 5.7 Regenda Housing Association has indicated that the site could accommodate 3 - two storey houses suitable for local needs. 6.0 Human Rights Act In accordance with circular 06/2004 (Compulsory Purchase) before a CPO can be made there must be a compelling case "in the public interest". The Council is required to act in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR and Article 8 if appropriate, in deciding whether or not to make a CPO. 6.2 The Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and requires all public authorities to have regard to Convention Rights. In making decisions Members therefore need to have regard to the Convention. The rights that are of particular significance to Cabinet s decision are those contained in Articles 8 (right to home life) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions). 6.3 Article 8 provides that there should be no interference with the existence of the right except in accordance with the law and, as necessary in a democratic society in the interest of the economic well being of the country, protection of health and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 1 of the 1st Protocol provides that no-one shall be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law although it is qualified to the effect that it should not in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the uses of property in accordance with the general interest. 6.4 In determining the level of permissible interference with enjoyment the courts have held that any interference must achieve a fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the rights of individuals. The Council must act reasonably and proportionately in the means employed and the aim pursued. 6.5 In deciding whether to proceed with the recommendations in this report, Committee needs to consider the extent to which the decision may impact upon the human rights of the land owner and residents and to balance them against the overall benefits to the wider community. Committee must be satisfied that the interference with the rights under Article 8 and Article 1 Protocol 1 is justified. 6.6 Committee may wish to bear in mind the following when considering the tests set out in paragraph 6.3 above: The Order is being made under a Statutory Procedure with built-in safeguards enacted by Parliament to protect the rights of landowners.

4 6.8 The Order is being made to allow the development of the Order Land to facilitate development which ins in the interests of the social and environmental well-being of the area. 6.9 No more land than is required has been included in the Order It is the Officer s opinion that the proposed Order does not infringe the Human Rights Act The interference with the landowner s Rights is prescribed by law (S.226 (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990); is pursuant to a legitimate aim; is necessary in a democratic society and is proportional to the proposed outcome..7.0 Risk Assessment 7.1 The Council has ownership of a commitment to the construction of a new housing in this area and has a long-standing history of support for Housing Association development as means of meeting housing need. The proposed development is in accordance with that commitment and aims. 7.2 In relation to the more specific risks associated with this Compulsory Purchase Order the key issues are as follows: Appropriateness of action Risk of failure Capability of staff Financial consequences Viability of development 7.3 Appropriateness of Action The proposed Order will relate to land in no known ownership and, by definition, negotiation with owners and acquisition by agreement has not been possible A view has been taken that a successful CPO will provide the Council with clear title over the site through a General Vesting Declaration. This action is clearly appropriate and is considered the best course because it is likely to provide a satisfactory outcome within a six to eighteen month timeframe (depending on whether objection(s) to the Order are received) Alternative course of action through indemnity insurance and adverse possession has been considered but the timescale for acquiring clear title by this means would be altogether longer (up to 12 years). In the context of the overall project this is not considered an acceptable timescale. 7.4 Risk of failure The compulsory purchase legislation requires that the Council is able to show that it has a reasonable expectation that a proposed development will be delivered and that there is a compelling case in the public interest, insofar as the proposed development in likely to contribute to the well-being of the area While the Council is still required to make a case for acquisition it is clear at the time of writing this report that sufficient steps have been taken to establish that there are no fundamental planning impediments to development. The Council has a commitment to facilitate the construction of new housing in areas of housing need and there is evidence that the development will be delivered if land ownership issues can be resolved.

5 7.4.3 On the basis of the available evidence at it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed use of CPO powers is appropriate and there is a good chance that the Order will be confirmed. 7.4 Capability of Staff Whilst this CPO is minor in terms of land area and value it is significant in terms of the development proposal. It is therefore important that procedural and administrative requirements are met Consideration has been given to the employment of consultants to guide the process, however it is that case that existing staff are well versed in the procedural requirements and will be able to process this matter to completion as an in-house exercise. 7.5 Financial Implications The procedural costs of a CPO (excluding staff time) have been estimated at 7500 assuming that owners are not forthcoming and the Order does not result in objection and public inquiry. The value of the Order Lands along with associated legal and conveyancing costs is estimated at less than and compensation will be payable to parties making legitimate claims up to 7 years from confirmation of the Order It is considered unlikely that this matter will be the subject of objection/dispute. If that was to happen and resolution through negotiation was not possible then procedural costs, in the form of a public inquiry and associated representation, would increase substantially The cost of proceeding on the basis of indemnity insurance without CPO would be substantially less but is not considered satisfactory in terms of certainty or timescale. Indemnity insurance may need to be in place as a stopgap to cover the period between the commencement of development and confirmation of the CPO. 7.6 Viability of Development 7.61 Work carried out to date has served to indicate that there are no planning or physical constraints to the proposed development. Regenda H. A. has indicated that funding for development is in place. 8.0 Personnel implications 8.1 In-house staffing resources have the capacity and capability to carry the CPO project forward to completion. 8.2 The project will follow the Prince 2 project management model with overall responsibility for the CPO resting with the Planning and Regulation Services Capital Projects Team supported by Legal Services. 9.0 Financial Implications 9.1 The immediate financial consequences to the Council are the procedural and staffing costs associated with making the Order. These costs are relatively minor and will be funded from the approved Strategic Housing Budget for East Central Rochdale sites acquired under the Housing Market Renewal Area programme. 9.2 In terms of future liability the Council will be required to budget for compensation costs if the Order is confirmed and the Council takes possession. However the levels of compensation payable are not significant and in any case will not be payable

6 unless a bona fide owner makes a claim within the timescales specified by the legislation Conclusion 10.1 The proposed development is in accordance with Council and local aspirations and needs and is therefore considered to be of public benefit. Although there are other options for making progress in relation to site ownership it is clearly desirable to have the certainty of clear title in the shortest possible time 10.2 The use of powers made available by S.226 (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is clearly appropriate in this case and the likelihood of success is high. It is therefore recommended that the Township Committee authorise the making of the Order by the Service Director Corporate Services. Document Map 1.. Borough of Rochdale (Brunswick Street Road, Rochdale) Compulsory Purchase Order 2012 Background Papers Place of Inspection Attached For further information about this report please contact Gez Wood, Implementation Planning Manager, Planning and Regulation Service, Floor 1, Telegraph House, Bailiie Street, Rochdale, OL16 1JH Tel: gez.wood@rochdale.gov.uk