The Port of London Authority

Ref: APP/NPCU/CPO/F5540/77609

The London Borough of Hounslow (Land South of Brentford High Street) Compulsory Purchase Order 2017

Proof of Evidence

On behalf of

The Port of London Authority

Prepared by

Colin Cottage BSc (Hons) MRICS IRRV

13 September 2017

Colin Cottage BSc (Hons) MRICS IRRV Glenny LLP Unex Tower Station Street Stratford London E15 1DA DDI: 020 3141 3569 E: [email protected]

Page 2

Index

1.0 Qualifications and Experience

2.0 The Purpose of this Proof of Evidence

3.0 The Port of London Authority

4.0 Riverbed and Foreshore Ownership

5.0 Duties and Powers

6.0 Thames Vision

7.0 The Objection

8.0 Declaration

The Port of London Authority The London Borough of Hounslow (Land South of Brentford High Street) Compulsory Purchase Order 2017 Colin Cottage BSc (Hons) MRICS IRRV Reference APP/NPCU/CPO/F5540/77609 Page 3

1.0 Qualifications and Experience

1.1 I am Colin Michael David Cottage, a Member (Partner) of Glenny LLP, an independent practice of Chartered Surveyors and Property Consultants active primarily in London and the South East.

1.2 I have worked in the property market for almost 30 years since obtaining an honours degree in Land Administration in 1988. I qualified as a Chartered Surveyor in 1991 and I am also a member of the Institute of Rating, Revenues and Valuation and the Compulsory Purchase Association.

1.3 Between 1997 and 2011, I ran Glenny LLP’s East London Professional Division, leading a team of surveyors undertaking valuation, landlord & tenant, rating and compulsory purchase work. In September 2011 I formed Glenny LLP’s Regeneration and Infrastructure Division, which provides compulsory purchase, compensation and regeneration consultancy advice, not only in the firm’s core area of operations, but across the UK.

1.4 I have provided advice in relation to compulsory purchase and compensation matters to both acquiring authorities and claimants for approximately 20 years and have specialised in this area of work since 2004.

1.5 My experience includes advising acquiring authorities at Rainham, Abbey Wood, Romford, Dagenham, Stratford, Woolwich, Canning Town, Ilford, Dartford, Harlow and Sandwich. I was also one of the London Development Agency’s primary advisers for the Compulsory Purchase Order used to deliver the 2012 Olympic Games.

1.6 As well as acting for acquiring authorities I represent businesses and individuals affected by compulsory acquisition. I am currently advising claimants in relation to Crossrail, HS2, the Heathrow 3rd runway expansion, the Thames Tideway Tunnel, the Trafford Metrolink, the Network Rail (Huyton) Order, the M4 Relief Road at Newport and a number of regeneration- based CPOs in locations that include Purfleet, Tottenham and Enfield.

1.7 Within the field of compulsory purchase and compensation, I have wide-ranging experience of dealing with canals, rivers and waterfront infrastructure, including docks and wharves. In addition to providing advice to the Port of London Authority (‘the PLA’), I also act for the Manchester Ship Canal Company, The Bridgewater Canal Company, Associated British Ports, the Bristol Port Company and the Port of Sheerness Ltd.

1.8 I have experience in giving written and oral expert evidence at Public Inquiry, the High Court and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). I am an RICS accredited expert witness.

2.0 The Purpose of this Proof of Evidence

2.1 The London Borough of Hounslow (‘Hounslow’) is seeking to secure powers of compulsory acquisition pursuant to the London Borough of Hounslow (Land South of Brentford High Street) Compulsory Purchase Order (‘the Order’), over land that includes parts of the riverbed and foreshore of the River Brent owned by the PLA. While the PLA does not object to the principle of Hounslow’s proposed scheme of development and is indeed supportive of sustainable regenerative development that interacts sympathetically with the river assets in its stewardship, it has concerns that the development may

a) impact on the right of the public to enjoy this part of the River Brent b) have a detrimental effect on an important existing river business c) create increased water discharges into the Brent which may cause interference or damage to the river bed

2.2 The Port of London Act 1968 (‘the 1968 Act’) provides a statutory mechanism that would allow Hounslow to secure the rights it is seeking over the PLA’s land, subject to appropriate scrutiny and the application of any appropriate conditions. Hounslow has chosen not to make an application under the 1968 Act and is instead seeking unfettered rights that will allow it to acquire land and undertake works without the need to consult with the PLA in the way envisaged by Parliament when it enacted the 1968 Act. The PLA objects to this.

2.3 The purpose of this proof is to inform the Inquiry of the PLA’s role, duties and vision for its river assets, explain the extent of its ownership in the Order Lands and set out why, because of the1968 Act, there is no compelling case in the public interest for Hounslow to be granted compulsory purchase powers to acquire land and rights from the PLA.

3.0 The Port of London Authority

3.1 The PLA was established under the Port of London Act 1908 for the purpose of administering, preserving and improving the Port of London and for other purposes including the conservancy of the tidal Thames. Those powers were extended in subsequent Acts and Orders (including the Port of Tilbury Transfer Scheme 1991 Confirmation Order 1992 (SI 1992/284) and are now consolidated and unified by the 1968 Act. The 1968 Act has been subsequently amended through various Harbour Revision Orders, the most recent such Order was approved by the Secretary of State for Transport in 2005.

3.2 The PLA is a trust port. Accordingly, it manages its river assets for the benefit of all river users. This special status means that it is obliged to turn its assets to account so as to maximise the funds it has available for its statutory undertaking and to minimise the conservancy and other charges payable under the 1968 Act by river users. The PLA is wholly funded by such charges and the other funds it generates from its assets: it does not receive any subsidy from the Government or from any other party or body.

3.3 The PLA has jurisdiction, as port authority, for the length of the tidal River Thames and its tidal tributaries, from its landward limits at Teddington Lock in the west to its seaward limits in the outer estuary of the Thames, roughly equating to a line drawn between Clacton in Essex and Margate in Kent.

3.4 Although the Grand Union Canal, where it joins the river Thames, is one of the tidal tributaries, the PLA no longer has any navigational jurisdiction there (see s.2 and schedule 1 of the 1968 Act). The part of the river Brent that was not required for the construction of the Canal (“the backwater”) is still in the ownership of the PLA and is also still tidal. However, because the water flowing through the backwater does not come and go directly to and from the Thames, for navigational purposes, it is treated as a continuation of the Grand Union Canal and the Canal and River Trust exercises navigational jurisdiction over it.

4.0 Riverbed and Foreshore Ownership

4.1 The PLA owns most of the river bed and foreshore (to Mean High Water mark) of the Thames between the limits stated above (para 3.3), with the majority of the remainder being owned by the Crown Estate.

4.2 The definition of “the Thames” within the 1968 Act means so much of the river Thames, the Thames estuary, rivers, streams, creeks, watercourses and the sea as is within the limits. The PLA contends that the parts of the river Brent that were not required for the construction of the Grand Union Canal remained in the ownership of the body responsible for the conservancy of the river Thames, and that they are still owned by and fall within the PLA’s administrative limits as landowner.

4.3 The Canal and River Trust has confirmed that it does not own the bed of the river at this location.

4.4 The PLA’s absolute freehold title to the riverbed forming the backwater, which runs from the Grand Union Canal round to Town Wharf, is registered with title number AGL202024. The PLA has undertaken detailed investigations in conjunction with the Canal and River Trust into the ownership of the riverbed and foreshore of the River Brent and is satisfied that it owns, or exercises rights over the following land within the Order Lands for the reasons explained below.

4.5 Land to be acquired 4.5.1 Plots 85 and 88 - registered title

4.5.2 Part of Plot 86 – an area of land fronting Town Wharf, where various vessels are moored, the land is not registered. The plan at page 3, titled “River Brent” in the PLA‘s booklet Tidal Limits of the Tributaries and Creeks , prepared by the PLA under section 17 of the Port of London Act 1964 (published in June 1967) and defines the PLA’s ownership. The plan indicates that plot 86 is vested in the PLA.

4.6 Land over which rights are to be acquired Plots 104 (part) 106, 108, 109 (river bed not bridge), 110 (river bed not bridge) 113, 114, 116, 117, 121 and 122 – registered title

4.7 Plots 89, 105, 115, 116, 120 and 123 – unregistered land which in so far as it forms part of the River Brent foreshore or riverbed is within the port limits, over which the PLA exercises rights.

4.8 It should be noted that the PLA understands its ownership and rights to extend beyond those set out in the schedule of land interests that accompanies the Order.

I understand that a recent application to the Land Registry made by Hounslow’s development partner, seeking possessory title over plot 86 was rejected.

5.0 Duties and Powers

5.1 The PLA’s duties and general powers are set out in Section 5 of the 1968 Act, which states at 5(1) that:

“…it shall be the duty of the Port Authority to take such action as they consider necessary or desirable for or incidental to the improvement and conservancy of the Thames."

5.2 The PLA wishes to ensure that the right of the public to enjoy this part of the River Brent is maintained and not further constrained. Further, any development must not have a direct detrimental impact upon the river related use undertaken by MSO Marine or indirect impacts through, for example, introducing uses that have the potential to conflict with the boatyard operations (for example through noise, dust etc).

5.3 It is also the case that Hounslow is seeking rights to drain water into the River Brent and the construction and use of any new outfalls needs to be properly planned and monitored.

5.4 The PLA wishes to ensure that the proposals improve existing water related facilities and provide new facilities, for example by encouraging rowing, paddling and/or sailing.

6.0 Thames Vision

6.1 The PLA published “The Vision for the Tidal Thames” in July 2016 (‘Thames Vision’).

6.2 The Thames Vision is a framework for the development of the Tidal Thames until 2035. It seeks to make the most of the river’s potential, for the benefit of all.

6.3 The Thames Vision contains six goals and each goal contains a number of priority actions. Of particular relevance in relation to the proposed Order are the following goals and priority actions:

“Secure the infrastructure required for growth in the transport of passengers and goods on the Thames. “See greater participation in sport and recreation on and alongside the water.” “Create new appropriate residential moorings accommodating suitable vessels”

6.4 The Thames Vision project is led by the PLA but it is based on a collaborative approach, for a shared Vision for the Thames. It is a single Vision for the Thames, to be delivered by multiple stakeholders under the PLA’s custodian role.

6.5 Hounslow is seeking to compulsorily acquire rights which PLA would be prepared and is entitled to grant through agreement, subject to proper scrutiny and the application of appropriate conditions. Through the use of powers of compulsory acquisition, Hounslow is seeking to obtain unfettered rights and to avoid the proper scrutiny the PLA is entitled to give to works that affect its assets and the right of the public to enjoy this part of the River Brent.

7.0 The Objection

7.1 The PLA does not object to the principle of Hounslow’s proposed scheme and in fact supports the principle of sustainable regenerative development that interacts with the Thames in a way that assists delivery of the Thames Vision.

7.2 However, as custodian of the Tidal Thames the PLA has a duty to ensure that the responsibilities placed on it by the 1968 Act are properly administered in order to improve and conserve the tidal river Thames.

7.3 The 1968 Act Although Hounslow needs to secure land and rights over land in the PLA’s ownership and administration the 1968 Act provides an existing statutory mechanism whereby this can be achieved. Section 11 of the 1968 Act provides the PLA with the powers that a landowner would normally enjoy, allowing the PLA to deal with their land holding as they see fit for the benefit of the authority and the public at large.

7.4 For the reasons given previously in this proof, the PLA maintains that its jurisdiction does extend into the Order Land.

7.5 The PLA further contends that consent under the 1968 Act would be more proportionate. The rights sought under the Order are without limitation. Consent under the 1968 Act would ensure proper scrutiny of plans and proposed works affecting the tidal Thames and for these safeguards to be avoided cannot be in the public interest.

7.6 Although in its statement of case Hounslow says that it will

‘carry out a risk assessment in relation to navigation and discuss this with the navigation authority’ and

‘GL will ensure that the works to be carried out, and the Order Scheme, will not interfere with navigation temporarily or permanently without full prior consultation with the navigation authority and other parties’

No details of how this might be put into practice, or whether the navigation authority will be able to appropriately monitor the proposed works, have been provided to the PLA. The PLA is not the navigation authority for this part of the Brent and so while Hounslow says that it is committed to continuing to work with the PLA and the Canal and River Trust (which is the navigation authority) in relation to requirements for navigation in the river, no assurances have been provided that the PLA will be able to properly undertake its statutory duties and protect, grow and enhance the opportunities for the river and river users in line with the aspirations of the Thames Vision.

7.7 MSO Marine (MSO) The PLA is concerned that the proposed works will have detrimental impact upon MSO, which runs the only ship yard in the upper part of the tidal River Thames capable of repair, refurbishment and build. Although no land will be acquired from MSO, the restrictions that will be placed on its operations could mean the loss of a waiting area for vessels using the shipyard and hence be detrimental to the business. The potential loss of the shipyard would have a major impact on the boat owning community of the River Thames, the Grand Union canal and the River Brent. The PLA also has concerns about how the commercial/industrial boatyard would interact with the proposed new residential development.

7.8 Hounslow says in its statement of case that it will work with the PLA in relation to MSO, but to date no formal assurances have been provided to the PLA in this regard. MSO has objected to the Order and while Hounslow says it is in discussions with MSO, no evidence of any agreement has been made available to the PLA.

7.9 Water Discharge Hounslow is seeking rights to drain and discharge water into the River Brent. The repair of river walls and the construction of outfalls to allow discharges is likely to mean temporary closure of public rights of navigation which need to be planned and publicised in advance. No assurances have been provided that these actions will be taken.

7.10 The quantum and quality of any discharges in to the tidal Thames would in all normal circumstances be agreed and monitored by the PLA and Environment Agency as regulatory bodies. The rights Hounslow is seeking would not require discharges to be monitored in an appropriate way.

7.11 Loss of Moorings It appears as if Hounslow’s scheme will remove houseboat moorings in this location. There are no currently available alternative moorings in this area of the tidal Thames and no information has been provided to demonstrate how, or if, the houseboat moorings will be provided.

7.12 Summary The PLA has a statutory duty to conserve and improve the River Brent. In the normal course of events its ability to ensure that works that interfered with the river could be appropriately monitored and authorised would require the making of an application to the PLA. Hounslow intends to circumvent this normal statutory process by securing unfettered powers to acquire land and rights over land owned by the PLA.

7.13 The PLA believes that the removal of its powers to properly scrutinise works affecting the River Brent and to thereafter exercise its conservancy functions over those parts of the river in the Order Land is unacceptable. In particular it has concerns that no guarantees have been provided as to how Hounslow will deal with MSO, water discharges and the loss of houseboat moorings.

7.14 The PLA is prepared to grant such consent as required under its Statutory Powers to carry out all of the works necessary to deliver the Order Scheme. The Order Scheme could therefore be delivered without the need to acquire land and rights over PLA owned land. Consequently, there is not a compelling case in the public interest for powers of compulsory acquisition to be granted over the PLA’s land.

8.0 Declaration

8.1 In preparing this Proof of Evidence, I confirm that,

1) Insofar as the facts stated in Report or within my own knowledge, I have made clear which they are and I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion.

2) My Report includes all facts which I regard as being relevant to the opinions which I have expressed and that attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of those opinions.

3) My duty to the Inquiry as an Expert Witness overrides any duty to those instructing or paying me, that I have understood this duty and complied with it in preparing my evidence impartially and objectively, and I will continue to comply with that duty as required.

4) That I am not instructed under any conditional fee arrangement; and

5) This evidence complies with the requirements of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Practice Statement and Guidance Notes set out in publication “surveyors acting as Expert Witnesses”.

Signed: ……………………………………………….. C M D Cottage BSc (Hons) MRICS IRRV

Dated: 13 September 2017

The Port of London Authority The London Borough of Hounslow (Land South of Brentford High Street) Compulsory Purchase Order 2017 Colin Cottage BSc (Hons) MRICS IRRV Reference APP/NPCU/CPO/F5540/77609