Meta-advice please, in good time for 4th December

[DamonHD]

Hi,

 

I have a problem.  OK, more than one, but just one that I'd like this brains trust's help with!

 

I'm not sure if this is something that is right for buildhub discussion, though I'm sure that many of you will have opinions and even facts!

 

I'll give a very brief summary below, but what I'm after is where I should start the discussion thread properly, if at all.  Mods please weigh in.

 

The issue:

 

The local council is planning to redevelop the estate my (freehold) house is on to triple is density.  It proposes to use CPO (Compulsory Purchase Orders) to enable purchase of the land from people unwilling to leave.  It proposes to pay 'market price' + 10% which is kinda common except: (1) the estate has been left to be run down so who would freely buy? (2) tripling the density basically triples the value of the land as I understand it providing an ENORMOUS windfall to the developer and the council which I see as a huge conflict of interest amongst other things (3) a 'market price' apart from being at the whim of an estate agent also will not recognise the value of low density housing close to a major town centre with good public transport links which is why we are here, and (4) we would NOT be allowed to build on our land at the density the council will shortly permit themselves to so again a conflict of interest etc.

 

We have been served a section 13 notice to comment on the planning application by 4th December.  I'd like to know what I can do in such comments to protect my position since I'm quite clear that we should be getting the developed value of the land based on advice of a fairly fancy lawyer.  I'm not after making money, but rather moving to a similar freehold 3-bedroom house near London with good public transport (especially train), and that will cost more than we are implicitly being offered.

 

I'd also like to share anything useful with neighbours in the same bind.

 

Rgds

 

Damon

[Oz07]

Wow that's crazy. Are we in communist country now? What area without being too specific if you don't mind me asking? How is real estate worth anything if at any time they can come along and pull this stunt. 

[DamonHD]

Cambridge Road Estate, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT1.

 

I'm not happy about it.

 

I'd be less unhappy if we were going to be able to get somewhere equivalent and eg be recompensed for the loss of the FiT from the PV on our roof, but the council doesn't have the money for that and won't talk to me about it properly.  I had to threaten to start proceedings for misuse of powers in a public office even to get to meet with officials, not the meeting achieved anything.  I also am kenp to have the council keep its money (to spend on education, bin collection and the likem, rather than m'learned friends) if I can find a way to do it cheaper which leaves us in a similar position to now, but no interest has been taken so far.  I *have* been speaking to councillors, but they are heavily conflicted in some cases.

 

Rgds

 

Damon

[Oz07]

I'm amazed that this is possible. As you've been advised you'd at least want the value based on uplift from development. I understand something like hs2 (not arguing for or against that) needing to run in a straight line from one point to another and could be argued is in the national interest. I can see why specific pieces of land would have to be compulsory purchased for that. I'm sure this tactic wouldn't be attempted on some gentry estate land. 

[DamonHD]

Well, this is an area that that the council still owns most of, so doing this work here makes sense.  And the council is being pressured to building everywhere it possibly can to response to the demand for housing.

 

And I quite agree that were, say, this being bulldozed to build some piece of infrastructure such as a train line, some sort of 'market price' + 10% might be fair, subject to my other caveats.

 

But when this effectively shovels 2/3rds the actual value of my property and its location into the hands of the council and the developer, I am less sympathetic.

 

Rgds

 

Damon

[epsilonGreedy]

I cannot offer practical advice but the politics apaul me. How big is the overall estate, how old are the properties and does the estate include a large proportion of houses still rented as council houses?

[Gav_P]

You need to get yourself a land agent ASAP. And tell the council to pay for your land agent fees. They should do this as you are only using them due to the council instigating the CPO.
 

They need to demonstrate that the have tried to proactively engage with land owners (you) and have exhausted all options to come to an agreement before resorting to a CPO. 
 

You are more likely to get a better price for your property if you settle by negotiation than if it goes to CPO. 

[Gav_P]

Oh.. and make sure you speak to someone with authority in your negotiations... they will try and get a junior individual or consultant to do the negotiations if they can. 

[DamonHD]

CPO isn't probably happening for us for five years: the plan is phased.

 

The land agent tip is a good one, thanks, I'll hang on to it.

 

But what should I do *now* in this comment phase, if anything?

 

Rgds

 

Damon

[Gav_P]

6 minutes ago, DamonHD said:

But what should I do *now* in this comment phase, if anything?

Set out your argument/ objection. Encourage as many people as possible to object as well. 
 

Objections need to be of material issues, not just “I don’t like it” or “it’s unfair”. Ideally some heritage or environmental reason, so they can’t go ahead. 
 

You can still negotiate for them to buy your place now, so they remove a blocker from future down the line. 
 

Have you got a link to the consultation website?

[DamonHD]

This is the site:

 

http://www.cambridgeroadestate.com/

 

I can't find the actual planning application in RBK's planning site.

 

But I don't know what grounds I have to object now.  RBK planning pages say that

Material considerations are:

• highway safety
• flood risk
• appearance and design
• noise, dust, fumes, etc
• loss of light/sunlight
• scale and dominance
• archaeology
• sustainability
• nature conservation
• privacy
• impact on natural environment – trees etc
• parking provision

Nothing about appropriating my assets.

 

1) I have been monitoring bat activity, since the developers and the council appear to be claiming that there is none:

 

https://www.earth.org.uk/bats-at-16WW.html

 

2) And yes, the scheme is ignoring the tree loss in private gardens, for example, which is considerable.

 

3) Also, I have not received adequate assurance that the new build will be of sufficiently good energy efficiency to (a) eliminate space-heat fuel poverty (b) avoid needing a refit in only a few years to meet net-zero targets.

 

Do you think that I should put something together on the above three points and submit?

 

Rgds

 

Damon

Edited November 28, 2020 by DamonHD

[Gav_P]

It looks like a pretty simple scheme to deliver, so I would think it’s likely to be successful. 
 

I doubt they have submitted planning yet, so that’s why you can’t find it. But all the points you raised above would be good challenges to the planning app. But are nothing they cannot mitigate. 
 

From taking a look at their site, it appears that the majority of homes affected by this scheme are already owned by the council and the tenants will be re-homed in the new development. If this is the case then the number of objectors (with any useful objections) will be low. 
 

FYI the planning app and the CPO are 2 separate processes.

I don’t believe the future value of the plot has any influence over the CPOd price. Which sounds unfair, as it looks like just profiteering, but in reality the cost of developing the new estate and its infrastructure will balance this out. 

As for acquiring your property, the CPO is a last resort. They would prefer to have agreed a deal that you are both happy with. However they do have certain rules to comply with, so can’t offer a value that’s unjustifiable (due to it being tax payers money). You just need to maximise every single one of the categories that they can pay you. Eg.  market value +10% (you can use your own RICS surveyor), costs & expenses, loss of home 10%, etc etc. 
 

I also notice that you can take one of the new homes... this has to be a great negotiating point... choose a prime new house on the development and tell them that’s the one you want. (The developer could agree a reduced price - to incentivise you). 

[Oz07]

What about the conflict of interest though @Gav_P

[DamonHD]

1 hour ago, Gav_P said:

I

FYI the planning app and the CPO are 2 separate processes.

I don’t believe the future value of the plot has any influence over the CPOd price. Which sounds unfair, as it looks like just profiteering, but in reality the cost of developing the new estate and its infrastructure will balance this out. 

 

 

My advice was indeed that: "The general rule for compensation in CPOs is that in valuing the land acquired, any effect on value of the scheme behind the acquisition has to be disregarded on the valuation date. This is known was the Pointe Gourde Principal and dates back to 1947."

 

However: "The Localism Act 2011 discusses a 'hope value' to the land ... s323 LA 2011 inserted a new s14 into the Land Compensation Act 1961 and holds that if it could reasonably be expected that permission would be granted, then the valuation of the land proceeds not on the basis of hope, but on the basis of certainty. ... [From Porter v Secretary of State]  .... Any uplift in value could therefore arguably be included in CPO compensation."

 

So I think I may mention this to get it in the public record even if not itself "material".  I do have several material points from above that I will use.

 

Rgds

 

Damon

[DamonHD]

I will be working on my representation here (Google Doc, anyone can comment):

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/166Ip0rTNMLCGVhGfO53qB_yovM4xFpLLRQENvUCcR0E/edit?usp=sharing

 

Rgds

 

Damon

[Ferdinand]

There have been plenty of similar developments before, involving densification of estates, and oppositions thereto.

Elephant and Castle is perhaps one. And Earls Court has been another.

 

In this case the residents have voted in favour of redevelopment, and aiui you are one of the "council house purchasees" who are presumably in a minority overall.

 

My practical suggestions are:

 

1 - Network with others in a similar position, if you know some. Perhaps you could work jointly for legal advice etc. One of the complications is that you are a minority group, and the stance you take.

2 - Finding them may be a problem. You may have to break cover for that. I doubt whether the Council will tell you due to DP laws. Something more trad like a postcard in the newsagent with a mobile or asking a communist activist may work better.

3 - Perhaps get your local news blog to cover the issue and your viewpoint. I don't mean Londonist, I mean something more like the Kingston version of https://brixtonblog.com/ . 

4 - Check your paperwork for any conditions or rights for the Council related to future repurchase rights. 

5 - You need to watch being buried under, or framed by, political activists. Previous politics around such regenerations have been vicious, and to a degree framed from outside. Though that is perhaps countered by the resident consent. I get the impression that these projects are now a little less vigorous politically. May be wrong, though.

6 - Remember that the London market is generally down now and for a couple of years, probably, so consider that when thinking about dates of valuations and future purchases.

7 - Think about what you actually want to achieve - but you are already.

 

I'm generally of the view that developers may not make a huge windfall from this - the Council will use everything they can to bleed them white. Not directly pertinent, however.

 

Suspect that at whatever point you get something you think is a nearly reasonably good offer, it may be wise to take it rather than taking many years of heartache.

 

(Update: It's fun watching somebody write a letter online ? ).

 

F

 

[DamonHD]

I am trying to be reasonable, and I don't really care who ends up grabbing our asset, just that we are deprived of our current fairly pleasant situation and all the work we have put in to be climate friendly.  And that doing any more is now inhibited...

 

Far from digging my heels in, I outlined a scheme that I think would save RBK much of the difference between their offer and my estimate of what they should provide if I force the issue, if started sooner rather than later, but RBK has said that it will not even talk to me for several years about purchase.  And the notion of 'market price' then will be even less real...

 

Rgds

 

Damon

[oldkettle]

This is pretty shocking to me. So the council can at any point decide to take somebody's property and then share the proceeds with developers. Nothing wrong with this at all apparently. 

 

I am really worried about it as our little oasis of 5 houses has "unusually large gardens" and is constantly attracting attention. 10% uplift is nothing if you can't move into comparable area with a comparable house and land. 

[DamonHD]

Entirely my concern @oldkettle

 

I am absolutely not after any windfall, nor stopping redevelopment out of NIMBY bloody-mindedness, since there does seem to be a continuing demand for housing.

 

Rgds

 

Damon

Edited November 29, 2020 by DamonHD

[Gav_P]

1 hour ago, DamonHD said:

Localism Act 2011 discusses a 'hope value' to the land

I think this more relates to the ‘potential’ of your land as a stand-alone item rather than in the aspect of someone else developing it. For example, if it was possible (likely) that you could knock down your property and build 4 houses, and it’s likely that you would get planning permission. Then you could consider this hope value. 
 

 

[Ferdinand]

23 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

This is pretty shocking to me. So the council can at any point decide to take somebody's property and then share the proceeds with developers. Nothing wrong with this at all apparently. 

 

I am really worried about it as our little oasis of 5 houses has "unusually large gardens" and is constantly attracting attention. 10% uplift is nothing if you can't move into comparable area with a comparable house and land. 

 

No they can't just do it.

 

There's a fairly rigorous legal process, probably in the 1947 (ish) Planning Act, plus a lot of case law since. And subject to the requirements of Judicial Review.

 

I think eg the property acquisition budget for HS2 Phase 1 is somewhere north of 3 billion. 

 

[DamonHD]

20 minutes ago, Gav_P said:

I think this more relates to the ‘potential’ of your land as a stand-alone item rather than in the aspect of someone else developing it. For example, if it was possible (likely) that you could knock down your property and build 4 houses, and it’s likely that you would get planning permission. Then you could consider this hope value. 
 

 

Except that it is clear amongst other things that RBK would never have allowed *us* to build three houses on our land to sell, but will give itself permission to do so.  Thus my complaint about its vast conflct of interest.

 

Rgds

 

Damon

Edited November 29, 2020 by DamonHD

[Gav_P]

Have they updated the Local Plan yet? That should indicate the increase in housing needed in the area.. if they have, you could apply for some infill PP. 

[Oz07]

Also what makes upping the density of existing housing favourable to reducing a green belt wedge and converting a nearby field or brownfield site to housing? Surely this should be a last resort

[Ferdinand]

I would go for "owner" rather than "freeholder".

 

The latter has a slight "Freeman of the Land" feel about it, which is code for slightly nutty to many.

 

I'd also send your Bats stuff to the Bats Conservation Trust, and ask them to weigh in. That may inluence the Council to emphasize nature and trees more.

 

 

(Love the "pippip". Expecting "old fruit" to be added in a Wooster voice.)

 

F