Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)|
Wednesday 12 May 2004
MR PAUL THOMPSON of BIRCHAM DYSON BELL appeared as
40. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: What was the
nature of the objection? You do not need to go into detail on
41. MR TURNER: Part of the area of Princes
Street, in particular, has a number of office uses, such as estate
agents and banks, which have less commonality of interest with
the market traders. They raised some concerns about that not
being an appropriate area for the market to expand into. The
view that the Council has taken on that is that currently the
Council would agree with that position but we see that as a longer-term
proposal. Under the Bill as drawn we would have to consult again
before deciding to expand into any particular area, and we were
not, in the first instance, intending to go down that particular
area. Of course, in 20 or 30 years' time the position may be
vastly different and people felt it would be rather a shame to
have to go through this process all over again to get another
Act of Parliament to extend the boundaries. We have taken a long-term
42. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: I understand
that. You spoke, or you wrote - communicated - with some of the
occupiers. Did you also communicate with the freeholders?
43. MR TURNER: As best we could. We
did not do a comprehensive Land Registry search but we did ----
44. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: You did not?
45. MR TURNER: No, but we did speak to
some of the freeholders; we have not spoken to all of them.
46. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: What concerns
me a little - and I am not sure I entirely agree with the report
of the Joint Committee and that is why I want to probe a little
more on this - is that in some cases this proposal could lead
to, for example, a diminution in value of the freehold, which
may or may not affect the tenants and the occupiers but, also,
in relation to any freehold occupiers or leasehold occupiers of
the residential accommodation, they are going to have their rights
of access restricted, which prima facie would lead one
to believe there might be a diminution in value.
47. MR TURNER: I am not sure that there
is going to be any significant restriction on access above and
beyond what there already is. As you can imagine, it is the historic
town centre of Ipswich and there are already highly restrictive
traffic orders so that they would not be able, for example, to
park their car for any length of time anyway.
48. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: But they can
access their homes?
49. MR TURNER: In most cases they would
not be able to access in a vehicle for a significant part of the
50. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: Really? Because
there is pedestrianisation on all of these streets?
51. MR TURNER: Most of the dwellings,
in fact, according to our records, are actually on the Lloyds
Avenue part, and they would, I suppose, be able to access vehicles
there. The pedestrianised parts are the Butter Market, Cornhill
Square and the top part of Princes Street. I suppose there would
be a limited loading and unloading right.
52. MR THOMPSON: I think you were able
to confirm to me at an earlier stage, Mr Turner, that there are
no private vehicular rights accessing these streets, are there?
There are no garaging rights.
53. MR TURNER: No.
54. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: There would
simply be a right, as one would have, to stop and take shopping
in and move on.
55. MR THOMPSON: I think I had understood
from you that the Council's investigations indicated that most
of the 25 residential dwellings that I mentioned are in Lloyds
Avenue which is at the top of the map, and that is the street
that, in fact, is used by taxis and is blocked off from Cornhill,
which provides the route up to the bus station, which is just
off the map at the top.
56. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: They are primarily
there, are they, in Lloyds Avenue?
57. MR TURNER: Yes, according to the
records which we have looked at.
58. MR THOMPSON: Princes Street and Queen
Street are very much the sort of building society, bank and estate
59. SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: With no residential
accommodation over them?