Representation by Cella UK Property Unit Trust 1 (Cella UK Property Unit Trust 1)
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Knight Frank LLP represents Cella UK Property Unit Trust 1 the freehold owner of Preservation House, Airport Way, Luton LU2 9LF. Cella UK Property Unit Trust 1 (“Cella”) wishes to register as an Interested Party in respect of the Development Consent Order procedure. Preservation House is a stand-alone industrial warehouse of 54,887 sqft with ground and first floor offices extending to 5,821 sqft. There is a secure yard and gate house. There is an HGV yard with loading bays on the North East elevation along with parking for 12 HGV’s. On the South Eastern side of the building is carparking space for 60 cars. In all the site extends to 3.41 acres. Luton Borough Council is the tenant having taken an assignment of the lease from the original tenant. The draft Development Consent Order identifies plots 1-74a (230sqm) 1-86 (1,844sqm), 1-79 (5sqm) and 1-77 (75sqm) for Permanent Acquisition, in total 2,154sqm (0.532acres). The area of this permanent acquisition encompasses the road access, the gate lodge, all of the HGV parking and access to the loading bays. The draft Development Consent Order also identifies plots 1-77a (3 sqm, 1-81 (22sqm), 1-74 (8,317sqm) and 1-88 (636 sqm) for “Temporary possession” an area in total of 8,978sqm (2.22ac). Crucially plot 1-74 includes the entire building, Preservation House and all of its carparking spaces. The draft order describes the work to be carried out on these plots as “Works in connection with Airport Access Road, associated laydown areas, access, working space to support construction” In aggregate the draft Order is proposing to take powers of permanent and temporary rights over 2.75 acres or 81% of the land area. What is more the land excluded from the Order is not only isolated it is mostly the marginal and amenity areas of the site. At this stage Cella identifies the following issues and objections:- 1. The permanent land take (which is required for a new road) removes the access from the property. There does not appear to be provision made for the remaining property to have a functioning access to the new highway network. 2. Cella has not been provided with any proposals for accommodation works which would deal with a building which will have lost its vital loading bays and HGV parking. There is significant severance matters which have not been addressed. 3. The temporary use of the building and carpark for “laydown areas, access, working space to support construction” is of particular concern. No details of the use or time period have been provided. In the draft Order the rights proposed for temporary use are extensive including authorisation firstly for the “removal of any building” (33(1)(b) of draft Order) and secondly when giving up possession the draft Order does not require the undertaker to “replace a building removed under this article” (33(4)(a) of the draft Order). Such extensive powers impose an unacceptable risk upon the landowner. 4. The draft Order provides a 10 year period following the grant of the DCO for the authority to exercise compulsory purchase powers. Such a time limit would provide an unacceptably long period of blight during which time the ability for Cella to sell, let or otherwise develop the property would be significantly restricted. 5. Cella suggests together the permanent and temporary acquisitions is an unacceptable injury to their property for which a full and early acquisition may be the only acceptable method of compensating their interest. 6. There has been limited attempts by the authority to negotiate compensation in advance of seeking the Development Consent Order. It is considered that the authority has so far failed to take “reasonable steps to acquire all of the land and rights included in the Order by agreement”, as required by Guidance on Compulsory purchase process and The Crichel Down Rules The above issues are not an encompassing list of concerns or objections. Cella reserves the right to amend add and otherwise raise other issues of concern at the Public Inquiry stage of the Development Consent Order process. Tim Broomhead MRICS FAAV Partner Knight Frank LLP