20 VALUER www.irrv.net ©iStockphoto.com/magicinfoto encountering challenge. Tracking back through recent articles, it is without 2004 after and before CPOs successful numerous usdelivered of many for CP compensation, of aspects about talking have been must Judge learned apply.” to The elusive and decipher, to complicated locate, to difficult is land of purchase notice. will no-one luck, of abit with that, assume presumably and over glossed be can components inconvenient that think aCPO promote who those why rules, the know that those for to follow easy so are argument of lines the as that, me amazes it time same At so. to the do him/her –weexpect guidelines the followed scrupulously has Inspector the that demonstrates decision the where Report, Inspector’s so. rightly and fail, will CPO the that likelihood greater is a there followed, have been principles CPO that demonstrate can you unless need, the great how or scheme, the good how matter no is that everyone for lesson serious The that. acknowledged inquiry CPO BbyB atthe Inspector the and regeneration, of need serious in of area (BbyB) is an byBow Bromley Introduction expropriating private property statutes on construction astrict to impose astute have been courts –the case Wolves the from learned to be alesson was There purchase Compulsory errors in preparing recent CPOs. of sources the to analyse to attempt byBow, is useful it Bromley purchase Compulsory “The current law of compulsory compulsory of law current “The 2004, in stated Judge A senior aCPO or ajudgment, reading when comfort provides It  Stan Edwards Stan guidelines behind them! For leaving statute and atone to Leave them alone, they’ll have planningEven them with behind aCPOLost Peep at Bromley Bow by 1 . In the light of the failed CPO at CPO failed the of light the . In generated by objectors to the CPO. There seems to be little dispute dispute little to be seems CPO. toThere the byobjectors generated issues the considered Inspector the Inquiry, Local At aPublic The case powers. CPO of use the justifies it that or interest, public the in case acompelling to demonstrate requirements, CPO the fulfils it project, regeneration accepted is an and policy planning fulfils a project if is that Amisconception outline. in was second the and consent, detailed (the Tesco had phase element) use development. mixed of by provision the area the in work to and live people encourage to available are facilities social and housing that ensuring and environment, attractive an commerce, creating new of development the use,encouraging into effective buildings and land by bringing area “ were, Order the of purposes The 2010. September late and July late in sitting 2010 Inquiry the with March 2nd the on made was Order The powers. CPO Corporation’s proposed delivery of a two phased retail-led scheme retail-led phased atwo of delivery proposed (LTGDC), the involving Corporation Development Gateway Thames London the of area designated the within London East of area an in project regeneration led aretail from stems BbyB of case The Background 2004 we have had Supreme Court decisions (e.g. Wolves decisions Court Supreme wehave had 2004 Since rules. the for disregard asomewhat and creativity extravagant through have been CPOs of losses many that to demonstrate easy CPO process is brought to the fore. to the is brought process CPO of importance the that rules the illuminate Courts the or guidance the applies Inspector an when is only it principles, these on teaching of absence the in but guidance, tried well disposal have atour and CPOs for Acts empowering the of We have knowledge can rules? the follow to attempt who us of those to encouragement disfavour the perpetrators. to appear impartially unfair, that applied rules the perhaps saying are rules the that complain would who people very the may be These to blame. have themselves only rules the to follow seem not do who advisers, their and Those, to live. attempt weall by which and forgotten, had many rules the to apply Towerin begin Hamlets) (both Inquiries Quay Heron’s and BbyB the in Inspectors sentient of So what happened in BbyB that is so much a useful auseful much so is that BbyB in happened what So Piet Hein Piet and later neatly over. stumbled neatly we lines of because drew over, tumbled castles airiest our have plans fallen through, choicest Our ” Both phases had planning permission – the first first –the permission planning had phases ” Both poses the question posesthequestion Edwards Stan ‘well-being’No forBromley by Bow? to secure the regeneration of the the of regeneration to the secure 3 using the the using 2 ) and those those ) and overridden by the statute. The specific requirement of the Act the of requirement specific The statute. bythe overridden Fungwere provisions) Shun (noting principles mitigation CPO usual The premises. alternative to find authority acquiring by the requirement specific the and CPO bythe affected to businesses relating –that provision well-being’ ‘socio/economic own its include did wide, 1980 142, Act (LGPAL very Land and Section although Act) Planning Government Local the under empowerment purchase However, compulsory the required. not were empowerment of terms in aqualification as well-being environmental 226 (1A)).Section of well-being environmental and economic social, bythe qualified as land, the of improvement redevelopment, development, the 226 (1) (Section facilitate’ (a) will ‘think of respect in statute the of terms the with complied had authority acquiring the whether CPO process. Two key aspects were highlighted by the Inspector: bythe highlighted were Two process. CPO key aspects of requirements the understood fully not had who those were CPO process. CPO the and delivery scheme the of handling the was contention of area prime The area. the of regeneration for is aneed there that parties all between of employment it provides. In addressing the issue of relocation, the the relocation, of issue the addressing In provides. it employment of quality and quantity the Trad’s of and continuation business to the risk asignificant pose would Order the of Confirmation that noted Inspector The practice. isolated an is not This strategy. risky but – a common, Inquiry the around at or out sorted to be left was much that seems It compliance. CPO have ensured should acquisition, compel and project the to expedite requirement any perceived from apart Tesco, of that not Corporation/advisors, and the and CPO Corporation’s is the it is that here made to be point important The made. was Order the time atthe relocation occupiers’ existing of taken account little to have been appears there noted, Inspector the as but others, Trad and the Group, firm, services scaffolding nationwide the byTesco with to contact negotiate been had There Assistance to businesses relocate existing The employment issues were two fold: two were issues employment The Employment objectives regeneration objectives. its to achieve industry new and existing both of development the to encourage Act empowering its of ethos regeneration basic the UDC. the by owned currently to to relocate land acquired, been has property “ that, states Sect. 226 (as amended) Sect. 1990 Act Planning Town the to be CPOs &Country regeneration of empowerment to the used wehave become 2004 Since power The stone. one with birds two these have killed would advisors its and DPara.7, authority acquiring Appendix bythe particularly 06/2004, Circular of guidance the of application However, simple the Social, economic and Social, here. case the not was Such 2. 1. the down turning Inspector bythe surprised people only The 2. 1.

the general guidance of Circular 06/2004 general the the enabling power and the application of specific guidance specific of application the and power enabling the the quality and quantity of the jobs that were being lost. being were that jobs the of quantity and quality the businesses existing to relocate assistance ” The acquiring authority seems also to have overlooked to have also overlooked seems authority acquiring ” The so far as practicable, to assist persons or businesses whose whose businesses or to assist persons so far as practicable, 5 , and as such are used to looking at to looking used are such as , and 4 . 6

However, there seems plenty to alert the Inspector to the fact that that fact to the Inspector the to alert plenty seems However, there dogs. wagging tails –no interest public the in case a compelling of expense atthe interest private to deliver adeveloper for CPO’ a‘banner as used being merely as perceived is not it that to ensure careful be must authority acquiring The opened. Inquiry the before shortly only and made, was 2010, Order June the until after well Tesco. partner, its of behalf on aCPO making Corporation the in culminated eventually byTesco which 2009, in again attempted were Negotiations these. from withdrew it terms, conditional agreed and 2006/7 from TescoHowever, discussion whereas entered by agreement. land assemble to attempt agenuine made Tesco that doubt to reason no is there that stated Inspector The Negotiation makes it compelling? urgency. reasons for any specific identify not did Corporation the objective, strategic planning isimportant an London of this part “ that, stated Inspector the fact In phase. second the of respect in particularly timescale, areasonable within delivered being proposals Corporation’s the of prospect a realistic was there that demonstration no was there that notwithstanding on, up picked Inspector the that points numerous were There Delivery and social structure. businesses existing on impact wider the on consideration of lack –the CPOs regeneration centre town failed of root atthe interest public of issue very is the this apply, but not do they specifically T&CPA to the Indeed CPOs. apply not do 1980, they that say Act and LGPAL to the specific being as issues employment those relegate agenda. corporate their with align not does it because authorities local bypromoting ignored is perhaps but advice, merits. its on considered to be has case –each interest public the in is not reasons socio/economic for which competition, is pro- it because policy, of terms in this to address is unable PPS4 community. the on impacts social delivering competing, are livelihoods and businesses retail established where centres local or district centre, town in served being is not interest public the that argued be could it BbyB in requirement statutory the without Even progress. for argument amajor as is provided ‘new employment’ CPOs, regeneration centre town ‘so-called’ many of realm the in but statute, of requirements specific with to do was it here, Admittedly here? important it is more much how –but schemes retail purely in transfer’ ‘job and diversion’ ‘trade of implications socio/economic the over gloss who many the proposed development. from may result that values economic and social same the having as regarded be can company established awell in jobs existing the that consider not did he terms general in that stated Inspector The lost being were that jobs the of quantity and quality The consistent of Circular 06/2004. guideline the with been not had approach Corporation’s the that considered Inspector For one claimant in particular, no offer to purchase was made made was to purchase offer no particular, in claimant one For T&CPA of to just CPOs promoters for easy very be would It retail delivering consultants bymany up is picked point This interest. public great of point this on up picked Inspector The This is an important statement for for statement important an is This Compulsory purchase Compulsory whilst the regeneration of of regeneration the whilst ” What ” What 21 VALUER March 2012 22 VALUER www.irrv.net of others undertaking CPOs. CPOs. undertaking others of content and approach the Wolves) and to (BbyB sharpen challenge or objection likeasuccessful away. is nothing There negotiated to be acommodity just become practices’ ‘poor CPOs’ many that practice’ ‘good pursue who those for aCPO. is galling It challenging or objecting in success of degree the and process, CPO the of quality to as the aview take parties Chamber, the Upper atthe settled value have the than Rather negotiated. be will that price the of terms in gamesmanship been have really toprocess CPO related cases Many is asong There important. more being as share market and sales future in factoring probably scheme, the of delivery to achieve case BbyB the in seen as profit, developer’s to sacrifice willing be will developer the is involved, developer the Where compensation. of rules statutory the with compliance demonstrating of position traditional the with left be would they alone, authority acquiring the was it if that However, know weall outset? the from value uplift Street Raglan the of apiece received had they if CPO Wolves the have challenged Sainsbury Would rules. compensation CPO the following paid be would which that beyond compensation total the enhance to attempting Inquiry. aPublic to trigger decision the in factor major is the objector statutory The consent. compliant aPPS4 getting beyond to satisfy test interest apublic may be There protected. or heard been has interest public the that mean not does policy planning with adherence where CPOs centre town led retail with day. of light case is the Such sees even it before off is bought interest public the in case acompelling been not has there that demonstrating objection alegitimate even where played are games world, real the In to that. came it if would they so – and Tribunal to me!) Lands (still Chamber Upper bythe resolved being ultimately valuations CPO all of speak purists world, CPO ideal the In The games people play follow the rules on process. you as long as just obstacle, an not rights easy, human are and –CPOs consequences disastrous with practice, goods overrides considerations. rights human the on further to me comment for it isnecessary not circumstances these In confirmed. to be Order the interest for public the case in is acompelling there that demonstrated not has Corporation favour. in points the The outweigh confirmation against weigh which “ To Inspector, the quote Human rights scrutiny. deep to require ascheme was This 06/2004. Circular of advice the with accord not did and resort, alast as powers compulsory using not was authority acquiring the purchase Compulsory Cynically speaking, most objections are a means of of ameans are objections most speaking, Cynically Know when to run. Know when to walkKnow when away 'em to fold Know when You've 'em to hold when to know got It would appear that in many cases expediency expediency cases many in that appear would ” It My overall assessment is that the factors My overall assessment factors is the that 7 where the chorus runs: chorus the where How many times in CPOs has it to be hammered home? hammered to be it has CPOs in times many How ‘goodCPO practice’ private deals. in than standards higher to adopt expected are bodies public of behalf on or alongside negotiate that developers that and authority, acquiring an of behalf on is negotiating entity aprivate when apply law principles public that confirmed Inspector the where locality) (same CPO Tower the in made Hamlets was point The Tower Hamlets promoters. the than faster rules the apply and to learn beginning are claimants and objectors the that appear would It promoters. the for fears no hold should rules the following CPO presented and constructed Awell merits. its on judged be to has case Each disagree. Iwould claimant. the of favour in pendulum the swings public. goes it before aCPO in defect aserious to identify one only is the claimant the is where value any of real objection only The Inquiry. an of steps to the up even objection, the to withdrawing to prior is submitted objection the before –from brokered be can a price future. the for dimension interesting is an it but UK, the in that We got have not appraisal. an that's value, talk only. you If price to discuss careful be should appraisers estate real as certified not are who Those value. of acertification (BPO) requires opinion price abroker than other Any valuation have alicence. must parties third for negotiating broker the under employed Anyone delivered. may be opinion’ price a‘broker where formal, is more this USA the In (appraisal). to value opposed as brokerage price of world the in weare negotiations, CPO of stages To early the in apoint, Price brokerage v value (appraisal) property rights private with least interferes which chosen be will construction that construction, one than more of astatute where that, is capable means it matter apractical …As rights property vested with interfere to intention an against statutes, of interpretation the in presumption, a called been has what in is reflected over private property, power its of, “ to Blackstone attribution challenge. a possible of respect in resources public of waste the considering and compliance CPO over watching are advisors its or authority acquiring the in someone CPO. Surely authority’s acquiring is the Tesco as –it such to blame not are superstores and developers day the the of end At the expediency? just it Is promoters? the of minds the in not these whywere not, was it where stating of ways found Inspector the If demonstrated? interest “ statement, line one the Reasons of Statement the in wehave do to see times many How compliance guidance the with in /2004? Circular 06 demonstrable a to be has there that reiterated to be need it does times many How statute? the with line in change power, parameters the the change you if that reiterated to be need it does times many How There are those that say that the decision in respect of BbyB BbyB of respect in decision the that say that those are There where stages of anumber are there process, CPO the Within Again quoting Lord Collins in the Wolves case, with an an with case, Wolves the in Collins Lord quoting Again • • • • • practice. procedure power purpose policy ”? It leaves us to ask where and how was it assessed and and assessed it was how and ustowhere ask leaves It ”? ”. It is comforting that the Courts ultimately take take ultimately Courts the that ”. is comforting It there is a compelling case in the public case public the in is acompelling there a caution to the legislature in exercising exercising in to legislature a caution the Fig.1 – Chronology of CPO events at Tower Hamlets and the Wolves case Wolves the and Tower at Hamlets events CPO of Fig.1 –Chronology many rules, but even more those who make a living from conflict. from aliving make who those more even but rules, many wehave say too who those aCPO.of upset However, would that making the during off signed to be checklist practice control/good quality simple some was there if avoided /challenges objections and achieved, be could much 2004, in statement Judge’s learned to the back Reverting turn. atevery learned to be lessons are there life, In –General learned be to Lessons observations: following the drawn are which 1regarding Figure in forward put is Achronology influence. have possibly could impacts cross and sequencing the whether see and others of context in CPOs to put useful is sometimes It context in (inc.BbyB) Tower and Wolves Hamlets protection. our all for followed to be guidelines with business, is aserious rights someone’s taking where decisions reinforcing of job the seriously him/herself why they are not. not. are whythey him/herself for may deduce reader –the followed to be there are guidance) and (statute rules The message. aclear out send decisions These 7 May 2009 DATE 11h January 2011 11h January 30 September2010 20 July2010 2 May 2010 2 March 2010 2/3 February 2010 2010 27 January 31 July2009 • • •

followed. 1980) hadnotbeen that and guidance in Circular 06/2004 (LGPAL statute Act empowering adifferent of requirements qualification well-being’ a‘socio/economic following in –deficient Found remit. acomprehensive of part scheme, phase atwo in connectivity T&CPA 1990, to demonstrate and the of qualification ‘well-being’ apparent tothe CPO avoid LTGDC the Tower (in BbyB Tesco the in Hamlets) partnered followed not been not had 06/2004 Circular Guidance use. office for demonstrated demand –no interest public the in case compelling – no aT&CPA for Tower CPO. Found 1990 (as Hamlets amended) of Borough London the (CWG), partnered Group Wharf Canary developer, CPO). Quays The (Heron LB Tower Hamlets amended) (T&CPA 1990 –as statute empowering the of requirements qualification following in deficient Found: programme. acomprehensive of part forming not subsidy any cross and 226 (1)(a) connectivity Section ‘well-being’ 1A, and regarding of T&CPA the respect in with 1990compliance (as amended) non- through failed ultimately which case, Wolverhampton the of CC respect in Wolverhampton Tesco partnered Heron Quays West, , CPO The London Borough of Tower Hamletsmade The EVENT Inspector delivers his report onBromley delivers by hisreport Bow CPO Inspector ends Bromley by Bow Inquiry starts Bromley by Bow Inquiry Wolverhampton case Judgment given by onthe theSupreme Court Bromley by Bow (in Tower Hamlets)Order made heardSupreme the Court Wolverhampton Case Order notbeconfirmed recommendedThe that Inspector theHeron Quays ofAppeal judgmentCourt onthe Wolverhampton case 1990 (asamended) was madeunderthe Town Planning Act &Country 9 . The Order . The

the core of all activities and openly demonstrated. openly and activities all of core the at be should ‘well-being’ not, or considerations interest public or statute be it Whether interest. public the in case a compelling to demonstrate able being not and statute, with non-compliance in both victim unstated the was CPO, ‘well-being’ BbyB the In 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. [email protected] Evocati is based in Caerleon, Contact Newport. him on Association. Purchase Compulsory the of Vice-Chairman formerly and University, at development and planning retail in lecturer visiting also is He process. CPO in specialising a consultancy Limited, Evocati of aDirector is Surveyor, aChartered Edwards, Stan 3. 2. 1. Footnotes: Lessons to be learned – Bromley by Bow and Wolves and by Bow –Bromley learned be to Lessons

Compulsory Purchase Order 2009. Wharf) Canary West, Quays ( Hamlets of Borough London The 2011. 01 April Week Property Heap, Richard by tactics” Purchase 2009, Order Compulsory slams CPO Canary’s & “Inspector Wharf) Canary West, Quays (Heron Tower Hamlets of Borough London The to Report Inspector’s Rogers. Kenny by Gambler’, ‘The 7. DPara. Appendix 06/04 Circular ODPM 2004. Act Purchase Compulsory and Planning the by amended as 1990 Act Planning Town &Country rules’. Down Crichel the and Purchase ‘Compulsory 06/2004 Circular ODPM Compulsory Purchase Order 2010. The London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (Bromley by Bow) (South) City Council and another (Respondents) [2010] UKSC 20. vWolverhampton (Appellant) Ltd) Supermarkets Sainsbury's of application the R (on case). Wolverhampton the in Collins Lord by 91 (as restated Hare, and Forsyth ed (1998) QC, Wade William Sir of Honour in Law Public on Essays Cord: Crooked the and Metwand Golden The in Constitution, the and Purpose Public Expropriation, Taggart, 5. 4. 3. 2. A verse of promoters who produce failed CPOs: failed produce who promoters of A verse 1. Piet Hein Piet termsin Ican refute. evidence to state so-called his sense hasn't the evenHe got ignorantbut to boot. not alone malevolentis adversary'sMy argument

so. to do ready quite was it before aCPO to undertake pressures may feel existence of wayout its on authority acquiring an acquiring authority and its advisors apparently do not the if even rules, the applies and reads Inspector the problems to lead only can ‘creative that expediency’ remember guidance the with to comply attempt every make consider in terms strict the empowering Act

█ Compulsory purchase Compulsory 23 VALUER March 2012