The High Court rejects tenant’s legal challenge to Newham CPO

In Saravanamuthu v Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government & Anor [2025] EWHC 2132 (Admin) (12 August 2025), the High Court dismissed an application by a Claimant under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The claim challenged  the validity of a compulsory purchase order made by the London Borough of Newham (“the Council”) and confirmed by the Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government (“the SoS”) in relation to the refurbishment, improvement and extension of James Riley Point, a 1969 23 storey tower block containing 132 apartments, (“JRP”) and its surrounding area.  The proposal involved the delivery of 136 quality refurbished homes including  96% affordable housing and a new community centre and improved public realm (“the Scheme”) as part of the wider Carpenter’s Estate regeneration project. The remaining leasehold residents were given the option to return to their refurbished homes so they would not be displaced.

The London Borough of Newham (James Riley Point) Compulsory Purchase Order 2023 (“the CPO”) was made on 4 July 2023 by the Council under section 226 (1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Acquisition of Land Act 1981  and was confirmed by the SoS on 23 April 2024.

The Claimant, a leaseholder of the 21^st floor since 2002, and her family were the only remaining residents who had not reached agreement with the Council, triggering the use of the Council’s CPO powers through the making of the CPO. The Claimant objected to the CPO and consequently a public local inquiry was held in February 2024, following which the CPO was confirmed. 

Grounds of Challenge

The Claimant raised three grounds relating to the validity of the CPO. She argued:

• Ground 1: Viability: that in confirming the CPO, the Inspector had failed  to comply with the duty of reasonable inquiry, applying the principle in Tameside,[i], to give proper or adequate reasons or  to give regard to the Vicarage Fields decision[ii] as a material consideration. 
• Ground 2: Reasonable efforts to acquire by agreement: that the Council had not taken reasonable attempts to acquire the Claimant’s interest and that the Inspector had failed to take into account the history of failed attempts by the Council to refurbish JRP and the living conditions the Claimant and her family endured as a result. 
• Ground 3: Excessive use of compulsory purchase powers: that CPO powers were disproportionate and exceeded what was necessary to achieve the Council’s purpose, and that the Inspector had failed to address the Claimant's offer to grant a licence to the Claimant to enable the Scheme to be carried out. 

All three grounds were dismissed and we have set out the key takeaway points below.

Key takeaways 

Viability 

The judgment provides useful commentary on viability.

• The Claimant  argued that the Scheme’s figures and viability had not been subject to independent analysis and that a number of related documents ,such as the CPO costs, were withheld on the basis that they were exempt. From the documents disclosed, it was understood that the Public Works Loan Board would loan the Council funds to underwrite the Scheme however it was not clear how it would be  repaid.  No Wednesbury unreasonableness was found by Mould J as the Inspector  had evidence of the Council’s funding intentions and sources of funding for the Scheme and there was no requirement for independent scrutiny and verification.
• There had also been a “call in” of the cabinet decision relating to the Scheme due to concerns by members of the rising costs of the Scheme, and its viability. Mould J was satisfied that the requisite Cabinet reports authorising increasing the Scheme budget were available, despite the “call in” concerns,  therefore demonstrating compliance with paragraphs 14 a) and b) and 106 of the CPO Guidance. This is a helpful reminder that an acquiring authority will need to demonstrate the sources of and timing of funding of a project, and ensure that any material changes to a scheme and its funding status are taken back to Cabinet or Full Council to ensure all necessary authorities are in place. 
• Mould J distinguished Vicarage Fields, and followed a similar approach as the Inspector in querying its relevance. In Vicarage Fields, the scheme was to be delivered by a single purpose private company which sought a positive return on its investment. With the lack of any other fallback position, evidencing the viability of the scheme was crucial. The Inspector emphasised that the Scheme was a “standalone project” which was not reliant on viability or the future delivery of the masterplan for the estate and was a not for profit scheme with the objective of delivering affordable housing. On this basis, Vicarage Fields was not  a material consideration.
• In relation to the reference to the Tameside case and the Inspector’s purported failure to act in accordance with the CPO Guidance, Mould J concluded: “There is no substance in the Claimant's argument that the inspector misinterpreted the CPO Guidance.  The question whether the scheme underlying compulsory acquisition is funded, viable and capable of being delivered is self-evidently material to the decision whether a compelling case for compulsory purchase has been made out”.

Other notable points 

• In relation to Ground, 2 Mould J highlighted that the purpose of the CPO Guidance is to require the acquiring authority to attempt and take forward meaningful negotiations and make reasonable efforts to acquire by agreement. This does not equate to the authority insisting on those negotiations to achieve a successful outcome. If that was not the case, it would undermine the purpose of authorities having compulsory purchase powers. 
• On Ground 3, Mould J held that there was no realistic prospect of the parties reaching agreement on the licence. He concluded that no alternative scheme had been put forward which would meet the policy objectives and the comprehensive regeneration of the order land which was essential to enable provision of much needed affordable housing. The use of CPO powers was  therefore necessary and proportionate and there was a compelling case in the public interest.

Concluding thoughts

This judgment emphasises the need for acquiring authorities to evidence a robust justification for the use of CPO powers and to comply with all the relevant paragraphs of the CPO Guidance, which continues to be the foundation source. It is also a reminder to carefully review the facts of earlier appeal decisions to check if they are likely to be distinguished or if they apply. Our team has extensive experience of promoting CPOs, so please contact Jen Ashwell, Danny Whittle or Anastasia Antoni if you have any queries.

[i] The Secretary of State for Education v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014, 1065

[ii] The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council (Vicarage Field and surrounding land) Compulsory Purchase Order 2021