It's perhaps not a great surprise that the government has backed the London Development Agency in a crucial planning appeal that could have added tens of millions of pounds to the compensation bill for businesses relocated to make way for the 2012 Olympics Games.
What is more interesting now is what the disgruntled landowners who thought they had a very strong case are going to do in response.
The case saw building group Rooff, advised by Jones Lang LaSalle and law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, argue that the LDA is underpaying for its land at the Carpenter's Estate in Stratford, east London.
It claims that Newham council's policy framework supports the site being valued as suitable for residential use, rather than the lower-value employment use on which the LDA based its offer.
It launched a section 18 Appeal under the Land Compensation Act 1961 following a refusal by the London Borough of Newham of a section 17 application for a Certificate for Appropriate Alternative Development of a site within the Olympic zone.
A decision from the secretary of state in favour of Rooff would have seen a host of landowners in the area pursue similar claims for substantial increases in compensation. More than 70 displaced businesses are still in negotiations with the LDA over CPO payments.
In its decision handed down on Friday, John Parnell, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communites and local Government, John Denham, backed the Planning Inspectorate's decision to reject Rooff's appeal.
Parnell said the decision had been made on the grounds that when the compulsory purchase order was launched on 16 November 2005 the only alternative development use for which planning consent would have been granted was B1 (business) and B2 (general industrial).
Rooff and other landowners are understood to be considering their position but they will clearly be thinking something rather unpleasant has gone on here.
Talking to interested parties about the case a couple of months ago there was already a worry that the government and the Inspector would be overwhelmed by the potentially catastrophic effect a decision in favour of Rooff would have on the LDA's budget.
One party said the LDA's legal team had brought this up at the planning inquiry from the start and said that this was clearly unreasonable as it should have nothing to do with the final decision.
Clearly if landowners want to take this further it's not hard to see how they would make it look as if the government has been behaving less than fairly. It will be interesting to follow.
Leave a comment
What a user pic? Get a Gravatar!