Commercial Office Compulsory Purchase Order?

I have a client who eventually may be facing a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) on a converted semi-detached house into offices many decades ago.

29% is in a trust where that rent is paid to a third party as a pension, so the building would be without vacant possession due to a 30-year verbal agreement at well below the market rate.

The developers have demolished an identical building on one side, and the other side of this semi is owned by the same developers, so my client is in the middle and falls into a Stokes V Cambridge and other cases.

What dirty tactics may be used in addition to legal ones by the developers to force the Landlord / Trustees to sell?

Simon

Editor’s Note on tactics:

1. Legal Pressure

Threat of CPO – Developers can lobby the council to exercise compulsory purchase powers, highlighting “public benefit” (regeneration, housing, etc.). The mere threat of CPO often scares owners into early sale.

Planning strategy – Developers may submit applications that deliberately exclude your client’s building, making it look like an “island site” which is unattractive or harder to let/sell.

Stokes v Cambridge valuation angle – They may argue compensation is limited to “site value only” or try to minimise “hope value” (potential for development uplift) to reduce the payout.

Dispute over vacant possession – They may challenge the legitimacy of the long-standing verbal tenancy, arguing it doesn’t bind a purchaser or is not protected, trying to weaken the compensation claim.

2. Commercial / Financial Pressure

Access restrictions – Owning the land on either side, they can deliberately limit access to the property (temporary fencing, scaffolding, blocking rights of way).

Undermining amenity – Noise, dust, vibration, and disruption from neighbouring demolition/redevelopment works can make the property less attractive to tenants and damage rental income, adding pressure to sell.

Utilities / services pressure – In some cases, service connections (water, drains, electricity) run through neighbouring land. Developers can exploit this to cause practical headaches (though usually challengeable in law).

“Blight” effect – Marketing or PR campaigns that highlight the inevitability of redevelopment can make the property look like a liability to others, depressing external offers and finance options.

3. Psychological / “Dirty” Tactics

Delay and fatigue – Long, drawn-out negotiations, constant low-ball offers, and repeated threats of CPO are designed to wear down the owner or trustees.

Divide and rule – Because there is a trust structure and a pension beneficiary, they may try to exploit differences between trustees, landlords, and the pension party—offering inducements to one side to break consensus.

Undermining tenant – If they can persuade the tenant under the 30-year verbal agreement to walk away (perhaps offering them alternative premises or compensation), that weakens your client’s “without vacant possession” leverage.

Smear or pressure campaigns – Developers sometimes brief local press or councillors, framing the hold-out owner as “blocking much-needed regeneration.” This can create reputational or political pressure to sell.

4. What to Watch For

Surveyor gamesmanship – Developers will instruct aggressive valuation surveyors who may understate compensation, misapply comparables, or argue the building is worth little more than bricks and mortar.

Early “option” agreements – They may try to tie the client into agreements with restrictive terms that undervalue the property.

Timing pressure – Suggesting that if the client doesn’t agree early, they’ll face worse terms under a CPO (not always true—statutory compensation can be more generous).