1. This Rebuttal Proof addresses a number of the issues
raised in the evidence submitted on behalf of Somerfield Stores Ltd
by Michael Beese and Tony Morpeth of GL Hearn. Its principal
purpose is to correct certain inaccuracies and mistaken impressions
which are contained in that evidence.
2. A large part of GL Hearn's evidence appears to be based
on what I believe is the mistaken impression that the case for
Compulsory Purchase 'stands or falls' on the issue of whether there
could be 'a confirmed CPO but no immediate redevelopment. (1.3
Beese). However, as the Inspector will be aware, the immediacy of
development is not the test; rather, it is the 'reasonable prospect
of the scheme going ahead' that is relevant (see paragraph 19 of
Circular 02/03, quoted on page 3 of Mr Beese's own evidence).
Indeed, the Council's evidence has already clearly demonstrated
that the Scheme is 'unlikely to be blocked by any impediments to
implementation'. As Mr Paterson has already made clear, CGNU intend
to proceed with the Scheme as soon as the remaining barriers to
implementation have been removed.
3. There are however other material points raised by GL
Hearn in evidence which could potentially be misleading if they
were to remain unchallenged. Firstly, in paragraph 2.4 of his
evidence, Mr Beese refers to the Southgate Centre being 'virtually
fully let', as part of his contention that the existing centre
should remain. (Mr Morpeth makes a similar comment in 2.1 of his
evidence). Plan CP/1, attached to Mr Paterson's Rebuttal Proof,
illustrates however that the vast majority of the tenants that
still remain in the Southgate Centre now do so only by holding
short term leasehold (or similar) interests. It is therefore an
outdated centre where all the tenants are aware of (and are
planning for) its imminent redevelopment; and many will welcome the
prospect of taking new, more suitable accommodation elsewhere in
Bath during the construction period, as well as benefiting from the
trading opportunities and the other spin-off benefits that will be
derived for the City, once the Scheme is complete. It was on this
basis that planning permission was granted.
4. Mr Beese will also be aware, both from the Council's
evidence to this lnquiry and from many earlier sources, that the
comprehensive redevelopment of the Southgate Centre has been an
established Council priority since 1988, and the letters of support
for this Order, from Bath Chamber of Commerce and others, emphasise
why traders in the City consider that this Scheme should proceed.
The evidence set out in Section 6 of my main Proof (BNES/4/2)
portrays the position more accurately than the evidence of GL
Hearn, and makes clear that the benefits of redevelopment far
outweigh any possible merits of refurbishment and retention of the
existing Southgate Centre. I agree with Mr Morpeth (2.6) when he
describes the Centre as 'tired' and it is appropriate for Mr Nosh
to comment that the Centre has 'reached the end of its useful
life'. This is especially bearing in mind the substantial range of
benefits associated with the Scheme, which have to be balanced
against a very limited number of reasons which might be put forward
for extending the life of a centre whose redevelopment has been
actively planned for nearly two decades.
5. Mr Morpeth (2.5 of his evidence) appears to be arguing
that a 'cosmetic' refurbishment of this 'tired' centre would
somehow offer a better and more valuable contribution to Bath's
future retail provision than the Scheme. I cannot see how that
conclusion could reasonably be reached, bearing in mind the
Council's evidence before this Inquiry, as well as the findings of
the NLP studies. I am also not aware of any evidence from other
existing Southgate Centre traders which would support the assertion
that he makes. Furthermore, it is simply not good enough to say
(his Proof - 2.5 last 2 lines) that 'retailers and their customers
would get on and make the most of the facility' (if the Scheme does
not proceed); rather, if the objection of Somerfield were to be
upheld it would prevent the shoppers and retailers of Bath from
securing the many benefits that have been properly planned by the
Council and their development partners for so long.
6. Mr Morpeth also comments in Section 3 of his evidence
on 'scheme viability and deliverability'. He suggests (3.2)
that 'he finds it hard to believe that so many elements essential
to the development process have yet to be completed at this late
stage'. I have advised over 30 local authorities on major projects
of this type and scale, often in circumstances where compulsory
purchase powers are needed in order to complete the process of land
assembly, and I do not believe that his statement is correct. For
example, a very similar body of evidence, with comparable
'certainty' on scheme funding, letting and detailed design, was
presented on behalf of Councils promoting CPOs at Cambridge (Grand
Arcade), Plymouth (Drake Circus) and Exeter (Princesshay) within
the last 18 months. I appeared as a witness for the acquiring
authority at each of these Inquiries, and, in each case the
Secretary of State confirmed the relevant Order and all three
schemes are now under construction.
7. In the case of the Scheme for Bath Southgate, as the
evidence before this Inquiry shows:-
- there is no planning or other impediment which could prevent
the Scheme's implementation;
- negotiations with anchor store retailers are well advanced
(though this is not a pre-condition here, and Mr Morpeth's evidence
in 3.3.4 is inaccurate);
- all necessary legal documentation between the Council and CGNU
is agreed; and
- funding for the scheme is in place (there being no need for a
Funding Agreement - as wrongly suggested by Mr Morpeth in 3.3.1 of
his evidence - with an organisation of CGNU's nature and
status).
8. I therefore conclude that the case put before this
Inquiry by the Council and other witnesses (in support of
confirmation of the Order) is entirely consistent with evidence
which has recently been submitted elsewhere, and is therefore in
line with my experience of advising other local authorities on
development projects requiring compulsory purchase.
9. The matters which Mr Morpeth says (Section 5 of his
evidence) 'remain to be resolved' have now either:
i) been resolved already (in the case of the finalisation of the
Building Agreement);
ii) are in course of resolution and are well advanced;
iii) will be resolved at the appropriate time; or
iv) are not required here (e.g. a Funding Agreement is not
needed, as Mr Paterson explains).
The Order is therefore is not 'premature' as he
suggests; rather it is essential to provide certainty to deliver
the remaining elements of the process of scheme implementation.
10. Lastly, I return to Mr Beese's evidence, who also
suggests (3.34-3.35) that there is 'considerable uncertainty'. I
believe that I (and others) have already demonstrated that this is
not the case, but it is perhaps necessary to rebut one further
misleading point, which he may be making. In paragraph 3.34 he says
that 'there is a very different retail planning context now
compared to either 1997 or, indeed, 2003'. If he is arguing
that that there is less retailer demand for units in Central Bath
(including the Scheme) then he could not be more wrong (see 4.9 of
my main Proof - BNES/4/2). If he is arguing that the retail
investment market is weaker, again this would be incorrect; and
ample evidence of a very strong investment market also remains in
Both, with the recent purchase by Arlington Property Investors of
6-1 1 Union Street, for a reported £38.6 million at a net initial
yield of around 4.25%. This purchase of prime property at a very
keen yield is strong evidence of a good retail investment market in
Bath, and this yield is lower (i.e. keener) than would be
applicable in many other cities for a comparable property
investment. Any such 'uncertainty' is therefore more imagined
than real - and accordingly it is reasonable to conclude that the
Secretary of State should confirm this Order without
delay.
