Elephant and Castle Town Centre Redevelopment: Compulsory Purchase Order Confirmed

Background to the CPO Decision  

The CPO was jointly promoted by the Council and EC under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to facilitate EC's mixed use redevelopment of Elephant and Castle Town Centre in central London. That redevelopment has already begun and will include almost 1,000 new homes, a new university campus for the London College of Communication, retail, restaurants and cultural facilities.  

The CPO was necessary to underpin the acquisition of the last remaining interests required for the continuation and completion of the scheme. EC and the Council had successfully negotiated many land acquisitions by private agreement prior to a public inquiry held in October 2024. By the beginning of the inquiry, only three objections to the CPO remained, and those remaining objections were then withdrawn during and immediately after the inquiry. 

On 7 January 2025, Inspector DJ Board confirmed the CPO. 

Why Did the Inspector Confirm the CPO?  

The Inspector concluded that: 

• There was a need to regenerate Elephant and Castle.
• The scheme was in accordance with development plan policy.
• There had been a fair and transparent approach to engagement and negotiation with affected parties.
• Extensive work had been undertaken by the Council and EC to devise a successful noise mitigation solution for the grassroots music venue Corsica Studios, so that it could be re-accommodated within the scheme and continue to operate next to the new homes. 
• The scheme was a "pivotal opportunity for the transformation of the area".
• Overall, due to the mitigation and accommodation proposed for affected parties as part of the scheme, the overall effect on occupiers would be positive, so that there was no overall adverse impact on human rights. 

What Lessons Can Be Learned from the Decision? 

There have been a couple of high-profile Inspector decisions not to confirm town centre regeneration CPOs in recent years (Barking and Maidenhead), so this decision will be of keen interest to developers and local authorities alike.  

First, in a planning CPO such as this, it is important to demonstrate that the scheme underpinning the CPO fits in with the local plan and the development plan as a whole. The Council was able to do this by virtue of long-established local plan policy, and indeed the Elephant and Castle Town Centre is identified in the London Plan as an Opportunity Area which is appropriate for significant growth. 

Second, planning permission had been granted for the scheme. And even where EC and the Council recognised that a revised planning application would be needed for part of the site (partly due to accommodating a second staircase in tall buildings on that part of the site), they were able to demonstrate through their evidence to the inquiry that it was likely that planning permission would be granted for the revisions.  

Third, the decision vindicates the extensive engagement and negotiation that EC and the Council undertook with affected parties over a considerable period of time. This was crucial in preventing objections to the CPO and in securing the withdrawal of the objections that were made. It was therefore clear that the CPO was being sought as a matter of last resort, as per Government guidance. 

In carrying out the negotiations, EC and the Council did not limit themselves to making financial settlements for land acquisitions. As the Inspector noted, where appropriate they had significant and detailed plans in place to demonstrate how relocation within the scheme, and the fit-out of the relocation units, would be undertaken for affected occupiers. The Council also arranged for the translation of key documents into Spanish for affected Latin American business occupiers and for a translator to be present during their meetings with EC and the Council. 

Fourth, EC and the Council were careful to adhere to the Government's Guidance on Compulsory Purchase Process. The new version of that guidance was published shortly before the Inquiry opened. The Inspector recognised that the new guidance could not as a matter of fairness be applied to the steps taken before it was published, but in any event she concluded that the requirements of the new guidance were met because "the steps taken by the [Council] in preparing and submitting this Order were exemplary".  

Overriding Rights Which Affect a Development Site 

Separately from the CPO, the Council also demonstrated its commitment to the scheme by utilising its powers (at EC's request) under section 203 Housing and Planning Act 2016. That involved undertaking a process which overrode third-party rights (primarily rights to light) which would otherwise have prevented the scheme from proceeding. Section 203 is a useful tool for facilitating developments, particularly the construction of tall buildings in urban centres where rights to light may be numerous. The use of section 203 needs to be carefully considered and dealt with, though, as rights of light are property rights and, depending on the circumstances, an infringement of them may be argued to be an interference with human rights. 

The Elephant and Castle Town Centre Redevelopment is being led by Richard Palmer, Delancey Development Director on behalf of EC and Get Living Plc. Katharine Reed (of the Council's Legal Department) advised the Council. Richard Honey KC of Francis Taylor Building was jointly instructed by Jones Day and the Council. Matthew Bodley of Matthew Bodley Consulting Limited (CPO surveyor) is advising EC on land acquisitions. Jones Day advised EC on all stages of the CPO and on section 203.