Day 6 of the Public Inquiry into the Compulsory Purchase Order of The Green, Southall heard evidence from the statutory and non-statutory objectors.

More late evidence was received today. The Inspector delayed the start by 15 minutes to examine that evidence and decide whether to admit it to the inquiry or reject it due to it being too late. The actual delay was over 20 minutes.

All evidence needed to be submitted weeks before the start of the Inquiry, so that all parties can examine it and prepare a response. That deadline was 20 September 2022.

---

New evidence has been coming in daily since the start of the Inquiry due to ordinary people wanting to speak as opposed to proper legal representations.

The information below may seem scattered due to different persons, in turn, asking the same/similar questions later and managing to extract more information or supply more information.

Virginia Blackman from Avison Young, who presented the justification for the plots of lands to be acquired and the subsequent negotiations that took place, was questioned by Ms Minni Dogra.

Virginia Blackman has worked on 2 projects that Lance Cantor (Metropolitan & Suburban) was involved in. He was neither a client and neither did he pay their fees.

---

How common are options agreements to lure people into another development?
The response was that options agreements are common/standard practise. Lance cantor was not used by Ealing Council. What might happen elsewhere is not what happened here.

Ms Dogra said "By accident or design, it has had a huge impact" on things. The Inquiry Inspector, Mr Nunn, said “I fully understand that." It has caused considerable stress.

Ms Blackman said rules of conduct apply to surveyors but there nothing specific to option agreements.

Who was Keith Murray working for?

Mr Harvi Bhogal, in a late submission, presented a letter from Keith Murray, a surveyor used by a few clients. In it he mentions waiting for payment for 5 months from Ealing Council and Avison Young.

Who instructed (hired) and disinstructed (fired) him?

Ms Blackman's response was that the Indian Workers Association (IWA) instructed him. The delay in payment due to him was an administration hiccups from Peabody/Council. It was a delay rather than a dispute.

“It seems a bit problematic" said the Inquiry Inspector. It seems a bit tardy. Waiting 5 months to receive payment. Is rather frustrating.

Ms Blackman replied “He did not come to Avison Young. He did not say I cannot continue or undertake any more work. We heard he was disinstructed (by you/them, not by us).

The overall response was it’s not our fault. It’ was just an admin hiccup. [Who would not walk away after not being paid for 5 months.]

The IWA represented by Mr Dale Harris produced Dr Krishna Sarda as their witness.

Dr Sarda said decisions taken need to be transparent. This development is only about bricks and mortar.

There is the loss of Monsoon Banqueting, Milan Palace and the parking spaces. We need to look at the parking issue at particular times. Large number of people with medical conditions need to use cars to lead a fulfilling life. Not having a lived-in experience has a knock-on effect.

The housing list has been used to make assessments. No detailed data has been provided.

The consistency of terminology, gender reassignment, differential impact, is it positive or negative?

It has “no relationship to submitted statement. It is not fair. It's new material at this late stage,” said Mr Simons.

“The points are important but these are not in any statement” says the Inspector.

Mr Harris said my client is giving examples of what is lacking in the (equality assessments). Absence of detailed information is a general point.

Dr Sarda said using the housing list data only provides general conclusions. That data could apply to all of London. There is nothing specific to Southall to demonstrate BAME people will benefit. You should be able to say n% on the housing list will be (benefit). The requirement is to provide the evidence.

The Tudor Rose objections were taken to consideration. No evidence is provided as to what these were.

We are not against regeneration. We worry. There is a level of distrust which does not lead to meaningful dialogue.

In response Mr Simons said that the IWA were informally consulted and could have put forward (suggestions/changes). The IWA have raised no objections prior to this.

He said that 75% on the housing list are non-white, So, it follows that it will have a positive benefit for them.

Ms Dogra said that the confirmation of the CPO is NOT “likely to contribute to achieving the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of the area”.

People did not come forward because of the option agreements that started in 2015 and lasted until 2017 or 2019. The agreements give context to confusion caused and the role played by Lance Cantor. The consultees were unable to speak until 2019 and the Council knew this.

What I have seen is a tick box exercise. Terraced housing encourages cohesion. Towers divide communities.

A one-man committee, the Good growth cabinet member, made the decision to proceed with the CPO.

Kay Garmeson (Ealing matters) said that inappropriate development has being going on. There was no AMR (Authority Monitoring Report) for 6 years. After 32 FOI requests an Interim AMR was received that only goes as far as 2019.

Ealing Council is building more home than its own plans say it needs. It is also increasing the height of the tower blocks more than planned. It needs to build 30% of the homes for families i.e., 3 or 4 bedrooms. It is only building 18%. It is not following its own requirements.

The Policies were ignored, People do not trust these policies. They do not trust the institutions.

Mr Simons says the council officers followed all the planning rules as shown in the documents provided.

Mr Garmeson’s response was that buildings over 10 storeys are possible under certain circumstances but certain (guidelines) were ignored or not mentioned. [They cherry picked the guidelines]

“These are planning issues and not for me” said the Inquiry Inspector.

Balraj Purewal (The Asian Health Agency) said that he considers the consultation to be an as exclusion. Letters were sent to the Dominion Centre and the Library. No letters were sent to or passed onto the users of the Dominion Centre. That is a failure.

It is wrong to suggest the Dominion Centre and library support the development. The Dominion Centre management have not supported the development. The exclusion of the community before, has a direct effect on the CPO.

The Inquiry Inspector said “I cannot quash the planning permission." I will not turn a blind eye. I will take it into consideration.

This will be updated with more information later.