Home battlers await their fate

HOMES fight . . . Gerald Mortell

THE group of Derker residents fighting to save their homes must wait to hear if a High Court judge will come to their rescue.

One of the country’s senior judges, Mr Justice Andrew Collins, has reserved his decision in the case in which he is being asked by one of the residents, Gerald Mortell, to quash the Oldham (Derker Area Phase 1 Regeneration) Compulsory Purchase Order made by Oldham Council and approved by the Government.

He will give a written judgement at a later date, probably before the end of next month.

Late in the hearing, the judge heard an additional claim advanced on behalf of the residents, that the Government planning inspector who approved the CPO appeared to be unsympathetic and biased against them during the planning inquiry into the CPO.

Their counsel, Robert McCracken QC, had hoped to win an indication from the judge that his client, Gerald Mortell’s case had been successful on the other grounds advanced earlier in the hearing, and on that basis held back the allegations “in the public interest”.

However, when the judge indicated it was not possible for him to reach a decision at this stage, Mr McCracken advanced the additional ground of challenge.

He told the judge : “The inspector failed to give a fair hearing to the claimants in breach of the principles of natural justice.

“The claimants and others were so concerned about the conduct of the inquiry that they and their solicitor made statements before knowing of the outcome of the inquiry.

“The inspector both appeared to be, and was in fact, unwilling to grapple with relevant material presented to him.

“The inspector appeared to be unsympathetic towards and biased against the claimants and others who would lose their homes.”

This approach, he said, was “manifestly incompatible” with the requirements of natural justice and the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, John Litton, for the Government, argued that the facts “do not support such an allegation”.

“No complaint was made to the inspector at any time during the inquiry.”

“A number of the letters were written by objectors who spoke at the inquiry, but none suggest that they individually were treated anything other than fairly by the inspector.

“There is no evidence from anyone who wished to ask questions or speak at the inquiry that they felt inhibited or were prevented from doing so.

“It cannot be said that any of those who wrote complaining are fair-minded and informed observers.

“On the contrary, many if not all were directly affected by the CPO and the possible loss of their homes.”