Elizabeth Pascoe won the right to remain in her home despite being issued with a compulsory purchase order by English Partnerships, who planned to knock down 500 homes to build a road and new housing.
While Pascoe’s case was not directly under the Pathfinder scheme, the results of her test case could set a precedent for those battling against the government to stop their homes being demolished under the scheme.
Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, said: “What emerges from this case is that it is not lawful to acquire and demolish perfectly good homes. That is what Pathfinder requires and it will not work. This case establishes that the Pathfinder approach to urban regeneration has a fundamental legal flaw at its heart.”
Despite the ruling by Mr Justice Forbes in favour of Pascoe, the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) denied the Pathfinder project had been undermined.
A statement said: “Compulsory purchase orders are made all over the country but this judgment relates to the individual case at hand and has no wider bearing on the government’s programmes to regenerate deprived inner city areas.”
Mortgage Introducer reported last week a review by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation had already identified a number of shortcomings with the Pathfinder scheme.
Simon Biddle, head of marketing and communications at Infinity Mortgages, said: “There are some significant challenges for the Pathfinder scheme. Some of the best urban regeneration projects are where existing homes are improved as it doesn’t completely re-engineer a community. The Pathfinder scheme is great on paper but Pascoe has struck a blow for human rights and good urban planning.”
