House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Jan 1992

Mr. Waller : If it were possible to retain the existing building, also by Cubitt, that would be a bonus. It is clear from the proposals for the Norman Foster concourse that it is a different kind of building and it would not be compatible with retaining the Great Northern hotel. I believe that other things are not equal. We would lose a grade 2 listed building that is by no means outstanding and would replace it with a modern building of the highest quality. I wish to confirm that what I said a few minutes ago is correct. Parliamentary powers are needed under clause 7, regardless of whether outline planning has been applied for. Such authority is needed to authorise interference with highways and statutory undertakers' apparatus. Those are both necessary consequences of the construction of a concourse building. Powers are also needed to confer immunity from action causing nuisance arising from the railway operation in and around the building. In other words, the reservations of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who suggested that we were overriding planning permission, either outlined or detailed, and overriding the requirement for listed building consent, have been shown to be without foundation.

Those of us who regularly use King's Cross and St. Pancras want to be able to look forward to the provision of new facilities that are much better than those currently experienced by travellers. However, that will not be possible given the constraints posed by the listed building, which, in any case, requires consent if it is to be demolished. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Column 874

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : I do not wish to detain the House long, but I fear that it will be a long night. I am against the amendment, although I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is looking after his constituents.

To those of us from the north of England, there is a choice between the Great Northern hotel and the great north of England. I am afraid that the great north of England must win.

Mr. Chris Smith : If the choice posed were between the needs of the north and the existence of the Great Northern hotel, devoted as I am to the virtues of that hotel, I would entirely agree that the needs of the north of England must come first. But that is not the choice in front of us. The choice is not between protecting the interests of the north of England and saving the Great Northern hotel. The choice is between protecting the interests of the north and not saving the hotel. In that case, there is no contest.

Mr. Martlew : If my hon. Friend had allowed me to continue my argument, perhaps he would have seen its logic.

I represent a constituency in the north-west--other hon. Members who represent that region are present and perhaps they will speak in the same vein. I fear that if clause 7 is deleted, it will be difficult for a link to be made between Euston and King's Cross stations. This week, I had a meeting with senior British Rail officials. They are worried because they have no idea how they will get people from Euston to King's Cross so that people can enjoy the full benefits of the channel tunnel. It appears that they hope that someone will develop a tardis or time machine to get people across to King's Cross. That is worrying. if a solution is not found, support for the Bill from hon. Members representing the north-west will diminish considerably.

Carlisle is near the Scottish border and I fear that travellers will go from Glasgow to Edinburgh and down the east coast to King's Cross because of the problems at Euston. If the amendment is accepted, it will be difficult for British Rail to find a solution. I have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. If I represented his constituency I might make a similar case, but perhaps without his eloquence. After all, he is a member of the shadow Front-Bench Treasury team and one expects such eloquence from him.

The north of England will suffer if the Bill is not passed. There are great reservations in the north-west. People believe that British Rail will improve the service on the eastern side of the country, once again, and leave us, as it has now, with an inferior service. I say that with great feeling, as I spent an hour and a quarter at Lichfield station on my way down to speak in the debate.

I shall vote for the Bill. I hope that representatives of British Rail and Conservative Members will take note of the great concern felt by those of us from the north-west, who fear that we will not get the full benefits of the Bill.

7.45 pm

Mr. Tony Banks : My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) should know that there is no question in my mind, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), of putting the continued existence of the Great Northern hotel above and beyond the welfare of the north-west and

Column 875

of his constituency in particular. I know that Carlisle has a good railway station, which serves one of the best BR breakfasts in the country--I have availed myself of it from time to time when travelling through that beautiful constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has fallen, once again, into the trap that has been skilfully and carefully prepared for those of my hon. Friends who represent the north. That trap is designed to suggest that, if the development at King's Cross does not go ahead, the north will lose out. That is not so. If my hon. Friend's constituents wish to travel from Carlisle to London in order to use the channel tunnel to reach the continent, it will not be of great concern to them whether they travel through King's Cross or through Stratford, unless they want to get out at King's Cross for some reason. If they are just intent on going through the channel tunnel, it does not matter through which London station they go. Given the large number of people from the north who want to go to the continent, perhaps it is more likely that they will use cheaper air services, thus avoiding the long train journey that would be involved in getting from Carlisle to Paris, for example.

Mr. Martlew : Many of my constituents look forward to the day when they can fall asleep in Carlisle and wake up in Paris. That is the way in which people from the north-west will use the channel tunnel

Mr. Banks : Every night I dream of waking up in Paris, but it rarely happens. However, I accept that that is a relevant point. If those people had gone to sleep in Carlisle, they would be even less aware of the London station through which they had passed. They would not be aware if they went via Stratford or King's Cross to Paris. That is my argument.

Mr. Snape rose --

Mr. Banks : Heavens, I have flushed out the old ticket collector.

Mr. Snape : My hon. Friend's wit has flushed out the same old argument, but flushing it out and peering at it does not make it any more attractive. Neither my constituents nor those of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle could get to Paris via Stratford. Whatever the froth, verbiage or wit from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), he has not told us how to do that whether we are asleep or awake.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the House that we are discussing the passenger concourse building. We must not widen the debate.

Mr. Banks : My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is continually provoking and goading me. I must tell him that I prefer his speeches when he is asleep rather than when he is awake, but I must let details about our personal relationship outside the House pass by.

We are being asked to agree to the demolition of the Great Northern hotel. The sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), was disingenuous--I do not believe that he intended to be so, because he is an honest and honourable man--because once the Bill is passed, the pressure on the Department of the Environment, particularly from the Department of Transport, will be irresistible and listed building consent,

Column 876

for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel will be given. In effect, we are being asked to override the listed building consent, and what the hon. Gentleman said is a technicality, which amounts to nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has already made that point.

I served as a member of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and we noticed that the promoters of private Bills continually used private Bills to get around the usual planning procedures. On this occasion, the Select Committee considering the Bill saw that and stipulated that listed building consent was necessary. Unfortunately, that has erected only a very minor obstacle in British Rail's path and it has not safeguarded this grade 2 listed building.

Once we have agreed that the Bill should go ahead, it would be inconceivable that the Department of the Environment would stand in British Rail's way. Even in the event that it did, the matter would go to the Secretary of State, and it is most unlikely, given that the Government and the Minister support the Bill, that the Secretary of State would refuse to give his consent to demolition. We must acknowledge that as a fact of life. All the technicalities in the world will amount to nothing in the face of realpolitik.

The hon. Member for Keighley talked about Norman Foster's design. I am sure that it will be an excellent design, but we all know the sights that we will see in the new concourse, in the guise of the extra facilities that the hon. Gentleman described. There will be Sock Shops, Tie Racks, Casey Jones instant hamburger joints and Knickerboxes where hon. Members can buy frillies on their journeys north. Such places will add nothing distinctive to London--nothing different from what we can see on any other station concourse. I have said that the development at Liverpool Street is a sympathetic one, but even there the same sort of retail outlets are to be found. There will be no difference in Norman Foster's building.

In effect, the House is being asked to agree to the demolition of yet another listed building in London--the Great Northern hotel. I hope that hon. Members, especially colleagues from the north, can remember the old Euston station building with its concourse and arch. Just to show that this is not a narrow party political point, I recall that that wonderful building was destroyed under a Labour Government. Can anyone claim that the new Euston concourse and station front are superior to the original building ? We threw away a great piece of railway history, and I suspect that we will do the same to the Great Northern.

Mr. Martlew : I know the new Euston station well, just as I knew the old one well. My father was an engine driver who took trains into it. For those of us who have to use the new station as passengers, the new station is greatly superior. The old one was a disaster. We should not have to keep buildings just because they are historic and look nice ; we have to consider the passengers using them. If we do not, that is a recipe for disaster in the 21st century.

Mr. Banks : That is certainly an argument, but I can think of many counter-arguments. The Palace of Westminster is not particularly convenient for the work of Members of Parliament, nor is it a particularly convenient building for visitors. So let us demolish it. I am sure that we can build a more effective building for our work. I note

Column 877

that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle nods in agreement, but I suspect that he would run into some difficulties, perhaps even with the Department of the Environment, if he tried to demolish the Palace.

Mr. Martlew : I should be delighted if this building were closed down and made into a museum. We could then build a new government building just south of Manchester and remove the Government from London. London has too much influence on how the rest of the country is governed--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the House that we are not discussing the merits of the Palace of Westminster or of Euston station.

Mr. Banks : I entirely agree. My hon. Friend led me into giving a comparison, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have often suggested that we should have a moving Parliament that tours other parts of the country. Carlisle would make an excellent stopping place, as would Manchester, Bury--you name it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I long to see those towns for longer periods than I have spent there before.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle suggested that we close down this building, but he did not mention demolishing it. We are discussing the demolition of a building. I agree that the new Euston station is more convenient for passengers, but surely with the architectural skills that we still have in some measure in this country it is possible to combine the best of the old with the best of the new and not just start again from the floor, to to speak. I am sure that it would have been possible to preserve some of the architectural integrity and distinction of the old Euston station while combining it with the modern conveniences that passengers require. That should not be beyond our architects.

It would be easier for London representatives to accept this clause if we knew that there was some way of marrying the excellence of Norman Foster's design with the design of Mr. Cubitt for the Great Northern. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Keighley does not seem prepared to offer us that. If he will give us an assurance that the House will be given another opportunity to consider whether the Great Northern should be demolished, I might be a little more satisfied. If he cannot, I shall support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury which, whatever hon. Members may think, is certainly not an attempt to destroy the Bill. It is an honourable course to want to preserve one of the nicer buildings of London. People who come here do so not to see our empty office blocks, to inhale our noxious air full of the exhaust of motor vehicles or to enjoy our weather ; they come here to look at our buildings and to stay in some of our quainter hotels. Those hotels are disappearing apace and being replaced by Hiltons and Sheratons--the sort of hotels to be found in any other city around the world. In a chain hotel it is impossible to know whether one is in London, Tokyo or Rome--it cannot be guessed from the interior. In the Great Northern hotel, however, people know that they are in one of the great Victorian railway hotels where they can see the bed where Mr. Gladstone laid his grey and venerable head. Anyone prepared to walk with heavy boots over the memory of Mr. Gladstone is risking the anger not only of Londoners but of parliamentarians

Column 878

of many former generations. People should think carefully before they do that, because Mr. Gladstone might return to haunt them while they are walking around the Sock Shops and Knickerboxes of the new concourse that will link these two stations.

Mr. O'Brien : If people are still sleeping in the bed that Mr. Gladstone occupied in the Great Northern hotel, that is reason enough for its demolition. It should be modernised along the lines that British Rail is contemplating. If that is the best that the Great Northern can offer, it is time we looked at what provision we are making for tourists. If that is the best on offer, we are failing to encourage tourism in the area.

However, if we have a new development and connections between the north- east and the north-west on that campus, there will be many benefits for many people who, I assume and hope, would favour the channel tunnel development. Are we saying that because a grade II listed building must remain, my constituents and the people of Carlisle and other places in the north will be denied the facilities that are associated with the channel tunnel? We cannot pay the price of maintaining the Great Northern hotel, a grade II listed building, if that means that my constituents and others in the north will be sacrificed and unable to benefit from the channel tunnel. Clause 7 refers to the development of a passenger service concourse. That is just part of the development of the facilities for the use of channel tunnel passengers. I hope that, after this episode, British Rail will introduce a programme whereby we in the north-east, the north-west and the Border areas will be told how the freight trains will transport goods from the north of England, through London and to the channel tunnel. That is not mentioned in the Bill. I hope that after tonight's debate, we shall hear some explanation to allay my concerns and those of my colleagues about what will happen in regard not only to passenger services, but freight services also. 8 pm

Mr. Chris Smith : My hon. Friend has touched on an exceptionally important point. The issue of freight and of how we can ensure that freight can reach the channel tunnel from all parts of the country is extremely important, but hitherto the Government have said not a word about it. There is no proposal that freight should go through King's Cross. At the moment and as far as we can understand, it is intended that freight will go round London. We have not heard any clear statement from the Government on that issue, and it is high time that we did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the House that we are discussing clause 7.

Mr. O'Brien : I am referring to clause 7(1), Mr. Deputy Speaker, which states :

"In this section the designated land' means the land in the London borough of Camden".

I hope that references to the designation of land for development do not apply only to the provision of passenger services because we must consider other facilities, such as the provision of freight services.

I rest my case on the fact that I believe that substantial advantages can flow from the development of facilities in the King's Cross-Euston-St. Pancras area and that people from the north can benefit tremendously from them. I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Islington,

Column 879

South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in the past on the issue of environmental assessments because I believe that his constituents must be protected against developments that might interfere with their quality of life. However, when it comes to the question of whether to retain a grade II listed building, and to weighing the consequences of its retention with the loss of advantage for millions of people in the north of England, I must appeal for the decision to be taken in favour of the people whom I represent in the north of England. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the value of those points.

Mr. Chris Smith : My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has made what appears on the surface to be a persuasive case, but the institution of the passenger concourse that British Rail is now proposing between St. Pancras and King's Cross on the land referred to in clause 7 is not in any way an essential requirement to ensure that people in the north-east and north-west can benefit from the location of the international station at King's Cross. It is an adjunct to that basic requirement. The removal of clause 7 would not in any way damage the interests of the people who wish to travel from the north.

Mr. Waller : I am sorry to have to press the hon. Gentleman on this point, but does he agree that if, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, it were impossible to develop any new concourse, all travellers--both long- distance travellers and commuters--would be seriously disadvantaged if the existing facilities had to be relied on? Would there not be great difficulty in overcoming the requirement for the existing concourse in front of King's Cross to be demolished if its temporary designation were not renewed, even assuming that there was not a big question mark over the length of time for which it can be renewed?

Mr. Smith : In so far as the hon. Gentleman is referring to the inadequacies of the present concourse, he is entirely right, because it is not sufficient to cope with the existing passenger load at King's Cross. If 15 million extra passengers a year are to travel through King's Cross, the problem will be considerably worse. However, that is not the choice before us. I do not have the slightest doubt that it is possible to preserve the Great Northern hotel and to create a new concourse between King's Cross and St. Pancras and to do both without damaging the interests of travellers from the north. I am sure that, if British Rail applied its mind to that task, it would find it perfectly possible to come up with a solution.

I should like to answer a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the links from the new passenger concourse-- not to the north-east, but to the north-west. As my hon. Friend said, that is of fundamental importance to many of our colleagues who represent constituencies in the north-west. The ability to get from the new passenger concourse, to which the amendment refers, to Euston station, which is the obvious and main link to the north-west, is an essential part of British Rail's case for the entire Bill. However, British Rail has not been particularly candid about the link to Euston.

On 25 November 1990, when we debated the carryover motion, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said :

"All that I can say on the fixed link between Euston and the new complex"--

which is what we are considering in clause 7--

"--because I mentioned that a number of options are still being considered- -is that it will be a dedicated link. Some of

Column 880

the roads in the vicinity which are owned by British Rail, for example, may be used and a bus may travel on a dedicated route or on a dedicated track. At this stage, I cannot say what the link will be, although I can say that it will be a dedicated, high-quality link."--[ Official Report, 25 November 1991 ; Vol. 199, c. 686.]

We are entitled to ask both of the Government and British Rail what precisely this dedicated high-quality link will be. The House will recall that the original British Rail proposal was for a travelator linking King's Cross and Euston. Let us leave aside the fact that a travelator would have to be at least 1 km in length and require a journey, moving at the sort of speed at which travelators at Heathrow airport move, of 20 minutes. British Rail then discovered that there was a slight problem about linking the new passenger concourse at King's Cross with Euston by a travelator. It would have to run directly through the six-storey basement of the British Library, which has just been built at enormous public expense and which lies slap-bang between the new concourse and the link to Euston and the north-west.

Having discovered that a travelator would not be the easy answer that it supposed it to be, British Rail appears to be saying that such a plan is not on--there has been some discussion between British Rail and local authorities in the north-west--and it is looking at other options. Among the options is a subway with a partial travelator. This would involve a travelator for part of the way and then passengers would have to walk, carrying their suitcases, for the rest of the way. Another option is a subway on its own, with no travelator. That would involve a walk of 1 km to get from the channel tunnel train at King's Cross to a train to the north- west at Euston. For many people, a walk of that distance would be a discouragement to making the journey.

Another option is a light rail transit link between stations. If it were to be effective, that would impose a substantial extra cost on the operation. Another option is a bus route from one station to the other, perhaps through all the local residential streets that have recently been subjected to traffic calming measures and the exclusion of substantial vehicular traffic.

I say to my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the north-west that the assumption on which everyone entered discussions about the Bill-- that it would be easy and simple to get from the channel tunnel trains at King's Cross to the trains to the north-west from Euston--will not hold. Unless and until British Rail comes clean on how the Euston link will be managed and created, there will be continuing doubt about that link. I say that because this is an important point, relating to the issue of the new passenger concourse dealt with in the amendment and because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle was right to raise a question mark over how sincere British Rail is in assuring us that links to the north-west will be readily available.

The debate on this amendment has ranged reasonably widely. At the outset, I raised two points that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) then failed to address. The first involves a point of principle. That is, that it is wrong for the House, by means of private Bills, to take planning decisions. The second point is that British Rail has submitted a planning application to the London borough of Camden for the outline permission that is set out in clause 7. By that action, it has admitted that it has no need to seek the powers in clause 7.

Column 881

8.15 pm

The hon. Member for Keighley made one valid point--that there might be, he was advised, some work below ground that required, as an essential ingredient, parliamentary authority. If that is the case, British Rail should be seeking authority for those below-ground works and not including as part of them the above-ground works for which it does not require parliamentary authority. Clause 7 specifically says :

"The Board may in, on, over or under any part of the designated land make, maintain and operate the passenger concourse". Therefore, even if British Rail does require parliamentary authority to carry out works under the designated land, it does not need to come to the House for authority to do so in, on or over. That is the argument that lies behind the amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10

Stopping up roads

Mr. Chris Smith : I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 7, leave out lines 10 and 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments : No. 3, in clause 20, page 11, line 27, at end insert--

(5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board or the Company to purchase or use the land in the London Borough of Camden numbered 88-101 on the deposited plans.'.

No. 4, in clause 23, page 13, line 31, at end insert--

(3A) On completion of Works Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4A and 4B, the Board shall, within six months, reinstate on the land numbered on the deposited plans 25 in the London Borough of Camden, the natural park known as Camley Street Natural Park, with all necessary facilities and conveniences.'.

No. 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 38, at end insert--

(5) Within six months of completion of Work No. 2, the Board shall reinstate on the site of 13-17 Caledonian Road in the London Borough of Islington, land numbered 76 in the deposited plans, a hostel of at least 33 bedspaces for homeless people.'.

No. 11, in schedule 4, page 26, line 8, column 3, leave out for the general purposes of the Board'

and insert

to be returned to the freeholder'.

No. 12, in schedule 4, page 26, line 10, at endinsert--

39-70 For the provision of a construction site and thereafter to be returned to the freeholder.'.

Mr. Smith : This group of amendments deals with a number of detailed aspects of the works that British Rail is proposing and especially with what should happen to land or property once British Rail's need to use them in carrying out the works has expired. Amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12 are very much of a piece. The key point concerns use of land. If British Rail requires land not for its railway purposes, such as putting a track or station on it, but simply to assist with building work--for example, to gain access to the great box that it intends to create below level, as a place to put site huts on, or to keep some of the ancillary equipment that it needs to carry out the basic railway works--once the work is finished and the station is complete, those bits of land should be returned to their original owners. The Bill does not say that. In such cases, British Rail can retain land

Column 882

when the work is finished even when there is no railway-specific need to retain it, and presumably undertake property development and make a profit on it.

The amendments argue that, instead of British Rail acting as a property developer and profiting from land when its need to use it has ended, that land should be returned to its former owners for whatever better potential use they may decide.

Mr. Derek Stuckey wrote to me in considerable detail about the land that is in his ownership. I can best set the scene by explaining that Mr. Stuckey is a 75-year-old barrister who retains chambers at No. 3 Dr. Johnson's buildings in the Temple. Mr. Stuckey lives at No. 2 to 2a Keystone crescent, which property is directly subject to the Bill.

Mr. Stuckey was born at No. 2 Keystone crescent, and his family have owned land at King's Cross--including that now sought to be acquired--for more than 100 years. His son Robert and his family live at No. 9 Keystone crescent, and his other son, George, lives at No. 1 Omega place. Therefore, the family have deep roots in the area affected by the Bill.

Mr. Stuckey writes that the total area of land that he owns, and which is in the purview of the amendments, is about half an acre, and includes within the limits of deviation of the Bill nine shops in Caledonian road-- Nos. 10 to 26, even, inclusive. They include a health food shop, cafe, toiletries, florists, newsagent and confectioner, men's and women's outfitters, greengrocer, barber shop, and an Italian delicatessen. The upper parts of those shops are used mainly for residential purposes.

Mr. Stuckey writes :

"The construction of the low-level station would result in the demolition of the parade of shops, and of the garage at the rear. Yet, according to the plans submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the most unfavourable view, only a small part of this land would be occupied by the proposed low-level station. By far the greater part of the land would be used solely as a site for the purposes of the construction of the low- level station.

At the end of the day, it is proposed that British Railways Board shall retain, not simply the proposed low-level station but the remainder of the land taken as a construction site."

In other words, after British Rail had used the land as a construction site, and, although it would not thereafter need it for any specific railway or station purposes, British Rail would continue to own it.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 seek to ensure that those parts of the site currently owned by Mr. Stuckey and not required for the railway or the station are returned to him, so that he may decide on proposals for its subsequent use. If British Rail Property Board makes that decision, I suspect that we will see not a return to the small, human-scale shopping facilities that currently exist, but a British Rail office block.

"It is suggested that British Railways Board should not be permitted by private Bill to acquire land for development, but only for the operational purposes of their railway, and that the persons from whom it is compulsorily acquired should have the opportunity of redeveloping it, once the primary purpose of acquiring the land--the construction of the low- level station--has been accomplished None the less, the return to me of the remaining one third of the site"-- the other two thirds are not owned by Mr. Stuckey--

"would enable me or my successors to influence the development of the former coach station, in the interests of the residents of Keystone Crescent, and to endeavour to secure the rebuilding of the parade of shops, in substantially the same form, though with such modifications and improvements as might be necessary and practicable."

Column 883

Mr. Stuckey says that, if the land is not required by British Rail after the development has been completed were returned to him, he would be sensitive to the traditions of the area--in terms of the kind of shops that currently exist and the need to replace them. You can bet your boots, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if British Rail Property Board retains ownership of the land, it will not have the same interests of the local people and community at heart.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Does my hon. Friend see a link between the case that he describes and that of Crichel Down, in which--in almost exactly parallel circumstances--land was not returned for agricultural purposes until a court decided that that was just what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was required to do? It might be better to accept my hon. Friend's amendment to ensure that Mr. Stuckey, who is a barrister, does not delay matters by indulging in litigation-- particularly as there may be a major precedent to help him.

Mr. Smith : My hon. Friend draws an extremely important analogy. The Bill provides for British Rail to retain the ownership of the sites when the development is completed for the general purposes of the board. They cover a multifarious array of activities, including office development, to maximise British Rail's profit. That is not necessarily a fair way of dealing with someone such as Mr. Stuckey, whose family has had land in the area for a substantial length of time.

Amendment No. 2 will delete from clause 10 the proposed road closure of Omega place. Even if that closure is temporarily required for works to be undertaken, it is wrong to write into the Bill the permanent closure of Omega place, when that is not a requirement for the completed station's operation. Mr. Stuckey writes :

"future development is likely to lead to the construction of a single, large building or block of buildings, which will materially alter the character of the district, to the prejudice of the residents and of the neighbourhood."

By seeking the permanent closure of Omega place, British Rail aims to ensure that subsequent development can spread on either side, while including Omega place itself, and a bigger office block can be built subsequently. That would substantially alter the character of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Stuckey continues :

"The time for considering the closure of Omega Place is when plans for future redevelopment of the site are put forward. If those plans are of sufficient merit to warrant it, the closure of Omega Place can then be considered, and effected by the usual procedure, which provides for objections by owners of land adjoining the highway. Until such plans are put forward, and shown to be an improvement on what exists at present, the bias should be towards a redevelopment of the land substantially in its present, useful form."

That puts the case very succinctly. So far, British Rail has told us nothing about what it will put in place of the land that it is grabbing by means of the Bill, and the additional land that will result from the closure of Omega place. I fear, however, that we shall see a substantial commercial office development.

8.30 pm

If that is so, by enabling Omega place to be closed and ensuring that British Rail can hang on to bits of land that it will not need after the completion of the station, we are allowing British Rail carte blanche to present whatever proposals it wishes to present. We ought to be saying, "Let

Next Section

Home Page