Representation by Anglo-European Developments GB Limited (Anglo-European Developments GB Limited)
- Date submitted
- 31 March 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sirs, I write on behalf of Anglo-European Developments GB Limited, freehold owner of parcels 83, 106, 110, 114, 116, 117, 132, 162, 163, 164, 168, 180, 182, 193 and 199 within the draft DCO, and beneficiary of various restrictions and rights over other land within the draft DCO, as referenced in the Applicant's Book of Reference. Anglo-European obtained planning consent (DA/06/01350/FUL) to develop its site, known as the Interchange site, on Lower Road, in 2009. That planning consent, which provided for the development of 78,000sqft of industrial / warehousing, is extant by virtue of the fact that Anglo-European carried out works to infill the lagoon that previously existed, in accordance with the consent. The works to infill the lagoon commenced in 2012 and Anglo-European had intended to continue to develop out the site in accordance with its consent, and instructed agents to secure tenants for the units. In the meantime the London Resorts proposals (or the London Paramount Entertainment Resort proposals, as they were at the time) were announced and it became commonly known that compulsory acquisition powers would be promoted over the Anglo-European site; this put paid to the Anglo-European development because prospective tenants were no longer prepared to commit to the site. Evidence of this has been provided to the Applicant's agents and I understand that Anglo-European engaged with the original London Resorts team in 2013, and again in 2015, but no offer to acquire the site has ever been made and Anglo-European have remained frustrated in their ambitions to develop the site, having faced nine years of uncertainty. Anglo-European object to the inclusion of compulsory acquisition powers within the draft DCO for the following reasons: 1 - Anglo-European disagree with London Resorts' statement at paragraph 6.3 of its Statement of Reasons that 'the development of the London Resort could not be achieved without the use of compulsory acquisition powers'. It is unclear how such a statement can be substantiated when the Applicant has not made offers to acquire a number of the interests that it requires. The Applicant states at 6.74 of its Statement of Reasons that it has, and continues to, make 'reasonable attempts to acquire necessary land and rights by agreement'. In the case of Anglo-European that statement is incorrect and it is notable that Section 7 of the Statement of Reasons makes no reference to negotiations with Anglo-European. Anglo-European is willing to treat with the Applicant and it contends that the Applicant is premature in seeking compulsory acquisition powers. 2 - The compelling case in the public interest is not made. The Applicant has stated in its Statement of Reasons that 'compulsory acquisition of land and rights in land is necessary to enable the Applicant to realise the significant benefits and deliver the Proposed Development'. However, not only is the development unsupported by a National Policy Statement, but it is also noteworthy that in the 13 years since the DCO regime was established, no other purely commercial development has been promoted through it, and this would be the first example of a private developer benefitting from compulsory acquisition powers for a scheme that is not supported by a National Policy Statement. The social, economic and environmental benefits that the Applicant claims will be achieved through the delivery of the entertainment resort are uncertain at best and it is difficult to comprehend the basis on which the Secretary of State should enable a leisure developer to compulsorily acquire private interests in land for commercial gain, for a purpose that is unsupported in national planning policy terms. 3 - The compulsory acquisition of Angle-European's interest would interfere with its rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention in a manner that is unlawful. The level of interference with its site, which is proposed to be developed in a manner that will deliver economic betterment, is disproportionate to the benefits that the London Resorts scheme will deliver, to the extent that the compulsory acquisition would not strike a fair balance. As already stated, Anglo-European stand ready and willing to listen to any offer that the Applicant might make, to reflect both the market value of its interest and the fact that it has, since the publication of the London Resort proposals, been unable to develop its site and derive a rental income in the manner that it would have done in the 'no scheme world'. Until London Resorts has exhausted reasonable efforts to acquire my client's interest, and those of all other third party landowners, it would be wholly inappropriate for compulsory acquisition powers to be granted. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Stott MRICS