Section 226(1 )(a) and Section 226(3)(a) Town and Country Planning Act and

(< $ m c s

WINBOURNE

MARTIN FRENCH

2 Burgon Street, London, EC 4V 5DR Telephone: 020 7248 0246 Facsim ile: 020 7248 4020 Email: [email protected]. uk Secretary o f State,

N ational Planning Casework, U nit 5, St.Philips Place, Colmore Row,

Birmingham B3 2PW

Web: winbourne.co.uk

Sent by Email 15th M ay 2014 (incorporating m inor amendments 29th M ay 2014)

LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON (WHITGIFT CENTRE AND SURROUNDING LAND BOUNDED BY AND INCLUDING PARTS OF POPLAR WALK, WELLESLEY ROAD, GEORGE STREET AND NORTH END) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2014

Potential Right of Light in respect of premises known as 37 and 39 George Street, C ro yd on

Objections to the Whitgift CPO on behalf of Power Leisure Bookmakers L td and Paddy Power PLC occupiers of

37/39 George Street, Croydon. CRO 1BL Plot No. by James G. Win bourne BSc (Hons), PGDip.PVL, MRICS

Winbourne Martin French, Chartered Surveyors

Scope of Objections

1 These objections are made on behalf o f a national multiple retail occupier, who are regular clients and potential claimants in this CPO; being Pow er Leisure Bookmakers Ltd and Paddy Pow er PLC. They occupy Nos. 37 and 39 George Street, Croydon, which are affected by the CPO.

2. There are Objectors’ site-specific concerns and objections arising, such as to intrusions for ‘use’, rights o f light and oversailing rights (or so it w ould appear) and also general Objections. These are not against the underlying principle o f the Town Centre Retail scheme, but against its boundaries and other arrangements. 3. There are Objections to the legal procedures and valuation processes both in use and to be used.

4. There are overall Objections to the arrangements envisaged for the conduct o f the scheme. Also, the processes apparently expected to be used for com pensation claims in general, but certainly not pertaining now to any site-specific claims or amounts; neither for the Objectors them selves nor other parties. These resem ble closely those oppressive features o f the failed Park Place CPO.

Managing Director Consultants

James G. Winbourne bsc (Hons), p gd ip .p vl, m ric s Norman J. Winbourne f r i c s . FcinstCES, f i r r v Member of the Rating Surveyors' Association Member of the Rating Surveyors' Association

Section 226(1 )(a) and Section 226(3)(a) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and

Section 13 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981

Member of the Compulsory Purchase Association RICS Registered Valuer

Member of the Compulsory Purchase Association RICS Registered Value*

Regulated by RICS Francis Roberts m ric s

5. The general Objections under Nos. 1 to 4 above are based upon:- (A) preliminary perusal only of the

voluminous Whitgift CPO papers deposited and (B) critical observations of the Objectors’ Surveyors over

the last decade, of no less than three poorly-conducted Croydon Town Centre CPOs:- being the Bishops Court; Croydon Arena; and Park Place CPOs; all three of which have failed damagingly for Croydon. Those

mistakes should not be repeated by Croydon Council albeit with different developer partners. Nevertheless, the Whitgift CPO has veiy similar attributes of arrangements on the same lines as the failed Park Place CPO; where the Objectors’ Surveyors had hands-on experience of five retail and business occupiers’ claims

and know of other retailers who were unfortunate enough to be affected and some of whom left with nothing.

■ 6. There are clear-cut Objections to the complexity of the boundaries as such of the scheme and CPO and

the bewildering combinations, of differentiations within those boundaries. These amount to a ‘lawyers’

delight’ and a negotiator’s bargaining charter, which are likely to lead to heavy costs and/or losses of

claimants, as experience shows. The unnecessary complexities and aggravations and lack of transparency are likely to confuse and put-off ordinarily unadvised claimants, even if they are incidental and not designed to reduce entitlement to compensation claims and/or exclude the rights to them entirely,

7. Therefore, positive and robust ameliorating recommendations (in outline only here) are made by the Objectors’ Surveyors which effectively may speed-up a good Whitgift scheme to be less oppressive and long-drawn-out, probably with savings all-round and ultimately greater profitability of the promoters.

Boundaries and Conduct of the CPO: Commonsense overall changes

8. The scheme’s boundary streets are stated clearly in the title of the CPO; but a key general Objection is to fragmentation o f land rights. Instead of a confusing and fragmentation approach to Compulsory Acquisition for the scheme (although those details will be required in due course, for acquisition at fair compensation) there is a better way of an overall approach.

9. The Objectors’ Surveyors recommendation to the Inquiry and the Inspector is that to speed the process there should be a Declaratory or Comprehensive Development Area approach to the entire rectangular area which is bounded by the four named streets in the CPO title. Furthermore, that all of those potential owners, occupiers and minor claimants affected within that rectangular block should be entitled to full compensation claims including disturbance and on a clear assumption that in effect Section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase

Act 1965 should apply to all the claimants in the block. This will expedite acquisitions processes and avoid endless debate over questionable transparency and erudite fine points of compensation law and practice and with fewer appeals.

10. Similarly on the opposite sides o f the four streets there should be outright recognition in the CPO of

potential Claims arising under Section 10 of the CPA 1965 where no land is taken.

11. Some claimants may benefit perhaps from 9 and 10 above, but “nobody buys compensation” and the promoters could move ahead much more swiftly, to their desired objectives of building-out and letting.

Stipulated early Notice to Treat and Notice of Entry or Vesting Procedures

12. Following the Approval o f any UK CPO by the relevant Minister, our UK Compulsory Purchase law allows a statutory three years service period, during which Notice to Treat (or its equivalent) may be served by an Acquiring Authority (AA) on any known Claimant. Regrettably, in recent years, this has been used by important AAs for a delaying tactic as experience shows, either awaiting falls in market values before payments out, or for bargaining by making low offers during three years o f heavy scheme blight.

13. Whereas, under the Lands Tribunal and Court o f Appeal Decisions in the Cases o f Kent County Council v Union Railways (North) it becomes veiy clear that:- (a) that all matters o f compensation may be refen ed to the Lands Tribunal or now Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and (b) that AAs duty is to serve Notice to treat (or equivalent) soon after any CPO is approved and not keep claimants waiting. Therefore, those principles were flouted for claimants in The Park Place CPO, partly because wrongly the Council handed over CPO control to the private partners, who ran the agenda thereafter.

Therefore Objectors call upon the Secretary o f State not to approve the CPO unless Croydon Council is (a) bound strictly to serve early and timely notices on all known claimants within three months o f such approval. This will not include corrective or additional Notices within the three years (which is what it is for) nor any future possible newly discovered alterations or claims, for which Croydon should use Section 22 o f the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

(b) That after Approval o f the CPO matters should not be left in the hands o f the commercial paitnes but the AAs acquisition valuers should be i n d e p e n d e n t o f the commercial promoters and either the DVVO or Croydon Borough Valuers or an independent expert firm from outside Croydon Borough and with no conflicts o f interest.

Gross irregularity: Pre-CPO Negotiations non-existent for the Objectors

Contrary to express false statements in the Whitgift CPO Statement o f R e a s o n s P o w e r Leisure^Bookmakers

Ltd and Paddy Power PLC have informed their usual surveyors 9now making these ObjectionsO that there had been no advance purchase negotiations with them, nor any offers o f compensation as ts required undei regulatory law. Indeed, that would have been referred to the surveyors if it had taken place. Therefore, the Compulsory P u r c h a s e Order should be null-and-void or else postponed, until proper negotiating efforts have

been made on behalf o f the Council as AA. In particular, low bargaining offers are not acceptable.

Relocation Offers to Potential Claimants

For the failed Park Place Scheme many retail claimants were not to be relocated within it but compelled to leave Whereas when the Whitgift Centre was bui It in the 1960s (on the old school site) Land

Securities/Ravenseft allowed for many smaller retailers at reasonable rents for sustainable trade. However, more recent shopping centres are interested only in the bigger multiples and often leasing on onerous lents and uncertain lease terms. With a scheme o f this magnitude for the regeneration o f Croydon there should be flexibility and continuity o f business lease occupation for both sustainable small shops and the usua

The Statement of Reasons refers vaguely to negotiations with TFL, but with nothing reliable to go on.

Whereas the partly-successful Tramlink has had a profound effect upon the commercial viability of Croydon Town Centre retailing. Unfortunately, the layout and operation as planned originally were self-serving and

very anti-motorist; such that car-borne A, B and C retail customers have been deterred from using Croydon shops by effective Tramiink road blockages and heavy fines for minor driving faults, as compared to Bromley or Wimbledon. This should be reappraised by the Council and TFL working together.

Transport for London: Review needed

( ^ R I C S

WINBOURNE MARTIN FRENCH

2 B urg o n S tre e t, L o n d o n , E C 4 V 5 D R

Secretary of State, Web: winbourne.co.uk

National Planning Casework, Unit 5, StPhilips Place, Colmore Row,

Birmingham B3 2PW

Sent by Email 15"’ May 2014

LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON (WHITGIFT CENTRE AND SURROUNDING LAND BOUNDED BY AND INCLUDING PARTS OF POPLAR WALK, WELLESLEY ROAD, GEORGE STREET AND NORTH END) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2014

Section 226(l)(a) and Section 226(3)(a) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and

Section 13 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981

Potential Right of Light in respect of premises known as 37 and 39 George Street, Croydon

Objections to the Whitgift CPO on behalf of Power Leisure Bookmakers Ltd and Paddy Power PLC occupiers of

37/39 George Street, Croydon. CRO 1BL Plot No. by James G. Winbourne BSc (Hons), PGDip.PVL, MRICS

Winbourne Martin French, Chartered Surveyors

Scope of Objections

1 These objections are made on behalf of a national multiple retail occupier, who are regular clients and potential claimants in this CPO; being Power Leisure Bookmakers Ltd and Paddy Power PLC. They occupy Nos. 37 and 39 George Street, Croydon, which are affected by the CPO.

2. There are Objectors’ site-specific concerns and objections arising, such as to intrusions for ‘use’, rights of light and oversailing rights (or so it would appear) and also general Objections. These are not against the underlying principle of the Town Centre Retail scheme, but against its boundaries and other arrangements. 3. There are Objections to the legal procedures and valuation processes both in use and to be used.

4. There are overall Objections to the arrangements envisaged for the conduct of the scheme. Also, the processes apparently expected to be used for compensation claims in general, but certainly not pertaining now to any site-specific claims or amounts; neither for the Objectors themselves nor other parties. These resemble closely those oppressive features of the failed Park Place CPO.

Managing Director

James G. Winboume BSc (Hons), PGDip.PVL, m ric s Member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association

Member of the Compulsory Purchase Association RICS Registered Valuer

Regulated by RICS

Consultants

Norman J. Winbourne f r i c s , Fanst.CES, f i r r v Member of Ihe Rating Surveyors' Association Member of the Compulsory Purchase Association RICS Registered Valuer

Francis Roberts m ric s

5. The general Objections under Nos. 1 to 4 above are based upon:- (A) preliminary perusal only of the

voluminous Whitgift CPO papers deposited and (B) critical observations of the Objectors’ Surveyors over the last decade, of no less than three poorly-conducted Croydon Town Centre CPOs:- being the Bishops Court; Croydon Arena; and Park Place CPOs; all three of which have failed damagingly for Croydon. Those

mistakes should not be repeated by Croydon Council albeit with different developer partners. Nevertheless, the Whitgift CPO has very similar attributes of arrangements on the same lines as the failed Park Place CPO; where the Objectors’ Surveyors had hands-on experience of five retail and business occupiers’ claims and know of other retailers who were unfortunate enough to be affected and some of whom left with nothing.

6. There are clear-cut Objections to the complexity of the boundaries as such of the scheme and CPO and the bewildering combinations, of differentiations within those boundaries. These amount to a ‘lawyers’ delight’ and a negotiator’s bargaining charter, which are likely to lead to heavy costs and/or losses of claimants, as experience shows. The unnecessary complexities and aggravations and lack of transparency are likely to confuse and put-off ordinarily unadvised claimants, even if they are incidental and not ^ designed to reduce entitlement to compensation claims and/or exclude the rights to them entirely.

7. Therefore, positive and robust ameliorating recommendations (in outline only here) are made by the Objectors’ Surveyors which effectively may speed-up a good Whitgift scheme to be less oppressive and long-drawn-out, probably with savings all-round and ultimately greater profitability of the promoters.

Boundaries and Conduct of the CPO: Commonsense overall changes

8. The scheme’s boundary streets are stated clearly in the title of the CPO; but a key general Objection is to fragmentation of land rights. Instead of a confusing and fragmentation approach to Compulsory Acquisition

for the scheme (although those details will be required in due course, for acquisition at fair compensation) there is a better way of an overall approach.

9. The Objectors’ Surveyors recommendation to the Inquiry and the Inspector is that to speed the process there should be a Declaratory or Comprehensive Development Area approach to the entire rectangular area

which is bounded by the four named streets in the CPO title. Furthermore, that all of those potential owners, occupiers and minor claimants affected within that rectangular block should be entitled to full compensation claims including disturbance and on a clear assumption that in effect Section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 should apply to all the claimants in the block. This will expedite acquisitions processes and avoid

endless debate over questionable transparency and erudite fine points of compensation law and practice and with fewer appeals.

10. Similarly on the opposite sides of the four streets there should be outright recognition in the CPO of potential Claims arising under Section 10 of the CPA 1965 where no land is taken.

11. Some claimants may benefit perhaps from 9 and 10 above, but “nobody buys compensation” and the

promoters could move ahead much more swiftly, to their desired objectives of building-out and letting.

Stipulated early Notice to Treat and Notice of Entry o r Vesting Procedures

12. Following the Approval of any UK CPO by the relevant Minister, our UK Compulsory Purchase law allows a statutory three years service period, during which Notice to Treat (or its equivalent) may be served

by an Acquiring Authority (AA) on any known Claimant. Regrettably, in recent years, this has been used by important AAs for a delaying tactic as experience shows, either awaiting falls in market values before payments out, or for bargaining by making low offers during three years of heavy scheme blight.

13. Whereas, under the Lands Tribunal and Court of Appeal Decisions in the Cases of Kent County Council v Union Railways (North) it becomes very clear that:- (a) that all matters of compensation may be referred to the Lands Tribunal or now Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and (b) that AAs duty is to serve Notice to treat (or equivalent) soon after any CPO is approved and not keep claimants waiting. Therefore, those principles were flouted for claimants in The Park Place CPO, partly because wrongly the Council handed over CPO control to the private partners, who ran the agenda thereafter.

Therefore Objectors call upon the Secretary of State not to approve the CPO unless Croydon Council is (a) bound strictly to serve early and timely notices on all known claimants within three months of such approval. This will not include corrective or additional Notices within the three years (which is what it is for) nor any future possible newly discovered alterations or claims, for which Croydon should use Section 22 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965,

(b) That after Approval of the CPO matters should not be left in the hands of the commercial partnes but the AAs acquisition valuers should be independent of the commercial promoters and either the DVVO or Croydon Borough Valuers or an independent expert firm from outside Croydon Borough and with no conflicts of interest.

Gross irregularity: Pre-CPO Negotiations non-existent for the Objectors

Contrary to express false statements in the Whitgift CPO Statement of Reasons, Power Leisure Bookmakers have informed their usual surveyors now making these Objections that there have been no advance

negotiations with them, nor any offers of compensation as is required under regulatory law. Indeed, that would have been referred to the surveyors if it had taken place. Therefore, the Compulsory Purchase Order should be null and void or else postponed until proper efforts have been made on behalf of the Council as AA. In particular low bargaining offers are not acceptable.

Relocation Offers to Potential Claimants

For the failed Park Place Scheme retail claimants were not to be relocated within it but compelled to leave. Whereas when the Whitgilft Centre was built in the 1960s (on the old school site) Land Securities/Ravenseft allowed for many smaller retailers at reasonable rents for sustainable trade; whereas more recent retail shopping centres are interested only in the usual multiples and often leasing on onerous rents and uncertain least terms. With a scheme of this magnitude for the regeneration of Croydon there should be flexibility and continuity of business occupation for sustainable as well as the usual multiples and bigger units. Transport for London: Review needed

The Statement of Case refers vaguely to negotiations with TFL, but with nothing reliable to go on. Whereas the partly successful Tramlink has had a profound effect upon the commercial viability of Croydon Town Centre retailing. Unfortunately, its layout and operation as planned originally was remarkably self-serving and also veiy anti-motorist, such that car borne A, B and C retail customers have been deterred from using

Croydon shops by effective road blockages and heavy fines from as compared to Bromley or Wimbledon. This should be reappraised by the Council and TFL working together.