YOUR articles on Burnley Council's clearance proposals (LET, September 3 and 16), in which I was quoted, contained information regarding the council's responsibility to pay costs to residents who are unhappy with the proposals and object to the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order.
I would like to set the record straight and to clarify the position on the payment of costs to those who object to compulsory purchase. It is not correct that anyone unhappy with the clearance proposals will have their costs paid by the council if they appeal.
These can be paid if the Secretary of State requests the council to hold a local public inquiry, if the person concerned has actually made an objection, if they have attended or are represented at the inquiry, if they win and if the Secretary of State awards costs.
In exceptional circumstances, an unsuccessful objector may be awarded costs. This could be where the objector has incurred unnecessary expense as a result of failure to comply with rules of procedure. However, such costs will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
I hope this clears up any confusion there may have been on the matter.
COUN RAFIQUE MALIK (Daneshouse with Stoneyholme Ward), Burnley Council.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article