Blackpool Council forced to defend engagement and negotiations over demolishing homes for Multiversity project
A public inquiry into its plans to use Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers to force the sale of homes in the town centre resumed at the Imperial Hotel
Key figures at Blackpool Council have defended its engagement and negotiations with the people whose homes it wants to demolish for its Multiversity project.
A public inquiry into its plans to use Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers to force the sale of homes in the town centre resumed at the Imperial Hotel yesterday (3 December) and heard from the council’s last two witnesses.
Once complete, the development will house state-of-the-art education facilities which will link to both the town centre and employment opportunities through the recently completed Talbot Gateway.
However, that will only be made possible by demolishing homes and businesses which are currently located on the development site. The earlier hearing heard evidence from senior figures from the council and Blackpool and the Fylde College about the benefits of the project and how it fit into wider regeneration aims.
Before the witnesses were called on Tuesday, the inquiry heard an update which said negotiations had continued since the last hearings took place in November and that only six objectors remained. That represented a drop from 13 when the last hearings took place and it was suggested throughout that there was confidence most would be resolved in the coming weeks.
First to speak was the authority’s Head of Investment Talha Yakub who is responsible for the land acquisition and negotiations. He explained that talks had been ongoing with residents and building owners since 2022 and that the council had gone beyond the statutory requirements in its dealing with those affected.
One objection, sent by agents Carter Jonas on behalf of JCB Northern Lights, had argued the council had failed to undertake a realistic valuation and made an offer which was not “the starting point for any meaningful negotiation”.
Mr Yakub disputed this, saying valuations were made based on various evidence-based factors and updated once building inspections had been carried out. Mr Yakub also explained that the council had factored in Home Loss Payments and Displacement Compensation when making offers and that it had agreed to pay for agents to represent the residents.
He added that Carter Jonas was the only agency which had disputed its proposed hourly rate when agreeing that budget for representation.
Explaining the lengths gone to ensure proper negotiations, Mr Yakub said the council had employed tracing agents to find the owner of a plot of land on the site who was eventually traced to the Netherlands.
The final witness was Katy Aldridge who, as Head of Commissioning and Corporate Delivery, has been responsible for leading the service which is supporting affected residents. She said the council had made extensive efforts to reach out to those affected and had made its service available in person, by phone, email or text message based on individual preferences.
She said her team had visited people at their homes to ensure they were aware of what was going on, arranged public meetings with independent support to aid those who could be struggling to understand the letters, and engaged with helping find alternative accommodation for those being displaced.
Referencing recent discussions with Robert Farrell, the owner of three properties on the site including one where the tenant has been present for 30 years, she said: “While I’m very confident we’ll be able to overcome the concerns he has for his tenants, I recognise this is a very challenging situation for him and I hope that negotiations are successful for him.”
Responding to another objection which suggested there hadn’t been enough effort to make contact, Ms Aldridge: “I accept that people have the right to believe that but I think our support has been available, offered and tailored and it has been proportional and responsible for the situation people are in while recognising they are unfortunate to be impacted.”
As none of the objectors have chosen to speak at the inquiry, it will hear the council’s closing submission on Wednesday and a decision will be made in private by the chair and issued in writing.
 | A guest post by
|