A family says Havering Council is holding its life’s work “to ransom” by blocking them from selling their property.

Havering Council tried to compulsorily purchase the family’s industrial land for less than half its value and is now preventing anybody else from buying it, they claimed.

Jayne Knight and Kathryn Fawkes Humphreys say the stalemate has left them unable to retire and will cost them tens of thousands of pounds per year if it isn’t resolved.

“We can’t retire because we are being held over a barrel by Havering Council,” said Jayne.

“It’s not really about the money. It’s about the principle. It’s about the fact that the council is trying to cheat us – the injustice of it. It’s absolutely draining.”

Barking and Dagenham Post: Kenneth and Lorena Fawkes shortly after opening Ilford Plant Ltd at 184 New Road, Rainham, in the early 1960sKenneth and Lorena Fawkes shortly after opening Ilford Plant Ltd at 184 New Road, Rainham, in the early 1960s (Image: The Fawkes family)

 

Family firm

Jayne and Kathryn’s parents Kenneth and Lorena Fawkes bought 184 New Road, Rainham, in the early 1960s to run Ilford Plant Ltd, leasing industrial machinery. They expanded into a neighbouring site in the early 1990s.

Since their retirement, the land has been rented to another plant hire company, which is now relocating, leaving the site vacant.

The family was notified in 2016 of the council’s intention to seek a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), so it could build flats near the planned Beam Park c2c rail station.

The council first offered £1.2m, said Jayne, and then £1.6m.

But when the family sought an independent valuation, it was put at £3.5m to £4m.

Barking and Dagenham Post: Building work had already begun on a series of housing developments around New Road, Rainham, approved on grounds that they would be served by a new c2c railway station called Beam ParkBuilding work had already begun on a series of housing developments around New Road, Rainham, approved on grounds that they would be served by a new c2c railway station called Beam Park (Image: Charles Thomson)

No support

In 2021, it emerged that the station may never be built.

Thousands of new homes had been planned despite the station not having Department for Transport approval.

A then transport minister wrote to Dagenham and Rainham MP Jon Cruddas in 2021 saying the government previously thought the business case for a new station was “very poor” and had “grave concerns”.

The council withdrew the CPO in December 2021, after the planning inspectorate recommended it be dropped until a decision around the proposed station has been made.

READ MORE:

Barking and Dagenham Post: Now hoarding around the development only mentions a 'proposed' new c2c Beam Park railway station, after it emerged in 2021 that the government did not support the proposalNow hoarding around the development only mentions a 'proposed' new c2c Beam Park railway station, after it emerged in 2021 that the government did not support the proposal (Image: Charles Thomson)

Limbo

Since then, the family say they have received three offers to buy the site for between £3m and £4m – but claim that all fell through because the council wouldn’t grant permission for any change of use.

The site remains earmarked for housing in case the station happens after all.

“It’s like they don’t want it anymore, but they don’t want anyone else to have it either,” said Jayne.

“They’re holding it, and us, in limbo. They block anything else going on there, which devalues the site."

Efforts to rent the site have also fallen through, they claim, as businesses say the site’s future is too uncertain.

“The latest one walked away two weeks ago,” said Kathryn. “Meanwhile, we will have to pay over £50,000 a year in business rates and there’s nothing we can do about it. We can’t rent it and we can’t sell it.”

Barking and Dagenham Post: Kathryn (left) and Jayne (right) say they feel the council is trying to 'cheat' them by offering them a low sum for their site, but then blocking proposed sales for its true valueKathryn (left) and Jayne (right) say they feel the council is trying to 'cheat' them by offering them a low sum for their site, but then blocking proposed sales for its true value (Image: Charles Thomson)

'Family jewels'

“This is a site that my parents bought 60 years ago,” said Jayne. “It’s like our family jewels, if you like. It’s something we grew up with. I spent school holidays there, working with them in the office.

“It’s not just a commodity to us. It’s quite precious. My mother is 92 now and she is so distressed about this. It’s like someone saying to you, ‘That beautiful house you live in – it’s worth nothing’. It’s very hurtful."

“It’s aged her considerably, the worry it’s caused her at this stage in her life,” Kathryn said of her mother.

“This is her life’s work and they’re holding it to ransom. The stress is off the scale. It’s affected us all hugely.

“All we want to do is sell our own property. The council should either buy it for what it’s worth or let us sell it for what it’s worth.”

Barking and Dagenham Post: 184 New Road, Rainham, where Kathryn and Jayne's parents ran Ilford Plant Ltd for decades, starting from the 1960s. They later expanded into onto neighbouring land and called it 184A. Now their daughters own the land, but cannot sell it184 New Road, Rainham, where Kathryn and Jayne's parents ran Ilford Plant Ltd for decades, starting from the 1960s. They later expanded into onto neighbouring land and called it 184A. Now their daughters own the land, but cannot sell it (Image: Charles Thomson)

Council

Havering Council said it “cannot discuss individual commercial matters”, but that it did “sympathise” with the owners and would write to them.

It said all offers made under CPO followed “expert advice” to reach “fair market value settlements”.

The council said the delivery of the Beam Park station was “crucial in the continued and sustainable growth” in the area and that it and City Hall “remain committed” to delivering it.

“Without the station, the redevelopment of the wider area has stalled and this is one such example of that,” it said.

“Any planning proposal that seeks to redevelop just one part of a connected site in isolation for either housing or commercial use might prejudice the comprehensive development of the wider site.”