BLACKPOOL COUNCIL
REPORT
of the
HEAD OF LEGAL AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
and
HEAD OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
and
HEAD OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
to the
Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Tourism
BLACKPOOL COUNCIL (66 ASHTON ROAD, BLACKPOOL) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2005
1. Purpose of Report
Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 empowers local housing authorities (in this case Blackpool Council) to compulsorily acquire land, houses or other properties for the provision of housing accommodation.
The purpose of this report is to seek authority to make a Compulsory Purchase Order under Section 17 in respect of the land and dwelling house, 66 Ashton Road, Blackpool, in order to acquire compulsorily all interests and rights in the land and property to enable the Council to have the property renovated and re-used for housing purposes.
The premises 66 Ashton Road, Blackpool, to be subject of the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order is referred to in this report as the Premises.
2. Background
Members will recall that Integrated Neighbourhood Initiatives are part of the Council’s current housing renewal strategy (Housing Strategy 2000-2005). The Premises lies within the Central Drive Integrated Neighbourhood Initiative Area Within the aims and objectives of that initiative is a resolve to deal with empty and dilapidated properties. In addition, such an acquisition complies with the Council’s Empty Homes Strategy 2002.
3. The Premises
The Premises has remained empty since the owner Annie Lowton entered the Chaseside Rest Home, St Annes in June, 2000, where she subsequently died on the 1 September, 2003.
There have been a number of complaints (11) since that time, including enquiries by Councillor Mrs Smith. Default works on notices served have resulted in local land charges amounting to a total of £399.15 plus interest. These notices were pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Section 78 of the Building Act 1984 (Emergency Powers). A Section 29 notice served on the 19 June, 2003 pursuant to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, resulted in the Premises being bricked-up by default works.
The Premises is not fit for human habitation within the terms of Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended). See attached Dilapidation Report which lists the defects found at an inspection made by Senior Environmental Health Officer Mr C L Mardy on the 11 May, 2004 and a Schedule of Works itemising the works required to make the premises fit for human habitation.
In addition to the above considerations the Premises is a serious eyesore and whilst considered to be actionable by planning enforcement under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 it is not thought that action under this legislation would result in a permanent solution.
4. Ownership of the Premises
The Premises was owned by Annie Lowton until her death on the 1 September, 2003. Under the provisions of her Will, she left the premises to a Mary Margaret O’Neil. At the time of her death Mrs Lowton resided at the Chaseside Rest Home who had the next of kin recorded as Margaret O’Neil.
The will is held by Solicitor Mr Peter Howell of Inghams Solicitors, Blackpool and monies are also held by another Solicitor. Ms Elaine Banks of Blackhursts Solicitors, Blackpool. Neither have been able to trace the Executor who is also the beneficiary.
Officers of the Council’s Legal Services Division have made enquiries regarding two separate addresses in London with Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council and Westminster City Council. They have also consulted a Tracing Agent. The whereabouts of the Beneficiary/Executrix Ms Mary Margaret O’Neil remains unknown.
A search by officers of the Council’s Legal Services Division indicated that the Premises are not registered with the Land Registry.
Eventually the Solicitors concerned would have to refer this matter to the Duchy of Lancaster to stand in place of the Executor. Any monies for acquisition under Compulsory Purchase Order due to the Executor/beneficiary would be paid into Court by the Council following a decision of the Lands Tribunal on application by the Council if the Compulsory Purchase Order is confirmed.
5. Alternative Courses of Action
When formulating an appropriate course of action the following were considered.
Option1: Do nothing. Obviously not a satisfactory option. Complaints would continue and this would be contrary to current Council policy.
Option 2: Using Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to improve the external appearance so it would no longer be an eyesore. However the premises would remain empty and would over time deteriorate.
Option 3: Enforced sale. This would normally be the preferred course of action under these circumstances. Under the Law of Property Act 1925 the Council may become Mortgagee by Deed to recover land charges. However, this is only possible if a property is registered at Land Registry. The Premises is not so registered.
Option4: Compulsory purchase remains as the only option that guarantees a satisfactory solution.
Following the resolution of adequate funding (see Item 6 below), the Problem Empty Property Group confirmed, at a meeting of the 15 November, 2004, that compulsory purchase was the most appropriate course of action.
6. Funding
Acquisition of the Premises will be funded by the Housing Strategy Group through the Housing Improvement Programme.
The Housing Strategy Group resolved on the 22 September, 2004 that Mr K Garritty in consultation with Mr N Jack would have authority for the allocation of funds from the Housing Improvement Programme allocation for the compulsory purchase of individual properties.
7. Financial Considerations
Following a valuation carried out in May, 2004 by Group Estates Officer Mr I R Davies it has been estimated that the Council may incur the following costs.
Market value of Premises £35,000.00
Valuation Fee £ 250.00
Cost of Lands Tribunal application £ 1,000.00
Public Inquiry £14,000.00 (Inspector)
£ 2,000.00 (QC)
£ 3,000.00 (Witnesses + Admin etc)
Total £55,250.00
Nineteen thousand pounds of the cost’s highlighted above will only be payable if, following objection, a hearing is called. From the information to date, since the executor cannot be located, it is doubtful that a public inquiry will be needed.
Should the Compulsory Purchase Order be confirmed, then in order to meet with the Strategy a disposal which ensures the property is put into good order and occupied will be required, or the Council could refurbish the property itself.
It is considered that the most appropriate method would be a disposal to a third party.
Whilst the market value of the premises will remain static for short periods of time, it is susceptible to fluctuations. A future disposal should ensure that the market value as described is achieved however it should be bourn in mind that the above will incur costs of disposal in the order of £3,000.00.
Un-recovered costs will therefore be in the order of £4,250.00 without a Public Inquiry and £23,250.00 with a Public Inquiry.
8. Human Rights
Guidance in ODPM Circular 02/2003 indicates that in order to justify the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order the acquiring authority should have a compelling case in the public interest which significantly justifies interfering with the human rights of those affected.
There must be a balancing act between the public interest and the individual’s rights and any interference must be necessary and proportionate.
In the circumstances of this case, in particular when considering the absence of the beneficiary of the deceased owner’s will, it is clear that the public benefit to be delivered by the acquisition outweighs the rights of the individual concerned.
There is, therefore, a compelling case in the public interest for the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order in order to have the Premises renovated and re-used for housing purposes.
9. Risk
If the Council is unable to acquire the Premises it will not be able to deliver the objectives of the Integrated Neighbourhood Initiatives of the Council’s current housing renewal strategy and the Premises would remain detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood.
In such circumstances there would inevitably be additional costs incurred by the Council in consequence of further formal action and default works. It is not possible to anticipate what such costs might be, however, they may eventually be substantial.
10. Conclusion
The making of a Compulsory Purchase Order is necessary in order to fulfil the Council’s policies as stated above, as there is no other suitable course of action.
11. Recommendations
1. To authorise the making of the Blackpool Council (66 Ashton Road, Blackpool) Compulsory Purchase Order 2005 (the Order) under Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985, in respect of the land and premises described in this report and shown coloured pink on the plan attached to this report, being land and premises required in order to secure the renovation and re-use of the Premises for housing purposes as describe in this report on the basis that there is a compelling case in the public interest for making the order.
2. To authorise the Heads of Legal Services, Economic Development and Environmental Services to take all necessary action towards making the Order and securing its confirmation.
Mark Lewis
Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Kevin Garritty
Head of Environmental Services
Alan Cavill
Head of Economic Development