Priorities for the OPDC (Supplementary) [3]

Fiona Fletcher-Smith (Executive Director – Development, Enterprise and Environment, Greater London Authority):  If I can deal with that, the Government absolutely recognises how complex the land is there.  As Victoria [Hills] has said, it has been railway land for over 150 years and there are likely to be land remediation issues.

However, to be absolutely fair to the Government, it has been concentrating on getting royal assent to the HS2 [High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands)] Bill and a lot of Department for Transport (DfT) energy has gone into making sure that that happens.  That has now been achieved just over a week ago and so negotiations will start in earnest again in relation to the key recommendation about the MoU between us and the DfT on the land.

You are absolutely right to point out that it is really complicated land.  It is in single ownership, which is helpful, but this is not very simple brownfield land to redevelop.

Tom Copley AM:  Of course.  Thank you.  My next question is in relation to capturing land value uplift.  A report I did for the Assembly, Tax Trial, advocated that the Mayor seek powers from central Government to trial a land value tax, perhaps, on the OPDC.

First of all, to Victoria, do you think that a Land Value Tax or some form of land value capture would help to accelerate the delivery of housing and affordable housing on the site?

Victoria Hills (Chief Executive Officer, Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation):  In a moment I will defer to my Chief Finance Officer, Doug [Wilson], on the specifics of the land value tax trial.  Of course, we are absolutely aware of the excellent work you have led on behalf of the Assembly to look at how this could be a really significant contributor to the funding of infrastructure, for example, going forward.

A broader point is that, absolutely, we are looking at how we can capture uplift.  I can just draw a couple of anecdotes but, before I do, it is worth mentioning that it is extremely early days and we are at the moment putting together these ideas.  As you will be aware, in the review report there is a recommendation for us to bring forward a self-financing model within that.  Of course, a big part of that is about capturing future value to help to pay for some of the work we are doing now going forward.  It is early days and those conversations will evolve with the GLA.

Just to give you a couple of examples, we are in very active discussions with HS2 and the DfT in relation to their worksites.  Those of you who are very familiar with the site - and I know I have taken many of you around it once if not twice - there are four big worksites.  The reason the worksites are so big is because it is the critical path, if you like, at Old Oak where all the tunnel-boring machines go in and out and they need a lot of land to do this construction.  Our question to the DfT was, “What is happening to the land afterwards?”  The short answer is that for those owners who have not done a deal with HS2 now, it is there for the DfT to dispose of.  We have spotted that as an opportunity and that is why those sites are in the MoU.  HS2 has not been set up to capture the value of the land and the DfT at the moment has not been set up to capture the value of the land and so, in the event of nobody else doing it, we have put our hand up and said, “Yes, please”.  That seems a sensible approach.  That is one example.

We are also looking at things like the future capture of business rates, but of course those discussions have to start in earnest with the boroughs.  We are talking about a very specific area around the station.  None of these ideas are novel or contentious.  If you look at other regeneration sites, Croydon in particular, you can look at the package they have put together there.  On land value ‑‑

Tom Copley AM:  I am going to have to stop there because I am out of time but I have a written question down on this and so ‑‑

Victoria Hills (Chief Executive Officer, Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation):  My apologies.  I have not answered the land value tax aspect.  Do we have time for that?