Purpose

Permission to make a Compulsory Purchase Order
('CPO) is required before proceeding legally. The relevant property
is a modern, 2 bedroomed, semi-detached property of red brick
construction with concrete tile roof. The property is located
within the Kingsway ward of Rochdale Township.

Content

The Cabinet considered
a report of the Director of Economy and Place which  sought approval of
a Compulsory Purchase Order (‘CPO’) relating to 5 Upper
Hayes Close, Rochdale OL16 2XZ.
 
The Head of Strategic
Housing (Property) and the Empty Property Team Lead were in attendance to present the information and to
address the questions and the comments of the Cabinet Members.
 
The Cabinet noted that
the property in question was located in the Rochdale Central Ward
and not in Kingsway Ward as stated in the report.
 
Officers informed that
the property had been unoccupied since April 2020 when the last
occupant of the property died. The Empty Property Team had made
numerous attempts to contact and engage with the registered owners
of the property without  success. Information obtained to date
indicated, the registered owners had not resided at the property
for some years and following initial enquiries, there appeared to
be some question over legal ownership of the property.
 
The deteriorating
condition of the property caused significant visual harm to
the local area. If acquired, the Council intended to
refurbish the property and
bring it back into use as housing.
 
Resolved:
1.   
That the making of the Borough of Rochdale (5 Upper Hayes Close,
Rochdale OL16 2XZ) Compulsory Purchase Order 2025, utilising powers
granted under Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 for the
acquisition of land for the purpose of providing housing be
authorised. This power included the acquisition of empty properties
where there appears to be no other prospect of those empty
properties being brought back into use;
2.   
That the Assistant Director of Legal, Governance and Coroners, and
the Director of Economy and Place be given delegated authority to
undertake the necessary legal procedures and associated action in
relation to the Order as described;
3.   
That the Head of Strategic Housing (Property) in consultation with
the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Housing and Director of
Corporate Services be given delegated authority to proceed with the
CPO process and any relevant expenditure;
4.   
That the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, namely reaching
a view on whether there is a breach of the Act if compulsory
acquisition of the land within the Order as described in paragraph
2.1 is authorised, be considered.
 
Reason for
decision:
The Council should
only make a CPO if it is satisfied that it is a last resort and
there is a compelling case in the public interest. The making of
the proposed CPO is in the public interest because:
The proposed
intervention was likely to bring the property back into use.
The provision of
housing would contribute towards meeting housing need in the
borough.
A refurbished property
would contribute to meeting housing need, improve energy efficiency
and reduce fuel poverty, help to reduce crime and anti-social
behaviour through passive surveillance from the new residents, and
generally improve the attractiveness and vitality of the area.
 
Given the
deteriorating condition of the property and the inactivity on the
part of the registered owners or the Executor of the deceased
previous occupant to bring the property back into productive use, a
Compulsory Purchase Order was considered to be
the most appropriate mechanism available to the Council to
facilitate refurbishment of the property.
 
Land Registry title
checks confirmed the property had been owned by
the current registered owners since October 1984.
 
The property had
remained unoccupied since 28th April 2020.
 
Alternatives
considered and rejected.
To continue
unsuccessfully to engage with the registered owners of the property
- this was not considered to be likely
to bring the property back into use, due to the queries regarding
legal ownership of the property.
To do nothing –
this was not acceptable due to the deteriorating condition of the
property and the negative amenity impact an empty property had on
the local area and loss of potential housing stock.