Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: January 21, 2025

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.