Document No. AA/5/1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990...

Document No. AA/5/1

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Acquisition of Land Act 1981

Inquiry into:

CITY OF WESTMINSTER (VICTORIA REGENERATION PHASE ONE) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2011

Proof of Evidence

of

Richard Owen BA MRICS IRRV

On matters relating to compulsory purchase

23 May 2011

P r o o f o f E v i d e nc e o f R i c ha r d O w e n 1 D o c um e n t N o . A A / 5 / 1

Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. The Land Included in the Compulsory Purchase Order 4

3. The Justification for the Use of Compulsory Purchase Powers 6

4. Negotiations with Affected Owners 8

5. Objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order 10

6. Conclusions 25

7. Summary 26


1. Introduction

Qualifications and Experience

1.1 I, Richard Alexander Owen, am a partner in Deloitte LLP working in its real estate business

known as Drivers Jonas Deloitte (DJD). My role in DJD is as head of the Management and

Valuation group and also as a practitioner in the field of compulsory purchase and

compensation.

1.2 I am a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and a member of the

Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation having been admitted to both in 1989. In addition

I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Geography from the University of Exeter.

1.3 Following graduation in 1984, I joined the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue, in the

Bexley and Greenwich Office in South London. During my time at that office I was involved in

a wide range of work including giving advice to government departments and the local

authority on compulsory purchase matters.

1.4 I joined Drivers Jonas in 1988 and since that time I have advised numerous acquiring

authorities, developers and claimants in respect of compulsory purchase procedure and

compensation matters. My work has involved me in many similar projects to the scheme

under consideration, acting both for acquiring authorities and developers.

1.5 I was the principal author of the then DTLR (now DCLG) Compulsory Purchase Procedure

Manual first published in 2001, and was subsequently a consultant to the Law Commission in

connection with its review of compulsory purchase procedure. I am currently a member of the

RICS compulsory purchase and compensation policy panel.

Involvement with the Project

1.6 I have been advising the developer, LC25, on this scheme since June 2008. My role has

been to advise specifically on matters relating to the exercise of compulsory purchase powers

by Westminster City Council (the “Acquiring Authority”) in order to facilitate the development

of the VTI2 Permission 1 project (the Scheme), a mixed use development in the centre of

Victoria.

1.7 My instructions have involved working with LC25’s parent company, Land Securities PLC

(LS), the Acquiring Authority and their respective professional teams to:

(a) establish the boundary of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) and the interests in

land within that boundary that are required for the delivery of a development which

will achieve the objectives of the Acquiring Authority;


(b) advise on the likelihood of LS or the Acquiring Authority being able to acquire the

interests in land by agreement;

(c) progress negotiations with various owners of interests in land in order to attempt to

acquire these interests by agreement;

(d) advise on arrangements for the compulsory purchase of the land; and

(e) consider objections and respond to these on behalf of LS and the Acquiring Authority.

Scope of Evidence

1.8 My evidence primarily relates to the need for a CPO in order to assemble the land for

development, together with the negotiations carried out with affected landowners, and in

particular negotiations with objectors.

1.9 In carrying out my instructions I have been assisted by other professional advisers to LS and

officers of the Acquiring Authority, some of whom will also provide evidence to the inquiry.

1.10 My evidence covers:

(a) a description of land included within the CPO;

(b) a summary of the need for the Order Land;

(c) a consideration of the justification for the use of compulsory purchase powers, with

particular reference to the guidance in Circular 06/2004 (the Circular);

(d) a summary of negotiations with affected landowners to acquire by agreement;

(e) a summary of the objections and the response of the Acquiring Authority and LS to

these; and

(f) my conclusions on the need for the CPO.


2. The Land Included in the Compulsory Purchase Order

The Relationship between the Compulsory Purchase Order and the

Scheme

2.1 The CPO has been made in order to assemble the land required for the redevelopment of the

Scheme, which principally comprises new buildings together with public realm and pedestrian

routes.

2.2 The Scheme is described in the proof of evidence of Mark Kelly (AA/1/1), but in brief it

provides 65,653 sq. m. of office space, 11,497 sq. m. of retail, leisure and community space

and 31,006 sq. m. of residential accommodation.

2.3 All of the Order Land is required for the construction of the Scheme to be implemented, as is

explained in section 3 of this proof of evidence and the proof of evidence of Mark Kelly

(AA/1/1).

The Boundary of the Order Land

2.4 In order to determine the boundary of the Order Land, a plan of the Scheme was overlaid

onto a plan of the existing development. This was the starting point in identifying the land

required to develop the Scheme. This was then refined to allow for the detail of the Scheme,

such as means of access/escape, construction requirements, and the different features of the

Scheme at varying levels. In his proof, (AA/1/1) Mark Kelly explains the factors which

influenced the design of the Scheme and therefore the boundary of the Order Land.

Description of the Order Land

2.5 The Order Land is situated to the north of Victoria Street, in London SW1. The Statement of

Case notes that the Order Land extends to 1.78 hectares and is bounded by Bressenden

Place, Allington Street, Victoria Street and Buckingham Palace Road. The boundary is

shown on the Map which is part of the CPO.

2.6 A description of the Order Land and the existing buildings is provided in Mark Kelly’s proof of

evidence at section 5 (AA/1/1).

Excluded Interests

2.7 There are a number of interests within the boundary of the CPO which are indicated on the

CPO schedule as exclusions.


2.8 The Acquiring Authority owns interests in the Order Land and following advice in Appendix U

of the Circular (CD A8), the Order has been drafted to exclude the Acquiring Authority’ s

interests.

2.9 An interest held by the Crown has been excluded from the CPO. The interest is a lease held

by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in an office building

known as Allington Towers on Allington Street. I understand that a number of Home Office

departments are based within the property.

2.10 An agreement is in place between LS and the leaseholder which provides for the surrender of

the existing lease in Allington Towers and its vacation in advance of the date when

construction of the Scheme is expected to commence. Accordingly the exclusion of the

interest from the CPO does not present an impediment to the delivery of the Scheme.

Special Considerations

2.11 There is one listed building within the boundary of the Order Land, which is 156/158 Victoria

Street, also known as Sutton House. This is a retail property occupied by TM Sutton as a

pawn brokers. As noted in the Statement of Case, listed building consent has been granted

for the demolition and subsequent rebuild of Sutton House.

2.12 No part of the Order Land falls within a conservation area.

2.13 Two objections were made by utility companies which have a particular status conferred by

section 16 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The two companies are UK Power Networks

and Thames Water, which also made representations to their appropriate Minister, without

whose agreement the CPO cannot be confirmed.

2.14 Following discussions Thames Water has withdrawn all of its objections, leaving only the UK

Power Networks objection and section 16 representation to be considered. Accordingly, in

parallel with the consideration of the CPO by the Secretary of State for Communities and

Local Government, the Minister for the Department for Energy and Climate Change is

considering the representation made under section 16.

Highways

2.15 Two highways traverse and border the Order Land, being Warwick Row and Allington Street.

2.16 LS has submitted an application to the Highway Authority for an order under section 247 of

the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the stopping up of these highways to the

extent needed in order for the Scheme to be built. The highways position and the extent of

the stopping up is described in the proof of evidence of Roy McGowan (AA/4/1).


3. The Justification for the Use of Compulsory Purchase

Powers

The Purpose of the Compulsory Purchase Order

3.1 The purpose of the CPO is to secure the assembly of all the outstanding interests in the Order

Land. The Order Land will then be used to enable the development of the Scheme. Thus, the

Acquiring Authority’s objective in making the CPO is to bring all of the Order Land into a

single ownership and to obtain vacant possession of it in order that the Scheme can be

delivered.

The Need for the Compulsory Purchase Order

3.2 The extent of the Order Land has been determined by the requirement to achieve the

objectives of the Acquiring Authority, which are essentially to deliver a Scheme that will

deliver social, economic and environmental improvements to the locality, as described in the

proof of evidence of Hugh Bullock (AA/6/1). Part of this objective relates to the timing of the

delivery of the Scheme.

3.3 The Scheme has been devised so that it can proceed in parallel with the implementation of

the VSU works by London Underground and deliver the identified improvements without

further delay. Following completion of the Scheme and the VSU works, it will then be

possible to implement permissions 2 and 3 of the VTI2 project. Delay in implementing the

Scheme therefore risks the loss of the entire VTI2 project and the consequent improvements

to the locality.

3.4 It is necessary to assemble all of the land required before development can commence. This

means there must be certainty that land assembly can be achieved before the objectives of

the Acquiring Authority can be met.

3.5 There are multiple interests in the Order Land. On a plot basis, (counting each interest in

each plot) there are 280 interests in Table 1 of the CPO. Of these, at the date of making of

the CPO, LS and WCC had ownership or were able to secure ownership of 226 interests

within the necessary timescale, leaving 54 interests where it was necessary to either reach

agreement or alternatively exercise compulsory purchase powers. These interests are a mix

of freeholds and leaseholds across the Order Land, in multiple ownerships.

3.6 Given the fragmented pattern of ownership I think it improbable that development of the

Scheme to accomplish the Council’s objectives could be achieved without the availability of

compulsory purchase powers over all the Order Land.


3.7 To illustrate the necessity of including each plot of the Order Land within the CPO, Mark Kelly

has produced plans showing the Scheme with the Order Map superimposed over the existing

land in his proof of evidence (AA/1/1). It will be seen from those plans and the accompanying

table that every plot of land in the CPO is necessary for the delivery of the Scheme.

3.8 In my opinion the Acquiring Authority is justified in making the CPO and has followed the

guidance in the Circular. In particular, the Acquiring Authority has a clear purpose for the

acquisition and is satisfied that the necessary resources are likely to be available to achieve

that purpose in an appropriate time-scale. There are no impediments to implementation that

will not be overcome by the confirmation of the CPO.


4. Negotiations with Affected Owners

Efforts to Acquire by Agreement

4.1 LS has made considerable efforts to acquire the necessary interests in the Order Land by

agreement and remains willing and able to do so.

4.2 LS already owns the majority of the site freehold. In her proof, (AA/3/1), Colette O’Shea

explains how LS has assembled its current ownership. She also explains the steps that have

been taken to ensure that where LS is able to use its position as landlord, vacant possession

of much of the site can be obtained at the appropriate time. Where possible, LS has entered

into leases that provide for break clauses that are exercisable by the landlord in case of

redevelopment. These break clauses can be operated by the landlord on appropriate notice,

of not more than six months.

4.3 In order to engage with the owners of those interests not in LS ownership, or where vacant

possession cannot be achieved by the use of Landlord and Tenant process, LS has instructed

a team of advisors to work together to pursue negotiations for acquisition by agreement with

all owners and occupiers. The team currently includes Drivers Jonas Deloitte, J Peiser

Wainwright, Capital Retail, Colliers Godfrey Vaughan and LS staff.

4.4 To monitor the progress of all negotiations, LS has established a Land Assembly Group

(LAG). The LAG, is a group comprising the above advisors that meets regularly. Either I, or

one my colleagues, has attended all of the LAG meetings since its inception in 2009.

4.5 In progressing negotiations with affected owners, LS has been prepared to consider a variety

of approaches to achieving vacant possession of a property in time for the commencement of

works, currently programmed for September 2012. The approach adopted has varied

depending on the circumstances of each case. Examples of the different approaches that

have been and would be adopted include:

n Landlord and Tenant - where LS is the landlord and it is possible to secure vacant possession by operation of the provisions of the lease, arrangements have been put in place to do this;

n Acquisition by Agreement – agreements have been reached with parties who are either freehold owners or lessees to take a transfer of their interest either in advance of the requirement for the property, or in the immediate lead up to the commencement of construction; and

n Agreement with TfL- LS has entered into an agreement to make available certain property to TfL that is required for the construction of the Victoria Station Upgrade (VSU). As part of this agreement, TfL has undertaken to make available to LS various interests that fall within the Order Land.

4.6 Since the making of the CPO, negotiations have continued both with objectors and other

owners. This has led to further agreements, which in the case of objectors are noted in


section 5 of this proof of evidence. Should the CPO be confirmed, negotiations will

nevertheless continue, and will do so until it becomes necessary to ask the Acquiring

Authority to exercise its compulsory purchase powers in order to achieve vacant possession

by the date for commencement of the works.

4.7 Naturally, one of the particular concerns expressed by business occupiers has been the

practicability of relocating their business to alternative premises. Based on LS’ research and

knowledge of the locality it is clear that it is occupiers of shop and restaurant premises who

will have the most difficulty in identifying and securing suitable alternative premises. This is

partly because of the inherent limitation on the location of such a business relative to its

customer base and competitors, and partly because there is not a substantial supply of retail

properties in the locality.

4.8 In order to assist occupiers of retail properties LS has instructed Capital Retail to liaise with

them and their professional advisors with the aim of identifying potential relocation properties

where possible. I make specific reference to the progress of discussions and the prospects of

successful relocation in section 5.

Discussion with Objectors

4.9 Both the Acquiring Authority and DJD on behalf of LS has written to each objector or their

agent and invited them to attend meetings or to enter into correspondence with the LS team

or WCC, seeking to progress negotiations in respect of their objection and, where

appropriate, the acquisition of their interest.

4.10 In many cases objectors have been prepared to engage in discussions regarding their

objections. However, there have been a number of cases where objectors have not

responded to the invitation to enter into discussions.

4.11 I describe each objection, and the response to it, in the next section.

P r o o f o f E v i d e nc e o f R i c ha r d O w e n 1 0 D o c um e n t N o . A A / 5 / 1

5. Objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order

5.1 The Secretary of State received 22 objections to the CPO from persons with a qualifying

interest in the Order Land. In addition, 42 objections were received from others, who for

these purposes I shall refer to as non-qualifying objectors.

5.2 At the time of writing, there are 20 remaining objections from persons with a qualifying

interest, following the withdrawal of 2 objections to the CPO. There are 42 other objections

outstanding. I understand that these remaining objections were submitted in a virtually

identical form.

5.3 In order to understand fully the various objections, I , or a member of my team contacted each

objector or their representative and offered to meet them together with appropriate

representatives of either LS or the Acquiring Authority to discuss the content of their

objection. In some cases the objector did not wish to meet, but in most cases, there has been

a dialogue between the objector and a member of either DJD, LS or the Acquiring Authority

team.

5.4 A summary of the key points of each objection is set out as a core document (CD E1). This

summary identifies within which witness’ proof of evidence each point is addressed.

5.5 In the section below, I highlight the points within each objection that I address. I set out my

response to these points and also summarise the discussions that have been held regarding

each objection.

5.6 I have included a brief description of each objector’s property interest to assist with

identification. The floor areas identified are extracted from the Valuation Office Agency

website.

OBJ 1 – 9/11 Allington Street - Mr Elkiey (Café Moca) - (Plot 19)

5.7 The objector has a leasehold interest in a retail unit comprising 72.3 sq.m and trades as a

café.

5.8 The points of this objection that I address are:

14. This CPO process will affect 3 freeholders’ and 75 leaseholders’ interests and their

businesses and the people working for them and their families and their livelihood.

The existence of multiple ownerships in the Order Land is, as I set out in section 3, a

reason why it is necessary to make a CPO.

15. The freeholder Land Securities has not attempted to make any offer for our properties

which in my view is a big violation in itself.


Capital Retail, and more recently DJD, have been in discussions with the objector

since 2009. Negotiations with the objector have been held. An offer to acquire the

property was made in January 2010 and subsequent discussions have been held with

the objector.

5.9 The Acquiring Authority and DJD have both written to the objector regarding the content of

this objection and offering meetings to discuss it (letters dated 29 March and 30 March 2011

respectively).

5.10 I met Mr Elkiey, and his agent George Jarzab, on 6 April 2011, to discuss his objection,

together with Paul Hunt of LS and my colleague Peter Davidson.

5.11 Following this meeting, the parties have continued a dialogue.

5.12 Discussions are ongoing over the acquisition of this interest but at the time of writing terms

have not been agreed and the objection therefore remains outstanding.

OBJ 2 & OBJ 3 - 164 Victoria Street, 166-172 Victoria Street and 81-85 Buckingham Palace Road – Victoria Street (Jersey) No.1 Ltd and Victoria Street (Jersey) No.2 Ltd - (Plots 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12)

5.13 The objectors jointly own the freehold of 81-85 Buckingham Palace Road and 164 Victoria

Street; and the long leasehold of 166-172 Victoria Street (LC25 being the owner of the

freehold). The properties comprise a number of retail units, restaurants, Victoria Market (a

series of kiosk properties within a covered parade) and office accommodation on the upper

floors.


11. The Council has failed to negotiate or to negotiate in good faith with VSJ1 and VSJ2

for the acquisition of their interest and therefore has failed to show that the use of

compulsory purchase powers are justifiable.

13. Without prejudice to any other objections the Council has failed to negotiate

reasonably with VSJ1 and VSJ2 which at all times has been prepared to sell its

interests.

J Peiser Wainwright, on behalf of LS, have been in discussions with this objector over

the acquisition of their interest since 2003. Subsequently detailed negotiations with

the objector, and it’s advisor Moorevale, have been held. Offers have been made,

and rejected by the objector.

At all times J Peiser Wainwright conducted these negotiations in good faith, which

continue.


Point 13 of the objection illustrates that this objector is seemingly prepared to sell its

interest, and the issue is price. This is of course not a matter for consideration in

determining whether to confirm a CPO.


this objection and offering meetings to discuss it (letters dated 29 March, 30 March and 9 May

2011).

5.16 LS, and it’s agent J Peiser Wainwright, met the objector on 11 April and 4 May 2011 to

discuss a financial proposal to acquire the objectors’ interests and seeking to satisfy the

points of these objections. Subsequently offers have been made and discussed between the

parties, which are receiving consideration.

5.17 Discussions are ongoing over the acquisition of this interest but at the time of writing the

objections remain outstanding.

OBJ 4 - 160/162 Victoria Street – ASK Restaurants Ltd - (Plot 7)

5.18 The objector has a leasehold interest in a retail unit comprising 393 sq.m and trades as a

restaurant. The property comprises basement, ground and first floors.


1. The need for and use of compulsory powers is premature, the authority has made no

attempt to negotiate acquisition by agreement and an approach from the developer

has only recently been made and the dialogue has been insufficiently advanced.

The use of compulsory purchase powers is not premature, as it is clear that there is

no reasonable prospect of securing a concurrent agreement with all those having an

interest in the Order Land.

As I mention in section 3 above, there is a need to deliver the Scheme in a defined

timescale and the making of the CPO will facilitate this.

LS and Capital Retail have been in discussion with this objector over the acquisition

of their interest and securing a relocation premises since 2009. Subsequent

negotiations have been held with the objector, and it’s agent CBRE. Proposals have

been made and rejected. Discussions continue.

2. There has been no meaningful assistance to provide premises for relocation of the

business and the statement made in Para 8.9 and 8.13 of the Statement of Reasons

is denied.

Capital Retail have been seeking to identify alternative premises that would be

suitable for a relocation of the objector’s business. They have worked with the


objector and it’s agent to establish the objector’s relocation requirements and to try

and identify suitable alternative premises.



respectively).

5.21 My colleague has exchanged subsequent emails with the objector’s agent, CBRE, during

April 2011 offering to meet to discuss the objection. CBRE’s email of 15 April 2011 advised

that they would prefer to deal with the Acquiring Authority direct in respect of CPO matters.

My colleague offered to attend any future meeting that the objector holds with the Council,

and for a representative of LS to attend also, unless the objector would prefer that they do

not. To date the objector has not taken up the offer to meet with the Council or LS to discuss

the objection.

5.22 Discussions are continuing between Capital Retail and CBRE but at the time of writing the

objection remains outstanding.

OBJ 5 - 154 Victoria Street – Pizza Express - (Plot 5)


restaurant. The property comprises basement, ground and three upper floors.















business and the statement made in Para 8.9 and 8.13 of the Statement of Reasons

is denied.








respectively).







the objection.



OBJ 6 - 152 Victoria Street – Bella Italia - (Plot 4)


restaurant. The property comprises basement, ground and three upper floors.
















business and the statement made in Para 8.9 and 8.1`3 of the Statement of Reasons

is denied.







respectively).







the objection.



OBJ 7 - 15 Allington Street – Woodshield Limited - (Plot 18)

5.33 This objection has been withdrawn following the acquisition of this interest by LS.

OBJ 8 - 5 Allington Street – Gladys Usher - (Plot 19)

5.34 The objector has a leasehold interest in a ground floor retail unit of 25 sq.m which trades as a

hairdressing salon. From my discussions with Mrs Usher I understand that the business at

the premises is operated by two self-employed hairdressers, who pay a weekly fee for the

facilities.


2. No negotiations were made for our leases prior to Land Securities applying to

Westminster Council for a CPO.

4. Land Securities only tried to negotiate by private agreement when “..they had the

CPO in principle…..”


Contact was first made with Mrs Usher to open negotiations over the acquisition of

this interest in June 2009 by Capital Retail on behalf of LS. This was before the

Acquiring Authority resolved to make a CPO. DJD has been in discussions with Mrs

Usher and subsequently her agent from November 2009. Throughout this period, we

were seeking to gain an understanding of the business and to establish the basis on

which a proposal to acquire the lease could be made.

3. Land Securities applied to Westminster Council for a CPO with “…..indecent

haste….”






5.36 The Acquiring Authority and DJD have both written to Mrs Usher regarding the content of this

objection and offering meetings to discuss it (letters dated 29 March and 30 March 2011

respectively). Two further letters were sent to Mrs Usher by DJD offering a meeting to

discuss the objection on 14 April and 28 April 2011.

5.37 Paul Hunt of LS, my colleague Peter Davidson and I met Mrs Usher on 10 May 2011, at

which time we discussed this objection and gained an understanding of how the business

operates at the premises. Based on this understanding, an offer to acquire the lease was

made at this meeting, and confirmed in writing subsequently. The offer was made on a

without prejudice basis and therefore I do not refer to it in any further detail, except to note

that it has not been possible to reach agreement to date.

5.38 In the absence of agreement the objection remains outstanding.

OBJ 9 - 61-75 Buckingham Palace Road – Hyder Consulting Group Limited - (Plot 26)

5.39 The objector has a leasehold interest in the 4th floor, part 5th floor and 8th floor and car parking

spaces within Lake View Court. The property comprises office space.

5.40 The point of this objection that I address is:

1. Lack of clarity in respect of developer’s intentions regarding Hyder’s leasehold

interest.

There has been extensive information made available concerning the Scheme and

the CPO, including all of the required notices.


5.41 LS is the objector’s landlord. The objector occupies under leases that are contracted out of

the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. They expire in

September 2012 and have rolling break options.

5.42 LS wrote to the objector’s solicitor on 23 March 2011 explaining the position regarding the

status of the objector’s interest and LS’s intentions to achieve vacant possession. LS has also

discussed the position with Hyder’s Property Director, on 8 April 2011.

5.43 DJD has written to the objector’s solicitor, Geldards, regarding the content of this objection

(dated 30 March 2011), and has held subsequent discussions with them, most recently on 6

May 2011.

5.44 LS wrote to the objector’s solicitors on 19 May 2011 providing the assurances required

concerning the timing of acquisition and maintenance of access. A response is awaited and it

is anticipated that this will lead to an agreement and the withdrawal of the objection, but at

present it remains outstanding.

OBJ 10 - 7a Allington Street – Retnasapathy Sugunakumar - (Plot 19)


newsagent. The property comprises ground floor space only.


15. This CPO process will affect 3 freeholders’ and 75 leaseholders’ interests and their


The existence of multiple ownerships in the Order Land is, as set out in section 3, a




Capital Retail, and more recently DJD, have been in discussions with the objector

since 2009. Discussions have continued since this date and a number of meetings

have been held. DJD had discussions with Mr Sugunakumar’s agent, George Jarzab

of George Trollope throughout 2010 and further information, to inform the making of

an offer from LS, was requested on a number of occasions.



respectively).


5.48 Together with Paul Hunt of LS and my colleague, Peter Davidson, I met with Mr

Sugunakumar and his agent, George Jarzab of George Trollope, on 6 April 2011, to discuss

his objection and to gain a greater understanding of the objector’s business. Financial

information regarding the business has been requested in order for LS to put forward a

financial proposal. Mr Jarzab is seeking this information from Mr Sugunakumar’s accountant.

This is still awaited.

5.49 It is anticipated that following receipt of the financial information and additional supporting

material from the claimant, a financial proposal can be made, which will hopefully lead to the

withdrawal of the objection.

OBJ 11 - 79 Buckingham Palace Road – Mr & Mrs Boito t/a L’Arco Restaurant - (Plot 14)


restaurant. The property comprises basement and ground floors.


3. There is little prospect of being able to relocate the business because of the lack of

suitable alternative premises.

As I have said in section 4 above, it is acknowledged that relocation of this sort of

occupier may not be possible because of the availability of premises. If it is not

possible to identify an appropriate relocation property, then compensation would

reflect the extinguishment of the business.

4. A firm commitment is required from the developer to acquire the interest ahead of

CPO powers being obtained.

It is my understanding that the objector qualifies to serve a blight notice, which if

accepted would create a firm commitment to acquire by the Acquiring Authority.

Leaving that aside, LS is prepared to commit to acquire the property in advance of

the availability of powers of compulsory purchase.



respectively).

5.53 Paul Hunt of LS, my colleague Peter Davidson, and I met the objector’s surveyor, Tim Earl of

Montagu Evans, on 20 April 2011 to discuss the objection. At this meeting, a without

prejudice discussion took place on the potential for agreeing a mechanism for acquisition that

would satisfy the objection. This was confirmed in writing by DJD on 10 May 2011. As the

proposal was made on a without prejudice basis I do not refer to it in any further detail.


5.54 The proposal is currently being considered by the objector and a full response is awaited.

OBJ 12 - 156-158 Victoria Street – T.M. Sutton Ltd - (Plot 6)


pawn broker. The property comprises basement and ground floors.


3. There is little prospect of being able to relocate the business because of the lack of

suitable alternative premises.

Capital Retail, on behalf of LS, has been working with T M Sutton to find a suitable

relocation property.

A potential relocation premises has been identified and LS is supporting the objector

in it’s negotiations to acquire a lease and it is hoped that negotiations can be

successfully concluded shortly.

4. A firm commitment is required from the developer to acquire the interest ahead of

CPO powers being obtained.

LS is prepared to commit to acquire the property in advance of the availability of

powers of compulsory purchase if a suitable alternative property is available to allow

for an early relocation.



respectively).

5.58 Together with Paul Hunt of LS and my colleague, Peter Davidson, I met with the objector’s

surveyor Tim Earl of Montagu Evans, on 20 April 2011 to discuss the objection. At this

meeting the objector’s concerns were discussed and a mechanism to satisfy these was

identified, which LS has subsequently confirmed in writing to the objector.

5.59 As noted, a retail unit has been identified by the LS team, which is considered to present a

good prospect for relocation.

OBJ 13 - Electric Lines and/or electrical plant – UK Power Networks - (Various)

5.60 The objector is the owner and/or occupier of various electricity plant and electrical lines.

5.61 The objection can be summarised as:

1. A requirement by UKPN for their land and equipment to be reprovided at the cost of

the acquiring authority.


5.62 LS and their advisors have been engaged in detailed discussions with UKPN concerning the

potential scheme impact and the works required to ensure the continuity of UKPN’s services.

I am advised that the technical details have been resolved between the parties and that the

documentation of a legal agreement to facilitate this is now at an advanced stage, with

completion anticipated in the near future.

5.63 Discussions are continuing and it is anticipated that this will lead to the withdrawal of the

objection, but currently it remains outstanding.

OBJ 14 - 5 Bressenden Place and Elliot House, 10-12 Allington Street – Transport for London - (Plot 21)

5.64 The objector has operational land in the subsoil of 5 Bressenden Place and Elliot House, 10-

12 Allington Street.

5.65 The objection can be summarised as:

1. TFL objects to the inclusion of its land in the CPO on the basis that it is unnecessary.

At the point of making the CPO the Acquiring Authority could not rely upon the VSU

agreement to deliver the land necessary for the Scheme and therefore it was

necessary to include it in the CPO.

5.66 Subsequently there have been detailed discussions with TFL, concerning the potential

Scheme impact on their property interests. I am advised that an agreement in principle has

been reached between the parties and that the documentation of a further legal agreement to

facilitate this is now at an advanced stage, with completion anticipated in the near future.

5.67 Discussions are continuing and it is anticipated that this will lead to the withdrawal of the

objection in the near future, but currently it remains outstanding.

OBJ 15 - 148 Victoria Street – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited - (Plot 2)

5.68 The objector has a leasehold interest in a ground floor retail unit comprising 462.1 sq.m and

trades as a supermarket.

5.69 The points within this objection are dealt with in the proofs of evidence of the other witnesses.

Please refer to the summary of the objections, which is set out as a core document (CD E1).

5.70 The Acquiring Authority and DJD have both written to the objector’s solicitor regarding the

content of this objection and offering meetings to discuss it (letters dated 29 March and 30

March 2011 respectively). A further letter was sent by DJD offering a meeting to discuss the

objection on 14 April 2011. Following an indication that a meeting would be arranged by the


solicitor, a follow-up e-mail was sent on 6 May 2011 inviting an update on this proposed

meeting. A response is awaited.

5.71 LS is in direct negotiation with Sainsbury’s, and their agents G L Hearn. A financial proposal

was made to Sainsbury’s in November 2010. This was subsequently rejected in March 2011

and an alternative proposal put forward. This was discussed further at a meeting between

Sainsbury’s and LS on 19 May 2011. Negotiations between the parties are ongoing and at

the time of writing the objection remains outstanding.

OBJ 16 - Thames Water - (Plots 22 & 23)

5.72 This objection has been withdrawn.

OBJ 17 - 164 Victoria Street – Gosia Travel / Travel Agency (Plot 8)

5.73 The objector occupies a ground floor unit within Victoria Market (unit 16) of 16.3 sq.m.


14 This CPO process will affect 3 freeholders’ and 75 leaseholders’ interests and their






DJD wrote to the objector in October 2010 stating that they would like to open

discussions over the acquisition of the objector’s interest. No response was received.



respectively). Two further letters were sent to the objector by DJD offering a meeting to

discuss the objection on 14 April and 28 April 2011. There has been no response to these

letters.

5.76 At the time of writing the objection remains outstanding.

OBJ 18 - 164 Victoria Street – Roman Belfordtsev - (Plot 8)

5.77 The objector occupies a ground floor kiosk within Victoria Market (unit 4) of 12.6 sq.m.









DJD wrote to the objector in October 2010 stating that they would like to open

discussions over the acquisition of the objector’s interest. No response was received.





letters.


OBJ 19 - 5a Allington Street – Mr Abbas Sheikh - (Plot 19)

5.81 The objector has a leasehold interest in a ground floor retail unit comprising 22.9 sq.m and

trades as a dry cleaner.








Capital Retail and DJD wrote to Mr Sheikh in November 2009 stating that they would

like to open discussions over the acquisition of this interest. In March 2010 Mr

Sheikh instructed George Jarzab of George Trollope and DJD have had discussions

with Mr Sheikh’s agent since that time. We requested information from to enable LS

to consider making an offer but to date that information has not been forthcoming.





discuss the objection on 14 April and 28 April 2011.

5.84 In response to these letters my colleagues received telephone messages from Mr Sheikh and

a Mr Sanchez advising that all discussions concerning the property should be held with the

owner of Café Moca (Mr Elkiey). DJD subsequently emailed Mr Jarzab, the agent for Mr

Sheikh (and Mr Elkiey) seeking confirmation of his instruction and offering a meeting to

discuss this objection. Mr Jarzab replied saying that Mr Elkiey does not feel the need for a

meeting, as he and I have already discussed the identical points of objection in respect of his

own property.

5.85 Mr Jarzab is currently seeking information from his client’s accountant to enable negotiations

to proceed.


OBJ 20 - Victoria Street – Mr D Mehmet - (Plots 10, 11, & 12)

5.87 The schedule to the CPO indicates that this objector holds a number of different interests

within these plots, each of them trading as restaurants.

5.88 I understand that this objection sets out the same points as Objector 1, above. My response

is therefore the same as I have given in respect of Objector 1.





letters.


OBJ 21 - Victoria Street – Mustafa Oztekin - (Plots 9,10,11, & 12)

5.91 The schedule to the CPO indicates that this objector holds a number of different interests

within these plots, each of them trading as restaurants.






discuss the objection on 14 April and 28 April 2011. This last letter prompted a telephone call


from the objector’s solicitor on 17 May 2011 suggesting that we speak direct to his client. My

colleague has attempted to speak with Mr Oztekin subsequently and a response is awaited.


OBJ 22 - 166-8 Victoria Street – Mike Burgess - (Plots 9&10)

5.95 The objector has a leasehold interest in an office on the first floor of 166-168 Victoria Street

(65.5 sq.m) and the second floor of 168 Victoria Street (36 sq.m).







letters.


Non-Qualifying Objectors

5.99 The Acquiring Authority wrote to all of the non-qualifying objectors on 10 May 2011 inviting

each of them to attend a meeting at Westminster City Hall to discuss their objection. To date

no objector has responded or taken up this offer to progress discussions. Accordingly, I have

not had the opportunity to discuss any of these objections with the objectors.

5.100 I understand that the form of each of the non-qualifying objections is identical, and that they

set out the same points as Objector 1 (Mr Elkiey), above. Of those 15 points, the first, sixth

and last are clearly not relevant to the particular non-qualifying objection, as they refer to the

inclusion of the objector’s property within the CPO. I have already responded to point 14 in

my reply to Objector 1, and those comments are equally applicable to the same point in these

objections.


6. Conclusions

6.1 My conclusions on the CPO are that:

(a) the CPO satisfies the requirements of s.226 (1)(a) of the 1990 Act;

(b) the land included within the boundary of the CPO is required in connection with the

carrying out of the Scheme in accordance with the objectives of the Acquiring

Authority;

(c) without the CPO, there is no reasonable prospect that the required land could be

assembled within an acceptable timescale;

(d) therefore without the CPO, LS will not be able to deliver the Scheme;

(e) the objections made have been fully considered. The Acquiring Authority and LS

have sought to address the concerns raised where it is practicable to do so without

prejudicing the development proposed; and

(f) none of the objections made amounts to a good reason to modify or reject the CPO.

6.2 In my opinion the CPO is demonstrably in the public interest and should be confirmed.

Richard Owen 23 May 2011


7. Summary

7.1 In this section I set out a summary of the previous sections of this proof of evidence.

7.2 I, Richard Alexander Owen, am a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

(RICS) and a member of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation having been

admitted to both in 1989.

7.3 My role, which began in June 2008, has been to advise specifically on matters relating to the

exercise of compulsory purchase powers by Westminster City Council (the “Acquiring

Authority”) in order to facilitate the development of the VTI2 Permission 1 project (the

Scheme), a mixed use development in the centre of Victoria.

7.4 The CPO has been made in order to assemble the land required for the redevelopment of the

Scheme, which principally comprises new buildings together with public realm and pedestrian

routes.

7.5 All of the Order Land is required for the construction of the Scheme to be implemented.

7.6 The interests of the Acquiring Authority and an interest held by the Crown have been

excluded from the CPO.

7.7 There is one listed building within the boundary of the Order Land, which is 156/158 Victoria

Street, also known as Sutton House. No part of the Order Land falls within a conservation

area.

7.8 UK Power Networks has objected to the CPO and also made a representation to the

appropriate Minister as provided for by section 16 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The

Minister for the Department for Energy and Climate Change is considering this

representation.

7.9 LS has submitted an application to the Highway Authority for an order under section 247 of

the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the stopping up of the two highways that

traverse the Order Land to the extent needed in order for the Scheme to be built.

7.10 The extent of the Order Land has been determined by the requirement to achieve the

objectives of the Acquiring Authority, which are essentially to deliver a Scheme that will

deliver social, economic and environmental improvements to the locality.

7.11 It is necessary to assemble all of the land required before development can commence. This

means there must be certainty that land assembly can be achieved before the objectives of

the Acquiring Authority can be met.


7.12 Given the fragmented pattern of ownership I think it improbable that development of the

Scheme to accomplish the Council’s objectives could be achieved without the availability of

compulsory purchase powers over all the Order Land.

7.13 In my opinion the Acquiring Authority is justified in making the CPO and has followed the

guidance in the Circular.

7.14 LS has made considerable efforts to acquire the necessary interests in the Order Land by

agreement and remains willing and able to do so. LS already owns the majority of the site

freehold.

7.15 In order to engage with the owners of those interests not in LS ownership, or where vacant

possession cannot be achieved by the use of Landlord and Tenant process, LS has instructed

a team of advisors to work together to pursue negotiations for acquisition by agreement with

all owners and occupiers.

7.16 In progressing negotiations with affected owners, LS has been prepared to consider a variety

of approaches to achieving vacant possession of a property in time for the commencement of

works, currently programmed for September 2012. The approach adopted has varied

depending on the circumstances of each case.

7.17 Since the making of the CPO, negotiations have continued both with objectors and other

owners.

7.18 Both the Acquiring Authority and DJD on behalf of LS has written to each objector or their

agent and invited them to attend meetings or to enter into correspondence with the LS team

or WCC.

7.19 In many cases objectors have been prepared to engage in discussions on their objections.

However, there have been a small number of cases where objectors have not responded to

the invitation to enter into discussions.

7.20 At the time of writing, there are 20 remaining objections from persons with a qualifying

interest, following the withdrawal of 2 objections to the CPO. There are 42 other objections

outstanding.

7.21 I describe each objection, and the response to it, in the main body of this proof of evidence.

7.22 In my opinion the CPO is demonstrably in the public interest and should be confirmed.

Richard Owen

23 May 2011

Document No. AA/5/1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990...

Documents

Transcript of Document No. AA/5/1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990...