Claims Brentford FC's proposed new stadium and surrounding homes would generate a "super-profit" of up to £101m have been denied as a two-week public inquiry drew to a close.

First Industrial Limited (FIL), which is challenging the compulsory purchase of its Capital Court site to make way for the scheme, says rising house values mean the project would be financially viable without the need to build on its land.

It told the inquiry the development could achieve a profit of £101m, according to the findings of a chartered surveyor commissioned by the firm.

But lawyers for Hounslow Council, which issued the compulsory purchase order (CPO), insist that figure is well wide of the mark due to a number of inaccuracies in the surveyor's report.

Even were such a profit to be achieved, they said, planning conditions mean £87m of the money would have to be given to the council to pay for the creation of affordable housing.

Lawyers representing the council and FIL made their closing statements on Friday September 18 at the end of a two-week public inquiry into the CPO.

A planning inspector will now sift through reams of documents submitted during the past fortnight to produce a report for communities secretary Greg Clark, who will ultimately make the decision.

With the closing statements between the two parties running to more than 100 pages alone, it is likely to be some weeks before a final ruling is made.

'Mud-slinging'

During his summing up, Neil King QC, representing FIL, accused the council's legal team of "mud-slinging" for bringing up the "historic disqualification" of the firm's managing director Tim Knowles.

Halso hit back over a letter from Bolton Wanderers FC chairman Phil Gartside, submitted earlier in the week, saying he would not advice the club work with FIL based on his dealings with the company.

Mr King quoted a letter from the builder Persimmon saying the academy development was now 60% complete and stating "unequivocally" it would enter into a further joint venture with FIL in the future.

James Maurici QC, for the council, insisted Mr Knowles' history was relevant as the disqualification related to trading while insolvent and to companies with which he was associated not paying tax.

The crux of the argument is the value of the land owned by FIL, which is currently occupied by a vacant office block.

Brentford FC's proposed new Lionel Road ground

The council told the inquiry it had offered the company £2.5m, £500,000 more than the highest of two independent valuations.

But FIL believes the land would be worth significantly more if developed - a fact it claims is borne out by the council's argument that the land is needed for "enabling" development to help fund the cost of building the stadium.

Mr King said FIL supported the scheme but wanted to team up with the club as a development partner or be left to develop the Capital Court site itself.

He told the inquiry the company had offered to provide parking for the stadium and to sell the land needed for an access bridge over the railway line for just £1 if the CPO was dropped.

However, Brentford FC has told the inquiry it is not prepared to enter into an agreement with FIL due to an irreversible breakdown in trust after the company twice "reneged" on agreements to sell the land.

The club's lawyer has told the inquiry it is being "held to ransom" by the firm.

'Unsustainable'

Brentford FC is running at a loss, with its annual turnover of around £8m roughly half the average of other Championship sides, Mr Maurici told the inquiry.

"The club's present reliance upon funding provided by its owner is unsustainable," he said "And will, going forward, be subject to more and more restriction due to the Financial Fair Play regulations."

As well as generating much-needed extra gate receipts for the club, he said the new stadium would be a "community hub", enabling Brentford FC Community Sports Trust to expand its work.

Brentford FC owner Matthew Benham

He said the value of the charity's work with local schools, community centres and other organisations had been independently valued at up to £34m - a figure which would increase were the new stadium to be built.

Mr King argued that while FIL had great respect for the trust's "excellent" work, it was "at best a by-product" of the club's operation and could not "legitimately" be used as a reason for the CPO.

Brentford FC already owns 86% of the land which it says is needed for the stadium and 910 neighbouring homes in Lionel Road South, close to Kew Bridge station.

It secured planning permission for the development in 2013 and has entered into a development agreement with the builder Willmott Dixon.

'No lose situation'

But Mr Maurici said the delivery of the scheme, and the "substantial regenerative benefits to the area", were "fundamentally contingent" on the CPO.

The history of Arsenal FC's Emirates stadium in north London could, however, prove a key factor in the inquiry's outcome.

The council's lawyers claim there are similarities between the Brentford CPO and one issued to pave the way for Arsenal's new arena - an order which was also challenged by the landowner, in that case unsuccessfully.

But Mr King insisted that decision was irrelevant as it was dealing with different issues and therefore should not be taken into consideration.

Speaking after the inquiry's closure, Mr Knowles insisted he and his company had "never stood in the way" of the stadium's development. He said this was evident from its offer to sell the land needed for the bridge for just £1.

Mr Knowles claimed he believed FIL's land was not crucial to the provision of the stadium and neither the council nor the club had produced figures to show otherwise.

"Brentford FC, as a privately owned club, is in a 'no lose' situation because a favourable result from this inquiry will give them our land at a fraction of its true worth as well as between three to five years' time to pay us," he added.

"Given that we paid £8.5m for that land and we are being offered £2.5m, as a long established, commercial property investment and development company we believe this is inadequate and does not reflect its actual worth today, or indeed, within the five year time-frame for receiving this payment."