Vassily v Secretary of State for the Environment

Compulsory purchase for rehabilitation–Objector, a builder, seeks to carry out his own conversion–Secretary of State entitled to say council could do it better–Judge nevertheless thinks it a pity that owner-occupiers could not be brought into a rehabilitation scheme in some way that would save their homes This was an application by Mr Christakis Vassily, of 68 Hilldrop Crescent, Holloway, London N, for an order quashing the Islington (Hilldrop Road) Compulsory Purchase Order 1972, made by the London Borough of Islington and confirmed by the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in so far as it related to his (the applicant’s) dwelling-house. Mr Vassily appeared in person. Mr H K Woolf (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) represented the respondent. Giving judgment, PHILLIPS J said that the disputed order related partly to an area which was to be redeveloped and partly to houses which it was proposed should be retained and rehabilitated and in most if not all cases divided into flats. Mr Vassily, a Greek Cypriot who had lived in Islington for more than 20 years, was one of a number of objectors at a public inquiry that had been held who wished to carry out their own conversion work. The inspector had described his house as having a well-proportioned and pleasant appearance. Mr Vassily now contended that the order made was not within the Secretary of State’s powers under the Housing Act because ‘there was no or no sufficient evidence on which the Secretary of State could find that he could not rehabilitate the property as well as the council.’ The applicant’s case at the inquiry was that he wished to convert the house into three flats, that he owned other property in the borough and that by using alternative accommodation he could look after his tenants. He could start immediately, and the work should be finished in about two years; he was a builder and would employ about five men on the work. The evidence was that he had the money to do it. The inspector recommended confirmation of the order, except in the case of another objector, on the ground that he was not satisfied that those concerned would be able to execute what was required as well as the council. This was a test or standard which the Secretary of State was entitled to prescribe, and though he (his Lordship) felt sympathy for Mr Vassily, it was impossible for him to say that there was no evidence upon which the inspector could come to the conclusion complained of. He appreciated that this meant that Mr Vassily was going to have his house taken away from him, and he thought it was a pity that where there was to be an area of redevelopment which would leave buildings in many cases intact, the owner-occupiers could not be brought in so that the result which the council required could be achieved without evicting them. Nevertheless, Mr Vassily had not made out his case, and with some regret, he (Phillips J) must dismiss the application. The Secretary of State did not ask for costs.