7/29/2019 CPO Objection
1/2
Andy Slaughter, Labour MP for Hammersmith
Shadow Minister for Justice
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
020 7219 6052
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
National Planning Casework Unit
5 St Philips Place
Colmore Row
Birmingham
B3 2PW
27th
March 2013,
Dear Sir,
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (Shepherds Bush
Market Area) Compulsory
Purchase Order 2013
I am writing to object to the above compulsory purchase order
(CPO). I am the Member of
Parliament for Hammersmith and my comments reflect those of many
of my constituents, as well as
my own opinions on the matter.
I believe that the use of compulsory purchase powers is
inappropriate in this case for the following
reasons:
1) The purpose for which the CPO is being made is itself subject
to legal challenge. TheSupplementary Planning Document (SPD)
pertaining to this land has been the subject of
Judicial Review, (R on the application of Abdul Wakil (T/A Orya
Textiles) v Hammersmith &
Fulham LBC and Orion Shepherds Bush Ltd (2012) EWHC 1411 (QB)).
Wilkie J gave
judgement for the applicant, quashing the SPD. A further
application for Judicial Review will
be heard later this year, in which the applicants will apply to
quash the planning application
for the site. With both the planning policy for the area and the
specific application on which
the CPO will bite being legally in doubt the application for CPO
is at the least premature.
2) Hammersmith & Fulham LBC (the council) has failed to
demonstrate that the funding said tobe relied on is adequate and/or
that it will be available at the appropriate time, having
regard to the present and reasonably foreseeable economic
conditions and the duration of
the implementation of the scheme underlying the CPO.
3) The council has also failed to demonstrate that the parties
to the Cost Indemnity Agreementsaid to be relied upon in paragraph
10.2 of the Statement of Reasons are parties with
sufficient resources to ensure that the scheme underlying the
CPO can and will be
implemented in the present and reasonably foreseeable economic
conditions. In particular,the council has failed to show that Orion
Shepherds Bush Limited has sufficient resources to
7/29/2019 CPO Objection
2/2
ensure that the scheme underlying the CPO can and will be
implemented. The prior history
of the parent developer, Orion Land and Leisure, also raises
doubts about its ability to see
the project through to completion.
4) The owners and tenants of the existing shops and other
businesses have not had meaningfulnegotiations conducted in good
faith with either the council or the developer, so the councilhas
not demonstrated that its attempt to use compulsory purchase powers
is reasonable or
justified.
5) The council has not shown that there is a reasonable
expectation that the schemeunderlying the CPO will proceed within
the period of validity of the CPO, should it be granted
as currently applied for.
6) According to the council, the primary purpose of the scheme
for which the CPO is beingcontemplated is to secure the continuity,
character and viability of the existing market.
The relevant provisions of the s106 agreement and the
undertakings given therein, do not
adequately ensure this. It is perverse to use CPO powers to
acquire ownership of landalready used for the same purpose which
the CPO seeks to impose.
For the above reasons, I believe that whatever view one holds
about the underlying scheme itself,
this attempt to use compulsory purchase powers is misconceived.
Firstly, by reason of its timing it
is premature, and should not be under consideration before the
legality or otherwise of the
underlying scheme is established. Secondly, there is no sound
financial basis to the scheme
proposed. Indeed it may be that recourse to CPO is a reflection
of the stalled nature of the scheme
and the councils wish to assist a struggling developer with
which it has had a close relationship from
the outset. Thirdly, even if the scheme is ultimately declared
lawful and allowed to proceed, the
notion that a council should be able to wrest land from parties
against their express will and withoutmeaningful discussion, only
to return it later in what the council regards as an improved state
flies
in the face of the reason CPO powers are available, ie to allow
council to acquire land where there is
a compelling case in the public interest. The council has not
demonstrated this, nor has it
demonstrated adequate attempt to acquire by negotiation and
agreement .
I therefore add my voice to the voices of many of the Shepherds
Bush Market traders, the owners of
the shops at nos 30-52 Goldhawk Road as well as many other of my
constituents with an interest in
the matter, in asking you not to agree to the CPO as
proposed..
Yours sincerely,
Andy Slaughter
MP for Hammersmith
