The Games wouldn’t be a reality without compulsory purchase orders

THE WILD celebrations of 6 July 2005 that followed London winning the right to host the 2012 Olympics marked the end of a very long and highly organised campaign.

But they marked only the beginning of the herculean task of land assembly, all of which had to be achieved against an everapproaching deadline.

The Games simply would not happen without the exercise of compulsory purchase powers. Compulsory purchase is a draconian measure but it is nothing new. Indeed, the UK’s economic, physical and social development over the past two centuries has in large measure been brought about by schemes that would not have been possible without the compulsory acquisition of the necessary land. Think of the country’s roads, railways, canals and energy installations. Think of the hospitals, and the town centre regeneration schemes that are now underway across the country – all of which have been underpinned where necessary by the Local Authority wielding its powers of compulsory purchase.

In the case of the Olympics, there was simply too little time and too many landowners to allow all of the necessary land to be assembled by negotiation and agreement. The task of land assembly was given to the London Development Agency who, in November 2005, made the snappily titled London Development Agency (Lower Lea Valley, Olympic and Legacy) Compulsory Purchase Order 2005.

The LDA continued to try to acquire as much of the land as possible by agreement but the making of the CPO was entirely unavoidable if the land was to be delivered on time.

Objections were of course received to the CPO and a public inquiry was held. Not many people were surprised when on 18 February 2007 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided to uphold the CPO. Had the Secretary of State decided otherwise then the whole Olympic project would have been derailed – a politically unacceptable possibility.

The confirmed CPO gave the London Development Agency the power to acquire all the land they needed without the consent of the owners, i.e. to force the owners to sell their land.

The Secretary of State’s decision to confirm the Olympics CPO was challenged in the High Court by a handful of doughty objectors. The High Court has never shirked its responsibility to see justice done – it has for example recently quashed a CPO designed to secure the regeneration of large parts of the most deprived areas of central Liverpool – but on this occasion, perhaps a little predictably, the challenges failed.

Having lost their land, the next stage for the dispossessed landowners is to ensure that they are properly compensated for their loss. The good news here is that although getting compensation can be a tortuous process the system is always scrupulously fair.

The first thing for the landowner to do is to get proper professional advice. Many landowners will stick with the team who helped them object to the CPO - but this is not always the best option. The crucial thing is to ensure that the professionals involved are well-versed in dealing with the determination and recovery of compensation following compulsory acquisition. There is often a lot of money at stake and there are often complex valuation and legal issues involved. Without a proper advisory team the landowner will almost certainly be seriously disadvantaged. The good news is that the Acquiring Authority – here London Development Agency – will generally be required to pick up the tab for the landowner’s reasonable fees.

The usual pattern of events is for the landowner and the Acquiring Authority to enter into negotiations as to the proper valuation of the land. In straightforward cases agreement might readily be reached. Much depends on the determination of the landowner to enter into the fray, which in turn will often depend on their resources. The system recognises this
and requires the Acquiring Authority, if requested to do so, to make an advance payment to the landowner, based on a
percentage of the value that the Acquiring Authority attributes to the land. This can help the landowner in terms of cash flow and does not prejudice the landowner’s argument that the valuation is higher than the Acquiring Authority suggest.

If agreement cannot be reached then the landowner has the right to refer the case to the Lands Tribunal. The Tribunal’s role is to see fair play and to determine the amount of compensation that is due.

The well-advised landowner would already have a legal team on board well before this stage, but the Rubicon is crossed when the matter is referred to the Tribunal – the landowner simply must have a legal team in place by now if they are to be properly armed for the fight. Like the other professionals in the team, the lawyers must have experience of taking cases to the Tribunal if they are to be worth their salt to the landowner. Ultimately, the professional team’s duty is to advise the landowner on the scope and quantum of the claim. There is simply no point in pursuing an unrealistically large claim, however tempting that may be. The Acquiring Authority will scrutinise the claim and will take its own professional advice. More importantly, you can’t pull the wool over the Tribunal’s eyes. Landowners who pursue unrealistic claims run the risk of having to pay the Acquiring Authority’s costs, whereas it should normally be the other way around.

The Tribunal will set out a timetable for the conduct of the case. The case can easily take more than a year to be heard from the date on which the reference is initially made. But the parties will be constantly busy behind the scenes, making sure their cases are in the best possible order. At the start of the process the parties have to prepare and submits Statements of Case, to enable the other side to see where they are coming from. The detail then follows with the service of experts’ reports by both sides. The Tribunal expects the parties to narrow the issues between them so far as possible, and the respective experts will have a series of without prejudice meetings to see if there is any common ground. Many cases settle before getting to the Tribunal, some quite literally at the door of the court. If agreement cannot be reached the Tribunal will hear the case and then, some months later, will deliver its verdict.

The process can be a daunting one but, properly advised, the landowner will get full and fair compensation. That, after all, is what they are entitled to.

Robert Walton is a Barrister at Landmark Chambers