Save our homes

DETERMINED BID . . . Members of Derker Community Action Group outside London’s High Court

Residents in High Court bid to stop house demolition

DERKER residents who are fighting to save their homes from demolition never had a fair hearing at a compulsory purchase order inquiry, the High Court has heard.

Mr Justice Andrew Collins is being asked to quash the order, which threatens 90 homes and 12 businesses, at a two-day hearing in London.

The Derker residents filled the courtroom for the opening of their challenge to the compulsory purchase order (CPO) aimed at acquiring land for new, eco-friendly homes in the Derker Housing Market Renewal area.

The CPO forms part of the Government’s Pathfinder Programme for housing market renewal.

But Judge Collins warned that they have to show some error of law on the part of the decision-makers to persuade him to quash the CPO. He is expected to reserve judgement and give his decision in writing — probably towards the end of November.

The residents, who say that renovating their homes would be cheaper and maintain a larger stock of affordable housing, are asking the judge to quash the Oldham (Derker Area Phase 1 Regeneration) Compulsory Purchase Order.

Their counsel, Robert McCracken QC, said yesterday that his clients had not had a fair hearing when their case was heard by a Government planning inspector, and that they were substantially prejudiced by the Government’s decision to confirm it.

He criticised the inspector’s finding that there was low market demand for homes in the area, which formed part of his justification for backing the CPO.

He said that the evidence before the inspector was that house prices in the area had virtually tripled between 2000 and He continued: “A six-year trend is much more secure than a three-year trend.

“A tripling is a much more significant increase than a doubling. A tripling over six years is much more powerful as a demonstration of a sustained rise in housing demand.”

He said that the inspector failed to take into account that, despite a great increase in the demand for social housing, and that the waiting list in the area is 7,000 strong, the current plans would involve a reduction in homes in the area by between 100 and 150.

He said that he failed to pay proper regard to the evidence that refurbishing and remodelling existing homes would cost only £47,635 per home rather than the £105,583 that demolition and rebuilding will cost.

He argued that the inspector ignored critically important policy in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, that better use of buildings is preferred to demolition and rebuild.

And he said that both the inspector and the Secretary of State made errors of law in relation to his clients’ rights under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said they approached his clients’ rights to respect for their homes on the basis that no human rights violations have occurred where compensation and alternative accommodation is involved.

But they wrongly failed to consider the adequacy of the alternative arrangements and the way compensation would be assessed.

“The inspector and the Secretary of State were not in a position to assess whether a fair balance had been struck between the interests of the Corporation [Oldham Borough Council] and the claimants,” he said.

“The confirmation of the CPO was unlawful. There has been a failure to comply with the relevant requirements, whereby the claimants have been substantially prejudiced. The claimants have not had a fair hearing. They are aggrieved by the authorisation of the order.”

The hearing continues.


The man leading residents’ battle

By Janice Barker

THE top-flight barrister who is spearheading the Derker residents’ challenge has a soft spot for Oldham — it’s where he was born.

Robert McCracken QC is one of the country’s top barristers in the area of environmental and planning law.

When he was born 58 years ago, his parents Margaret, a former Liberal councillor for Saddleworth, and husband Dermot, a GP, lived in Greenfield.

He was the second of four children — Elizabeth (60), Robert, Sara (56) and Justin (53).

After his family left Oldham for Leeds in 1962 he went to Rugby School, then Oxford, gaining an MA, before he became a barrister in 1973.

He was ranked in the top 10 per cent of planning barristers by Planning magazine in 2000, and has represented groups at high-profile public inquiries across the country and internationally.

In 2006 he successfully helped Liverpool residents fighting demolition plans in their Housing Market Renewal areas to take their case to the High Court.

The same year he was in the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean fighting another planning dispute.

Other high-profile cases include the Stonehenge inquiry, to protect the ancient monument from the near-by A road, and the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry.

Mr McCracken, whose hobbies include painting, sailing, natural science and fell walking, became a Queen’s Counsel (QC) five years ago, and shortly afterwards began his first defence of Derker residents.

In 2006 he agreed to represent them when they opposed the compulsory purchase orders on 200 homes in the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) area.

Residents’ spokesman Mark Mclean, of Vulcan Street, said he was “a real boost” to their David and Goliath campaign.

Although the inspector and the Secretary of State approved the CPO, the Derker campaigners were given permission to challenge it in the High Court — the case Mr McCracken is fighting this week.

They will be hoping he is as successful as his last campaign for them in 2007, when a judge quashed the council’s decision to grant planning permission for the Derker regeneration scheme.

The QC represented Derker resident Gerald Mortell, who is also the lead objector in the latest High Court action.

Deputy judge, Sir Michael Harrison, agreed with Mr McCracken and ordered Oldham Council to reconsider the scheme for residential developments at three sites - Abbotsford Road, Derker Station and London Road.

The judge found the council had not considered the cumulative effect of demolishing houses in each of the three sites; the significant impact of construction of the new houses; the likelihood the land is contaminated; and the loss of significant architectural heritage in Derker.