The Centre Point development on the corner of Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road was completed in 1966. It is in three main sections: the tower, a lower building across the road (the Earnshaw Building), and a bridge section connecting the two buildings.
The Earnshaw Building is itself in three sections: a car park at basement level, shops and office space on the ground and upper floors and, supported by columns on the roof of the upper floor, a six storey structure containing 36 maisonettes. The development remained empty for a number of years.
In September 1972, the local authority, the London Borough of Camden, sought a Compulsory Purchase Order so that they could acquire the maisonettes and make them available to people in need of council housing.
In August 1974, the Secretary of State for the Environment approved Camden's Compulsory Purchase Order. It was worded as follows:
36 Residential maisonettes on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th floors of the part of and adjacent to the east side of the property known as Centre Point, London, WC1, together with, (i) the corridors giving access to the said maisonettes, (ii) the entrance hall, staircase and lifts at the south end and (iii) the staircase above podium level at the north end.The owners of Centre Point applied to have the order quashed. The maisonettes were only habitable if the occupiers had rights to use services shared with the lower part of the building such as electricity cables, rubbish chutes etc. The owners argued that the Compulsory Purchase Order was not worded in a way that gave Camden these rights and that furthermore, Camden could not use the Compulsory Purchase Order to compel the grant of these rights.
Where is it on the map?
At point X.
Who won?
The owners of Centre Point won. The House of Lords held that the Camden could not compel the owners to grant them the rights necessary to make the maisonettes habitable and that the Compulsory Purchase Order should not be read in a way that granted the rights.
What's the principle of law?
This case makes it clear that the law views the acquisition of property via a Compulsory Purchase Order very differently to the acquisition of property from a willing seller. Camden argued that it was obvious that they would need rights over the lower floors of Earnshaw House and that they should therefore be implied into the Order. But the House of Lords stated that only the property and the rights specifically named in the Order could be acquired. This is because a Compulsory Purchase Order is a tool for acquiring property against the wishes of its owner. The default position of the law is to respect the ownership of private property and it was therefore right to read the Order in a restrictive way.
This case also illustrates the principle that an owner of property cannot grant themselves legal easements (rights) over their own land. Legal easements can only be created when the land that benefits from the easement is held on a separate title to the land that carries the burden of the easement. At the time the Compulsory Purchase Order was made, the land was all held on one title. Therefore, whilst the maisonettes undoubtedly shared services with the lower parts of the building, no legal easements existed that were capable of being transferred to Camden.
What's it like today?
Despite being described as “coarse in the extreme” by Nikolaus Pevsner, the development was listed by English Heritage in 1995.
The GoToMidtown website lists some interesting facts about the construction and the history of the development, although it doesn't mention the abortive Compulsory Purchase Order of the maisonettes.
In 2013 the owners were granted planning permission to redevelop the site to brighten up the exterior, create a 'plaza' at street level and convert much of the main tower into flats. For now there is a bar at the top of the tower offering panoramic views of London, but this is set to close when the site is redeveloped.
No comments:
Post a Comment