From the second half of this BBC News online story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...12/4424510.stm


"[Sports Minister Richard] Caborn also said he expects a deal will be
struck within a day over a contested strip of land wanted for the
Olympic site.

London & Continental Railways (LCR) has been involved in a tussle with
the London Development Agency over the 180-acre Stratford City site it
owns as part of a development consortium.

LCR want it for a £4bn development including 4,850 homes, 120 shops
and office space. The LDA has other ideas and there has been talk of a
compulsory purchase order.

It has been argued that the land is essential for access roads and car
parking for the Olympics.

Caborn said: "The best way here for all parties is to have an agreement
and I'm hopeful that will happen in the next 24 hours."


The land in question is (presumably) not needed for the operation of
the CTRL or associated station. A seperate news piece on RailPeople [1]
states that LCR has partnered with two other developers, Chelsfield plc
and Stanhope plc, for the 'Stratford City' development.

Was LCR given any adjacent land by the government as a result of the
CTRL construction, given that the CTRL is a public-private partnership
scheme?

And why and how has LCR become such a big player in property
development? (LCR basically subcontract the UK side of teh Eurostar
operation to a seperate company, Inter-Capital & Regional Rail).


[1]
http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-pr...opment-17.html

Mizter T wrote:
From the second half of this BBC News online story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...12/4424510.stm


"[Sports Minister Richard] Caborn also said he expects a deal will be
struck within a day over a contested strip of land wanted for the
Olympic site.

London & Continental Railways (LCR) has been involved in a tussle with
the London Development Agency over the 180-acre Stratford City site it
owns as part of a development consortium.

LCR want it for a £4bn development including 4,850 homes, 120 shops
and office space. The LDA has other ideas and there has been talk of a
compulsory purchase order.

It has been argued that the land is essential for access roads and car
parking for the Olympics.

Caborn said: "The best way here for all parties is to have an agreement
and I'm hopeful that will happen in the next 24 hours."


The land in question is (presumably) not needed for the operation of
the CTRL or associated station. A seperate news piece on RailPeople [1]
states that LCR has partnered with two other developers, Chelsfield plc
and Stanhope plc, for the 'Stratford City' development.

Was LCR given any adjacent land by the government as a result of the
CTRL construction, given that the CTRL is a public-private partnership
scheme?

And why and how has LCR become such a big player in property
development? (LCR basically subcontract the UK side of teh Eurostar
operation to a seperate company, Inter-Capital & Regional Rail).


[1]
http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-pr...opment-17.html
Anybody know why they can't arrange a lease arrangement with the land
owners. They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is
semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth
billions. A nice little earner for the people doing the compulsary
purchasing.

Kevin

wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
From the second half of this BBC News online story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...12/4424510.stm


"[Sports Minister Richard] Caborn also said he expects a deal will be
struck within a day over a contested strip of land wanted for the
Olympic site.

London & Continental Railways (LCR) has been involved in a tussle with
the London Development Agency over the 180-acre Stratford City site it
owns as part of a development consortium.

LCR want it for a £4bn development including 4,850 homes, 120 shops
and office space. The LDA has other ideas and there has been talk of a
compulsory purchase order.

It has been argued that the land is essential for access roads and car
parking for the Olympics.

Caborn said: "The best way here for all parties is to have an agreement
and I'm hopeful that will happen in the next 24 hours."


The land in question is (presumably) not needed for the operation of
the CTRL or associated station. A seperate news piece on RailPeople [1]
states that LCR has partnered with two other developers, Chelsfield plc
and Stanhope plc, for the 'Stratford City' development.

Was LCR given any adjacent land by the government as a result of the
CTRL construction, given that the CTRL is a public-private partnership
scheme?

And why and how has LCR become such a big player in property
development? (LCR basically subcontract the UK side of teh Eurostar
operation to a seperate company, Inter-Capital & Regional Rail).


[1]
http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-pr...opment-17.html
Anybody know why they can't arrange a lease arrangement with the land
owners. They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is
semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth
billions. A nice little earner for the people doing the compulsary
purchasing.


Same is true for the industrial units in Marshgate Lane; the owners say
the LDA is not offering enough and the LDA say the owners are trying to
hold out for too much. I say, if these units are in the way why not
build a new industrial estate at the edge of the Stratford City/Olympic
Zone and move them in there - there is surely more than enough derelict
land in this nieghbourhood.

wrote in message
ups.com...

[the Olympic committe want to use some land that L&CR are planning to
develop]

Anybody know why they can't arrange a lease arrangement with the land
owners. They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is
semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth
billions. A nice little earner for the people doing the compulsary
purchasing.

No, L&CR have outline planning permission to build a huge property
development at one of Central London's biggest transport hubs. If the
Olympic lot are daft enough to compulsory-purchase the land, then the
compensation bill will be astronomical...

--
John Band
astic - delete iastic to reply

John Band wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

[the Olympic committe want to use some land that L&CR are planning to
develop]

Anybody know why they can't arrange a lease arrangement with the land
owners. They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is
semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth
billions. A nice little earner for the people doing the compulsary
purchasing.

No, L&CR have outline planning permission to build a huge property
development at one of Central London's biggest transport hubs. If the
Olympic lot are daft enough to compulsory-purchase the land, then the
compensation bill will be astronomical...


The Olympics do not need the whole of the Stratford City site, just
bits on the edges. If L&CR are perhaps already seeking an astronomical
amount, for what might be small 'ransom strips' of land, it may be the
LDA cannot possibly agree at this stage.

An earlier, and more accurate, news report about the row can be found
at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...12/4408396.stm
Both parties are doing their duty: on the one side to secure maximum
return for their shareholders; and on the other to secure best-value
for public money. Not necessarily incompatible if they can agree a
fair price.

Better to negotiate agreement, as Richad Caborn says, and save the time
and legal fees. But if they cannot agree it may be that the CPO
process is the only way to establish what the fair value for these bits
of land should be.

81% of the Olympic site is already in public ownership. The other
landowners will naturally hold out for the best price they can get
(whether it is purchase or leasehold) - they will perceive the Olympics
as rolling in money. This is true to an extent but the Olympic project
cannot allow landowners or contractors to walk all over them at this
early stage or they will lose any chance of keeping control of the
costs.

"umpston" wrote

Better to negotiate agreement, as Richad Caborn says, and save the time
and legal fees. But if they cannot agree it may be that the CPO
process is the only way to establish what the fair value for these bits
of land should be.

If they cannot agree by negotiation, they can avoid the CPO process by
agreeing to appoint an arbitrator to come up with a fair price, or possibly
by appointing a mediator to help them copme to an agreement. As well as LCR,
there are a lot of small businesses on the Olympic site, some of which own
their premises, and others own leases. They all have to be bought out, and
for some of them finding suitable alternative premises, or even moving or
replacing equipment, presents a real difficulty.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:
"umpston" wrote

Better to negotiate agreement, as Richad Caborn says, and save the time
and legal fees. But if they cannot agree it may be that the CPO
process is the only way to establish what the fair value for these bits
of land should be.

If they cannot agree by negotiation, they can avoid the CPO process by
agreeing to appoint an arbitrator to come up with a fair price, or possibly
by appointing a mediator to help them copme to an agreement. As well as LCR,
there are a lot of small businesses on the Olympic site, some of which own
their premises, and others own leases. They all have to be bought out, and
for some of them finding suitable alternative premises, or even moving or
replacing equipment, presents a real difficulty.


I agree - I am a customer of one of the businesses there and have
previously made the suggestion of building a new industrial estate at
the edge of the Olympic zone for them to move to. Thre is plenty of
room. I am also a supporter of the Olympic project - but Stratford
will still need other jobs and services after the Olympics have come
and gone. An imaginative and sustainable redevelopment of the area
should, in my view, include industrial units to provide employment and
affordable homes for the workers to live in as well as all the
up-market shops and flats.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:13:10 UTC, wrote:

They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is
semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth
billions.

After the Olympics it will be semi-derelict industrial land again.
Great safe prophecies of our time:

1) The London Olympics will be a complete screwup, many times over
budget,

2) The supposed regeneration of depreived areas won't happen.

Ian

--

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:13:10 UTC, wrote:

They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is
semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth
billions.

After the Olympics it will be semi-derelict industrial land again.
Great safe prophecies of our time:

1) The London Olympics will be a complete screwup, many times over
budget,

2) The supposed regeneration of depreived areas won't happen.

Ian

You could be so wrong Ian - I certainly hope so.

"umpston" wrote:


Ian Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:13:10 UTC, wrote:

They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is
semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth
billions.

After the Olympics it will be semi-derelict industrial land again.
Great safe prophecies of our time:

1) The London Olympics will be a complete screwup, many times over
budget,

2) The supposed regeneration of depreived areas won't happen.

Ian

You could be so wrong Ian - I certainly hope so.


Unfortunately, Ian is very likely to be right.

The trade unions will make sure that the work doesn't get finished on
time unless their members are paid massive "bonuses", and the costs
will skyrocket.

Every landowner will screw the Olympic organisation for every million
they can get.

The money set aside for regeneration will have to be raided to pay for
all of the above.