"Without the order’s confirmation, it is very unlikely the envisaged regeneration benefits would be achieved, which could result in our resources being directed elsewhere."
As well as road widening, the plans include 280 new houses, a new medical centre and shops.
Because Liverpool City Council already owns the majority of the houses, and there is no appetite to go ahead with the project on a "piecemeal" basis, it is unclear how the project would proceed without English Partnerships.
Mr Lewis-Ward told the Daily Post if the inquiry ruled against the CPO, his agency would "re-evaluate" their position to see if the plan wa the right one for them.
It is the second CPO issued on the properties.
The first was quashed in the High Court in November, 2006, on a technicality.
Elizabeth Pascoe, head of opponents’ group Better Environmental Vision for Edge Lane (BEVEL) brought that action after a similar public inquiry in December, 2005. Ms Pascoe, who claims to have spent 10,000 unpaid hours fighting the plans, said in her opening statement: "I think it is most unfortunate that we find ourselves back here again, wasting public money.
"I cannot bring myself to do politically correct, and it is very hard to avoid this becoming anything other than antagonistic or acrimonious.
"I have watched them for years using funding made available to help us instead to destroy us. It is impossible for our side not to seem like a polemic because as almost anyone in the street will tell you, ‘this stinks’."
LLDC and English Partnership’s case hinges in part on claims the area is suffering from housing market failure because few people want to live in the houses.
But Ms Pascoe told the inquiry she believed the situation was artificially engineered.
She said: "Two years ago when the previous CPO kicked off in 2005 we had 131 empty properties in these orderlands (correct), mostly vacated since 2002
"Of those 131 empty, 127 were social tenants given incentives to go elsewhere."
Chris Lockhart-Mummery, QC, opened the case for the CPO.
He said developers would rely on arguments put forward in the previous inquiry because they remained valid.
He said: "Whilst accepting the burden must remain on EP to justify confirmation of this order, it must be incumbent on objectors to show why the conclusions on the merits in 2005/2006 are not sound today."
"If the Secretary of State were to arrive at different conclusions from those reached in the decision letter relating to [the first] CPO, she would have to have regard to the merits of making consistent decisions and to give reasons for arriving at a different conclusion."
Mr Lockhart-Mummery called Mike Burchnall, Liverpool City Council’s assistant executive director for regeneration services.
Mr Burchnall said an alternative plan for the area submitted by BEVEL, known as Plan B, was unsuitable.
He doubted if it could get either planning permission, secure funding, or deliver the regeneration promised by the LLDC plans.
A report will be drawn up by a planning inspector and passed to Local Government Minister Hazel Blears is expected to announce her decision by the summer.
benschofield@dailypost.co.uk
Source:
Liverpool Daily Post
Originally Posted by Cadfael
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks