There remain serious concerns over elements of this whole process, beyond the more general points I have tried to make here. Respecting that, the Council agenda notes are incorrect; it is not, as suggested, that some people have failed to file due responses as to their interests in the affected land, it is that not all responses are yet due.As yet unanswered also, is that many of the Notices sent by the Council did NOT sufficiently explain what is likely to be required under the CPO scheme, nor explain [where applicable] why information respecting such large areas entirely outside of the approved scheme [and far beyond even the “crane oversailing” blue tinted semi-circles on the revised plan], is demanded.ProcessIt was a distinct requirement under the initial agreement that Hounslow would only pursue the CPO route after having given Ballymore until March this year to engage in negotiations with relevant stakeholders. Only, in other words, to the extent that negotiations failed, would Hounslow step in.As a matter of cold fact, whatever parties Ballymore HAVE been engaged with, there are any number of stakeholders with whom they have NOT engaged. The owner of the freehold electrical store adjacent to the Natwest Bank had the CPO Notice come through his letterbox as a sufficient shock to cause a mild [?] stroke, and he ended up in hospital. Inconclusive talks had been conducted years before, but at that stage use of his property and the Bank’s was not considered essential to the scheme.How many others, including the Goddard’s, have been bypassed in the last year I cannot know – but what is possible with one is possible with others.It is accepted, naturally, that in law Hounslow do not have to wait until failure to negotiate is proven, but that is a far cry from what is happening/not happening in this instance.Justification of extentNo justification for some of the CPO area covers, for example, the land owned by Goddards, Lee and Natwest.Goddards’ land lies squarely within the approved scheme area, but at all times from the very beginning, Goddards have made their position clear that they do NOT oppose Ballymore’s scheme and would not obstruct it. Their position was always that although they did not wish to part with their ownership, they were happy to be, in effect, partners in the development.Especially considering Ballymore’s acceptance that they are incapable of moving forward without an overseas partner, what possible objection could there be to a local partner? No legal justification for compulsion in selling their land exists under those circumstances; they should not be subjected to the necessity of risking costs and time fighting over retention of their rights under the Protocols, even if they were prepared to do so.As to the Natwest Bank and adjacent electrical store – both those parcels were excluded from the approved scheme. There can be no successful argument, therefore, that Ballymore’s ownership of those parcels is essential to the scheme’s success. The same situation applies to the Magpie – that is [thankfully] remaining outside both the planning approved scheme and the CPO scheme, with only temporary access and oversailing rights required – so why not apply the same principle to the Bank and adjacent property?Nobody cares what happens to the revolting County Parade [other than my wish to retain the yards], but the buildings left either side are the scant remnants of a once famous High Street, and whatever can be salvaged ought to be.Why commit Hounslow to spending money on compulsory purchases of land to the detriment of our heritage, and not even required under the approved scheme?
Nigel Moore ● 3255d