WIN_20230120_15_47_31_Pro

The main ideas discussed in this transcription are the human rights impacts of assisted rejuvenation on existing residents, the arguments for and against assisted regeneration, and the legal requirements and considerations surrounding compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) in estate regeneration. The transcription emphasizes the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 8, and highlights the need to take into account the human rights of residents before authorizing a CPO. It also suggests that a focus on residents' rights to community and the incorporation of socio-economic and cultural rights would provide a more just and effective approach to human rights compliance. The transcription concludes by discussing the relevance of Article 8 in relation to the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. Welcome to this new edition. I'll be talking about the human rights impacts of assisted rejuvenation on existing residents, especially those in the field, and parties with vested interest in the land or the property. And this is directly related to assisted regeneration, commonly referred to as housing assisted regeneration, but what I refer to as assisted expropriation through using compulsory purchase of land and using demolition as the first result. The report places emphasis on the European Convention on Human Rights, which is integrated in the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically focusing on Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Procedure of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the human rights of children and racial minorities, which in respect of brevity for the discrimination aspects of the Convention on Human Rights, it is an exception. So that means those rights have to be contested in conjunction with another Convention right. To be able to, for the complainant to argue as to whether their rights have been breached or violated under the Convention right. Broadly the case for and against assisted regeneration is ferociously contested. Advocates for assisted regeneration contend that housing estate is beneficial to communities and residents, asserting that it leads to job creation, it allows the rejuvenation of the areas, improvement of the living spaces, and increases the supply of social and affordable housing, so called. However residents and other activists argue that the practice leads to displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement of residents. Further stating that the practice is a form of psychological violence, inflicted disproportionately on racially diverse and historically disadvantaged communities. Further observations from opponents of assisted regeneration argue or they suggest that the outcomes of assisted regeneration are arguably associated with commercial interests. These commercial interests lead to negative outcomes for residents and other communities and thereby potentially heightening the intergenerational inequality, which was already observed by the impact of COVID-19 in 2020, which led to a global lockdown. So the reports, my observations in the book, some of the books I've published, but particularly this report, which will be submitted to see one of the inquirers potentially, it evaluates the effect of assisted regeneration on residents and other applicable affected parties from the viewpoint of the European Commission on Human Rights, and the report further discusses the public authorities, their practices, scrutinizing the cause of practical decisions and policies, and the impact thereof on residents. The main gist of the report is around Article 8, Article 6, and Article 1 of the First Protocol on the Convention on Human Rights, but it also defines what compulsive fascist conduct are. In other words, it's simply a legal mechanism that the local authorities use to compulsorily take land, or maybe occupy or encumber the competing property of the right. And the CPOs require the approval of the compounding minister under the Acquisition of the Land Act 1981. There are various enabling powers available to acquire an authority to use to acquire land, depending on the set of reasons. And in respect of housing, it mainly falls under the Town and Planning Act, but again, it's not necessarily exclusive. There are other mechanisms, such as, that can be used to achieve that aim. But generally, one of the other requirements, the third requirement is that, it's also a legal requirement that the human rights of residents are taken into account before a CPO is authorised, to mitigate the detrimental impact and the related consequences of displacement and deprivation, such as the well-being of the residents, the education of the children, the loss of support networks, and the overall sense of loss of a home, and a sense of safe. And that is a legal requirement, a statutory requirement, for CPOs to be authorised after taking into account the impact of the human rights of residents. So we'll go straight to, just briefly, the various articles associated with CPOs. And we'll start with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Before going to that, there has to be public interest, a compelling public interest, that justifies the taking of the land or properties, and it has to be proportionate and justifiable, legally, to be able to stand the element of scrutiny and authorisation. There's also public sector duty, and the CPO guide has emphasised that all public sector acquiring authorities are bound by the public sector equality treaty, which is set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which asserts that, in exercising their compulsory purchase from related powers, acquiring authorities must have regard to the effect of any differential impacts on groups with protected characteristics. And in the context of estate regeneration, in practice, practical implementation is often inadequate, since the process appears self-serving, because acquiring bodies, they drive the impact assessment. And hence, for many residents, the process and outcome are not always fair and justifiable. And arguably, to cure this, the legal fulcrum should focus on the rights of residents as a mandatory or paramount legal requirement, which guarantees that residents in situ are not displaced from the community, through emphasis on a suggested right to community. The right to community is raised by, among others, Hubbard et al., who argue that the focus of the law ought to be on the rights of residents to stay in a community, and it also could be indicative of an extended concept of housing rights that culminate into a prospective arguable right to community, rather than simply the politics of gentrification. And in practical legal terms, this could be realized through a robust legal incorporation, incorporation and application of socio-economic and cultural rights in the CPA process, as an integral framework for the rights of the community. And this would be how the courts should actively treat human rights in the context of CPAs, as an existential fundamental right that needs to be legally and practically enforced, as opposed to simply a mere consideration. It should be a must emphasize that the guidance also, it should be noted that despite the guidance, the current requirements could potentially be manipulated to the detriment of the less-resourced and weakened communities, and therefore aligning the incorporation of homes with the right to community, through emphasis in cultural, social and economic rights, with the human rights requirements of residents of the center, would be a more just and effective human rights compliance approach. In other words, if these rights were hinged, pitched upon wider socio-economic and cultural rights, then that would arguably lead to a more meaningful protection of the human rights of the residents, too. Although the existing human rights associated with property could still be utilized to protect residents to a degree, I mean, their practical application is preventable, and I'll go into that a little bit below. As briefly mentioned above, among the legal requirements, human rights are a fundamental consideration during the CPO authorization of estate regeneration by public authorities, and the legal obligation to emphasize that the purposes for which the compulsion order is made should justify interfering with the rights of those with an interest in the land and those affected. It's a key ingredient of the European Convention on Human Rights justification. So, there are a number of rights in general, however, as I mentioned, we focus on Article 6, Article 8, and the Article 105 Protocol Convention on the European Convention on Human Rights. And the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom is a part of the European Convention on Human Rights. As I mentioned, it's incorporated in human rights into UK national law, and the act must be understood and be granted effect in compatibility with the convention rights of public authorities, and should be subject to the legal jurisdiction of the European Convention on Human Rights under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 4 of the Human Rights Act refers to the declaration of compatibility of the law, but does not necessarily curtail the law, while Section 6 renders it unlawful for the public authority to infringe the European Convention on Human Rights. This may apply to organizations which perform public authority. Although UK authorities do not have the requirement to make identical decisions to the ECR, the court ought to consider ECR decisions, European Convention decisions, and in any fashion affect the campaign of legal complaint. The victim does not necessarily have a standing under the City or the Court of Criminal Substance, rather than fall, I mean even a pressure group can be a victim if it shows it's a victim. Although individual states have a marginal appreciation in trying to implement these rights, because housing is considered part of the social point of the state, which is argued may require unique resolutions unless it manifests unreasonable foundations. There must be however stress that this might be understood. For the stand of points, international convention rights are highlighted by the UN rapprocheur on human rights. So, let's start with Article 8. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to respect his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by public authority with respect of this right, except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety, for the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder, crime, for the protection of health and morals, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The relevance of Article 8 stipulates a mandate that before discussing the relevance, it is important to explore the jurisdiction, the scope and contents of Article 8. The jurisdiction emanates from the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, and therefore it is strongly arguable that residents affected by CPOs could apply Article 8 to legally challenge the use of CPOs in the expropriation of their homes, since Article 8 clearly reiterates the existence of the CPO must be in accordance with the law. And then we... that's the brief summary of Article 8. It's very detailed, there's a case law which is discussed in the books, such as Human Rights and Compulsive Disorder, Ethnic Regeneration and the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Reach Out Lawyers, among the books published, which go into detail in terms of the case law. Then there is Article 6. Article 6 deals with a fair and just process through an independent and impartial appeal. In essence, this requires the process of authorizing a PO, and how fair it is to the parties, and in this respect the parties that are weaker, such as the residents used to, or maybe the objectors. And it looks at things like salutation, scrutiny, decision making, the CPO inquiry itself, and the evidence, basically for both the substance and the procedural aspects, and the way the law merits description as being part of a just and fair and impartial tribunal. I mean, to quote the Vatican, what Article 6 says, Article 6 of the European Convention states that in determination of his civil rights obligation or any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time for an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. I mean, that is self-evident. And it's usually, as I mentioned, the procedural fairness in the context of CPOs and extradition. For example, in the case of Tally v. UK, where an applicant should have been afforded access to fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. I mean, extradition in relation to the decision making process is inherently procedurally disadvantageous because it's conducted to the residents, because it's conducted by the acquiring authorities. And there are also the planning authorities and the decision makers. So, I mean, that already raises questions. Then it raises issues of access, access to finance, access to information, access to legal advice, access to resources, and so on and so forth. And all those cumulatively could determine the direction of the outcome of the decision. And so, lack, as well as the degree of independence of the so-called reviews, I can't see. And so, that is Article 6. It is crucial, it's critical in the process of authorizing the CPO. Then there's also Article 14, which deals with equal treatment, which has no freestanding existence, as I mentioned, in absence of other rights. Equality and fairness of treatment can be substituted in conjunction with other rights, such as Article 8, as well as in the case of Karna, K-A-R-N-A, where a breach of Article 14 was found when the occupant was prohibited from succeeding in the tenancy after the passing of his same-sex partner. Article 8 also covers racial discrimination and was held to mantle a type of degrading treatment under Article 3, which was reiterated in the Treaty of Rome as a freestanding, equal treatment guarantee, although the UK did not sign that treaty. So, that, in a way, surmises Article 14. Just to briefly add, historically, racial minorities have been structurally disadvantaged, generally in all facets of life, including housing, so taking people's homes with compulsion, in this manner, with the spiral effects that follow, undoubtedly makes their life chances more negligible and worse off. Before we go to the next article, we will briefly touch on the public sector education duty. Under Section 14, we qualify Article 10, the public authority must make sight of its functions, have due regard to the misdemeanor of discrimination, harassment, victimization, or any conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act. And the Act also calls for the advancement of equality of opportunity between persons who share relevant protected characteristics and persons who do not share it, and foster a good relation between persons who share relevant protected characteristics and persons who do not share the need to, so that they can tap a prejudice and promote understanding. And compliance of those duties may involve treating some persons more favorably than others, but that is not to be taken as committing conduct that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act. So that's sort of self-explanatory. It's another added supposed layer of protection for people who are insubjected to compulsory taking of their land. So we then finally go to Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the landowner's property interests and rights. It does have some limitations. And it states that every national person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public's interest, and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the genuine principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control his or her property in accordance with the general interests, or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. Article 1 of the First Protocol, which shall refer to as A1P1, covers all forms of property and does not limit ownership of possessions such as food or goods, and is independent of national or state definition. However, it does not cover prospective possessions or future possessions, but emphasizes current possessions. The expectation of legal security was mirrored in a case called Stretch. I won't go into details of the case, but suffice it to say that an applicant complained that he had been unjustly denied of extension of a further 21-year term lease, and the choice allowed by a local court had been atrocious. The court ruled that having regard to those considerations, there was a disproportionate interference with the applicant's physical enjoyment of his possessions, and therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol. Therefore, the curtailment of those rights, in this case leases or secure agreements, could arguably engage Article 1 of the First Protocol. I mean, the discussion, there's a lot of case law on this, on Article 1. The key point around case law vigilation is market value in terms of compensation. Does that market value correlate to the ability of the affected residents to buy similar property in the same location? Is it proportional? In other words, there's a need for a reasonable equilibrium, equilibrium between the public interest and the property interest of the owners, which is the principle of proportionality. It accentuates that need for balance. Although, as I mentioned before, states, authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the public or community interest within a law by reflecting a need to be accessible, precise, and foreseeable. Some other aspects include determining a fair balance, I mean, regarding a fair balance, they include procedures that the property owners write, the nature of the penalty applied, the extent of interference and duration, the fault, the significance and the rationality or arbitrary nature of the statute in question that allows such interference. And the interference may only be justified legally in the general interest. It discusses in details what objectives could, you know, raise in relation to the interference with their properties, but suffice it to say that the interference has to be proportionate, and it has to be justifiable, and it should not allow the property owner to be worse off than they were prior to the compulsory purchase. One important aspect of Article 1 of the First Protocol is compensation. Compensation is set by statute, equating two market values plus homeless payments with this value, disregarding the value of the scheme on the value of the land. However, this equation does not cover the detrimental effects of being displaced, arguably from a certain community, and the spiral effects. Compensation assumes a willing seller without compulsory compulsion via monetary payment, and this is at the public market value of the land, insofar as money can do it. To put one in the same position as if land had not been taken from him so far has lost the policy in the public interest, but to no greater. Although under Article 1 compensation could be paid, the illegitimate public interest may justify less than the financial equivalent to what the claimant looks, based on the principle of gents. Similarly, where rights to compensation are provided by statute, those provisions must be interpreted in compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Article A1P1 does not set how much compensation should be paid, but states that the taking of property without any just compensation is justifiable only in the exception of circumstances. And it is arguable that compensation should be beyond pecuniary laws, and this was summed up by Justice Carly and Kellogg, Kellogg being the case in the US regarding what they term as eminent domain. And Justice Carly notes that yes, you're paying an important, you're paying for it, but you're giving the money to somebody who does not want the money, who once lived in the house that she lived in her whole life, accounts for nothing. What this lady wants is not money, no amount of money is not justified. Living in this house her whole life, she does not want to move. And therefore, Kellogg's case highlights the sense of deep injustice, of the compulsion, of the compulsive nature of taking home the people and estate, especially where there is no tangible or proven compelling public interest. And so compensation is a key part of trying to minimize the detriment suffered by those affected by CPOs. And in the same category is rehousing, which can be a key step to minimizing the impact of displacement. Now, although Article A1P1 refers to the principles of international law, as reflected by the ICCPR, ICESR, the SAD and other international provisions, enforceability and legal jurisdiction remain a hurdle. Therefore, compensation in violation remains a larger academic issue. And in the event of a breach, residents have to consider the possibility of remedial measures, which in practice are minimal, meaningfully, because of the lack of current resources and the imbalance of power between the critical powers of the public authority. And lastly, A1P1 refers to the principles of international law, and in the case of property rights, they are more reflected under the International Convention on Political Rights. And these instruments are aimed at protecting economic and social political rights of individuals or groups. However, enforceability and legal jurisdiction, as mentioned, remain a hurdle. And while the International Law Framework regards housing as a fundamental need, and therefore human rights, of course within the European Convention on Human Rights and Jurisdiction appear to look at this in terms of respect for a home and enjoyment of one's possession. It would appear that the International League of Standards appear more legally suitable to the plight of residents faced with estate expropriation than simply referring to respect for a home as a benchmark. It's almost a weak tick-the-box approach, which is arguably indefensible in one of the world's most economic blocs in the world. I mean, simply put, what does this say about a society that is unable to currently shelter both the Jew and the Fakta, these populations, especially the most vulnerable? And so, in a nutshell, as an arguable living instrument, the European Convention on Human Rights ought to implement the legal standard of a right to a home as a basic need and as stipulated in international law. And housing is to try and meet other basic needs such as health, education, employment, family and so on. And these are fundamental needs. So it should attract a more stringent and non-adversarial and concrete legal protection as opposed to a focus on nuanced legal standards such as ensuring the preservation or respect for a home under the European Convention on Human Rights. I mean, proposals for reform, various proposals for reform have been put forward, but that's a discussion for another time. This was primarily to focus on just a summary of the human rights under the Convention in relation to the CPO. I should also mention that the reference to the rights to the convention of children under international law causes a huge impact on children in terms of the disruption of their education, sometimes weakening their life chances, the psychological and physical health impact on them, and being disrupted and displaced from their communities, which may be only known fully in the long term. Therefore, that too should be considered under international law in terms of the impact of compulsive purchase in housing and self-regulation or a set of communities, children, residents, and others who have an interest in the land. So there we shall leave it for this episode. I hope this gives a sort of an overview or a slightly more detailed overview of what it does take when people are displaced, unrooted, displaced, dispossessed, disenfranchised. As a result of compulsive taking of their homes. This was focused on the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the United Kingdom jurisdiction. So thank you. I will speak again in another episode. Bye for now. Thank you.