LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW (LAND SOUTH OF HIGH STREET) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2017

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF

MICHAEL EDWARDS

ON BEHALF OF

BRENTFORD DOCK LIMITED

SEPTEMBER 2017

BRE002/0001/28097/SR/RG Borough of Hounslow (Land South of Brentford High Street) Compulsory Purchase Order 2017 (the "CPO")

Land at Dock Road and Augustus Close, Brentford - Parcels 98, 109, 110, 111, 148, 150, 151, 152 and 153

1. Introduction

1.1 My name is Michael Edwards. I am the Deputy Chair of the Board of Brentford Dock Limited (“BDL”), which is the freehold owner of Brentford Dock. Brentford Dock is a residential development to the south of the land subject to the CPO. As well as being the freehold owner of Brentford Dock, BDL is also the freehold owner of all of the above parcels apart from Parcels 150, 152 and 153. Parcels 150, 152 and 153 are unregistered and BDL does not own these parcels

1.2 I have lived on Brentford Dock since 1981, have been on the Board of BDL since 1990 and have been Deputy Chair of BDL since 2010.

1.3 Parcels 98 to 111 comprise Dock Road, an unadopted road maintainable at private expense, which is used to access Brentford Dock by vehicle and on foot by the residents of the 592 homes which comprise the Estate. Parcels 148 and 151 comprise part of Augustus Close, the road which provides the main vehicular access into Brentford Dock, and footpath associated with it. Both Augustus Close and the surrounding land are privately owned. However the actual road surface and footpath are adopted. Parcels 150, 152 and 153 comprise a thin sliver of land to the west of St Lawrence’s Church between the church boundary wall and the footpath.

1.4 Whilst there are no public rights of way over Dock Road itself, that part of the footpath (within the CPO) running alongside Dock Road may be part of the Thames Path and there may therefore be a public right of way over this part of the footpath.

1.5 BDL objected to the CPO on 6 April 2017 by way of a letter from Town Legal LLP, its legal advisers.

2. Dock Road

2.1 The acquiring authority and its development partner, Geronimo Limited (“Geronimo”), have failed to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest for acquiring part of BDL’s freehold interest in Dock Road. No such case is made in the statement of reasons or statement of case. Since Geronimo owns large plots of land on either side of Dock Road which would be capable of development without recourse to compulsory purchase there is no case for the CPO to be confirmed in respect of these plots.

2.2 No works to Dock Road are required by any conditions to the various planning permissions and listed building consents underlying the CPO, or by any obligations in the associated section 106 agreement. Dock Road is not mentioned in the acquiring authority’s site allocations policy SA12 allocating Brentford Waterside for development.

2.3 The development proposals which underlie the CPO seek to create a number of “yards” connecting the High Street to the waterways: “The proposal seeks to reinstate some yards in their original makeup, or reinvent and embed the spirit of the yards where appropriate to match the urban design principles of the scheme” (design and access statement, vol. IV, section 3.3). However, the proposals fail to justify why Dock Road requires any “reinstatement” on a par with the other disused access routes. 2.4 The design and access statement notes that, currently, “access to the waterways [is] principally by way of Dock Road” (vol. IV, section 2.7) and that Dock Road “serve[s] as [an] active and well used” used road today (vol IV, section 3.3). Moreover, Dock Road is, according to Geronimo, a “high quality” route from a heritage perspective scoring the highest rating of 12 (vol. IV, section 3.3). It does not appear from the design documents that it is proposed to alter the layout of Dock Road. I reiterate that Dock Road is a privately owned and maintained road to which the public have no rights of access. When Geronimo refers to the fact that Dock Road is “active and well used” by the public, the only lawful use it can be referring to is the use of the Thames Path which may run alongside Dock Road from the High Street south as far as the lock where it then follows the route of the canal path out to the east. To the extent that such a public right of way exists, it will continue to exist notwithstanding Geronimo’s development scheme and in the absence of the exercise of the CPO powers. However, it should be noted that the Thames Path does not run into Brentford Dock and there is no public access to the through Brentford Dock.

2.5 The CPO map reveals that the acquiring authority intends to acquire only the northern section of Dock Road. There is a southern section leading directly to Brentford Dock, which I will refer to as “Dock Road South”. For the avoidance of doubt, BDL currently owns both sections of Dock Road. The distinction between Dock Road South and the rest of the Dock Road will become relevant when I discuss assurances sought later in my evidence.

3. Disruption and severance as a result of the compulsory acquisition of Dock Road

3.1 Brentford Dock is effectively a triangular “island”, bounded to the north by the Grand Union Canal (and immediately beyond, by Geronimo’s development scheme), to the south east by the River Thames, and to the west by Syon Park, a 200 acre private park. Vehicular access to Brentford Dock is therefore restricted to just two roads, both of which include two bridges. While everyday vehicular access to Brentford Dock is via Augustus Close, Dock Road does provide an important vehicular access in the case of emergencies, such as last year when the Augustus Close bridges were closed for repair for a continuous period of ten months. Dock Road is also the primary pedestrian access to the town centre, the railway station, and beyond for residents of Brentford Dock.

3.2 Acquisition of Dock Road will cause a significant level of disruption to BDL’s remaining Estate. The severing of one entry point to the Brentford Dock Estate will mean its residents will only be able to access the Estate by Augustus Close, which will cause a significant amount of delay and disruption for the occupants of the Estate, as well as other traffic along Brentford High Street.

4. Plots 148 and 151: Augustus Close

4.1 The schedule to the CPO indicates that Plots 148 and 151 are required for crane oversailing rights. These plots include Augustus Close and a footpath running alongside it, providing pedestrian and vehicular access to Brentford Dock. Neither BDL nor its residents have been given any assurances as to their ability to pass and re-pass along these plots once construction is underway on the scheme. If no access across these plots is guaranteed there is the potential to sever Brentford Dock, as no access would be available from either direction.

5. Plots 150, 152 and 153

5.1 These plots form an insubstantial sliver of land which runs between the Churchyard wall boundary and the footpath associated with Augustus Close. The plots are unregistered and I am not aware of who owns these plots. Whilst BDL does not own the plots, they are maintained by BDL as part of its landscaped realm which includes numerous trees, flowerbeds and lawn forming the entrance to Brentford Dock.

5.2 The CPO schedule indicates that the acquiring authority seeks crane oversailing rights in respect of these plots.

5.3 While it can be seen from the CPO map that the radius of the crane oversail encompasses Plots 148, 149, 150, 151 and 152, the oversail would not encompass Plot 153. It is therefore unclear why the acquiring authority seeks crane oversailing rights in respect of Plot 153, particularly in light of the fact that Plot 153 is to the west of the wall of St Lawrence’s churchyard which forms the outer limit of the land which Geronimo intends to redevelop.

6. Traffic disruption

The Brentford Waterside regeneration will have significant traffic impacts around the immediate area, causing a considerable amount of disruption to BDL and its over 1,200 residents.

7. Assurances sought

7.1 The CPO should not be confirmed in respect of any of the parcels listed above. However, if the CPO is confirmed in respect of such parcels, then BDL would seek the following assurances at a minimum from Geronimo in the form of legally binding covenants or easements (as appropriate):

(a) a pedestrian right of way at all times over Dock Road by residents of Brentford Dock except in the case of emergency or during the carrying out of construction works, any exclusion periods to be kept to the absolute minimum necessary;

(b) a vehicular right of way over Dock Road by residents of Brentford Dock in cases where vehicular access over Augustus Close is unavailable for any reason;

(c) a covenant to ensure that all contractors and construction staff engaged by Geronimo and all subsequent residents and commercial tenants of its development are informed in writing and by appropriate signage at the southern border of Geronimo’s ownership of Dock Road and at the junction of Brentford High Street and Augustus Close respectively:

(i) that Dock Road South, as defined in paragraph 2.5 above, is a private road with no access by pedestrians or vehicles except along the Thames Path;

(ii) that Augustus Close provides no through access by any vehicles or pedestrians whatsoever;

(d) a covenant to ensure that contractors and construction staff engaged by Geronimo are informed in writing of BDL’s ownership of the landscaped realm around Augustus Close and that by depositing any materials on BDL’s land they would be committing a criminal offence;

(e) a covenant to reimburse BDL’s reasonable and proper costs in erecting gated fencing on Augustus Close and Dock Road, the location of such fencing to be at BDL’s discretion but to be located on land within its ownership;

(f) a covenant not to include, and to procure that its agents do not include, any indication in marketing material for Geronimo’s development that there is access to the River Thames from or in the vicinity of the development; (g) a covenant not to include, and to procure that its agents do not include, in any marketing or advertising material for Geronimo’s development images which suggest that there is access to the River Thames from or in the vicinity of the development, for example:

(i) images where Brentford Dock features significantly in the frame;

(ii) images including the River Thames, with or without , taken from Brentford Dock;

(iii) aerial images of Geronimo’s development which include Brentford Dock and the River Thames in the same frame;

(h) in relation to Plots 148, 150, 151 and 152, an assurance that BDL’s residents will be able to pass and repass by foot and vehicle over such plots notwithstanding any crane oversail.

8. Conclusions

8.1 For the reasons set out above, no compelling case in the public interest has been made out for the confirmation of the CPO. If the CPO is confirmed, it must be subject to the legally binding assurances set out above.

8.2 BDL remains open to discussion with the acquiring authority and Geronimo, in particular as to the assurances sought above.