|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 837-lx HOUSE OF COMMOMS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the Tuesday 17 October 2006 Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Mr Philip Hollobone Kelvin Hopkins Ms Katy Clark
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
17319. CHAIRMAN: Today we will be hearing two petitions, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Eleanor Street Travellers All Residents Group. Before we start, if we are here at 11.30 we will take a short break for coffee and then come back. Mr Mould, would you like to outline the first case. I hope yesterday was a good day for you! 17320. MR MOULD: It was indeed, and it is very kind of you to mention it, but back to real life now, which is also delightful. Sir, I do not think I need to say very much about the first petition. Mr Drabble is here on behalf of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. I believe he is going to make a short statement to the Committee explaining the borough council's position in the light of recent correspondence that we have had with them in relation to their outstanding petition and concerns. Rather than take outstanding petition concerns and rather than take time anticipating what he is going to say, I think the sensible thing is to hand over the floor to him and then I can respond to that. 17321. MR DRABBLE: Chairman, Members of the Committee, as Mr Mould said, I simply wish to make a relatively short statement expressing the borough's position in relation to the second division of provision as it has developed in the light of correspondence and largely to read things on to the record, if I may do that. You will know that the borough's Petition in relation to the second division of provision related to three issues: The Eleanor Street Traveller's site, the noise and vibration policy, and the H.A.M & Wick Sewer diversion. The council's Petition contains 15 specific objections and in preparing its Petition the council repeated a number of the objections contained in the first Petition, for example in relation to traffic management consultation. As the Committee may recall at its hearing in June, the council only gave evidence on two of its original 35 objections. This is because the Promoter has given a number of assurances to the council which would have dealt with many of the council's objections. However, in order both to protect the council's interest and, most importantly, to provide both transparency in what the council regards as essential reassurance to the local community, the council has asked the Promoter to provide formal legal undertakings on all matters that have been agreed. The Committee will, of course, recall that it requested the Promoter to provide such undertakings to all Petitioners. 17322. The council has accordingly sought undertakings in respect to dealing with its objections to AP2. Following continuing pressure from the council the Promoter has finally provided a formal letter of undertaking by 11 October 2006 and another dated 16 October 2006. Although these documents will appear to meet the council's concerns there has been insufficient time to consider them in detail. It seems to the council inevitable that some further attention will have to be given to the detailed wording of the undertaking and we trust that the Promoter recognises this and will acknowledge this. 17323. Notwithstanding receipt of these letters, the council would like to draw the Committee's attention to our original objections on the undertaking which we believe we have received from the Promoter. The purpose for doing this is both to place the matter on the public record and most importantly to provide reassurance to local people that their concerns are being dealt with. 17324. The letter of 11 October records the fact that the Promoter has given contractual binding undertakings contained in a deed to some land owners affected by Crossrail and invites the council to indicate whether there are some undertakings contained in the letter which it wishes to be treated in the same way and which is suitable for the same treatment because they affect property matters. The council welcomes this invitation which it will respond to in due course. 17325. Just a word about the Eleanor Street Traveller Site. We are very pleased that the Promoter has accepted the council's preferred proposal for the relocation of the travellers and most importantly that the residents are also satisfied. The council is also pleased that the Promoter accepts that the traveller site will be treated as a special case in terms of the noise and vibration policy should the nominated undertaker's construction methodology trigger entitlement for noise insulation. Finally, positive ongoing discussions are now taking place with the Promoter and the residents on a practical arrangement for organising the relocation of the site. 17326. Noise and vibration policy: this is a matter on which the borough is acting as lead authority on behalf of a number of councils affected by Crossrail. A great deal of discussion has taken place with the Promoter on the policy, particularly in the last few months. 17327. Considerable progress has been made during negotiations in clarifying and revising the policy. The promoter has, as a result of the negotiations, revised the mechanism for triggering noise insulation to include a clearer assessment process which better reflects the protection that will be afforded to those residents that live near the proposed construction sites and currently enjoy quieter environmental conditions. 17328. At the request of the council's environment health team, the Promoter has extensively revised that information paper known as IPD9, Noise and Vibration Mitigation Scheme. This paper will now better inform residents about how the scheme works and how they may be entitled to receive additional environmental protection. The Promoter has confirmed the mitigation scheme may identify properties which trigger noise insulation that are currently not being identified in the Environmental Statement as being expected to receive noise insulation nor as having a significant noise impact. This is because the final eligibility will depend on the more detailed assessment process that will be undertaken once the nominated undertaker's actual construction methodology and environmental management plans are known. 17329. Other issues included in the revised information paper D9 include the fact that residents will now be given the chance to choose double-glazing rather than secondary glazing as a form of noise mitigation. A new protocol has been introduced to provide a fairer and more easily understood system of entitlement for noise insulation in buildings for long facades. 17330. Finally, residents who are eligible for noise insulation who have existing secondary or double-glazing will be given advice on whether its condition is adequate with, if necessary, the Promoter bringing it up to standard. 17331. The boroughs collectively are now satisfied that the policy provides greater protection for those affected by noise. Tower Hamlet's environmental health team will continue to work with the Promoter to include refinements of the supporting documentation to the scheme to ensure that it fully reflects the improvements and clarifications established during the constructive negotiations. 17332. H.A.M & Wick Sewer: the impact of the sewer on residents in the Bow area of the borough remains the council's major concern in respect of the second addition of provision. The original bill proposal relocated the sewer outside the borough and thus was not a matter of great concern to this council. However, the revised proposal now only affects Tower Hamlets. As a result, the council has given very careful consideration to the position it should take in front of this Committee. The starting place is that the construction impacts in Tower Hamlets will be particularly severe. For a period of nearly two years there will be construction activity taking place on seven separate sites within a 400 metre corridor between the Manhattan building and Payne Road on the east side of the borough. Furthermore, the Pudding Mill Lane worksite will be just across the borough boundary in Newham. 17333. The Promoter's supplementary Environmental Statement recognises that the revised proposals have significant adverse construction impacts on the borough. The council would like to draw the Committee's attention to those impacts. It believes that it is essential that the Promoter takes all available steps to minimise and mitigate the impacts. 17334. In Grove Hall Park, it proposed to construct a shaft to provide access and egress from the new sewer. This is a small park but it is the only area of open space in this part of the borough. As such, it is very heavily used by local people as well as by local schools. In recognition of its heavy use, the council has secured substantial capital funding for improvements that were programmed to be spent during the next two to three years. The council has commissioned a landscape proposal for Grove Hall Park and a master plan is being prepared. This is still work in progress but it would seem that the scheme as it currently exists would not be significantly prejudiced by the Crossrail proposals. The council is anxious to ensure that Crossrail undertake to reinstate both parts of the park affected by the proposals and the specification within the emerging master plan. The letter of 11 October does contain an undertaking that the site will be reinstated having regard to the reasonable requirements of the master plan. 17335. Construction of the H.A.M & Wick Sewer diversion will have significant noise and visual impacts in the park during the six month construction period. As a result of this impact, both the council and local residents have been strongly opposed to the location of a shaft in the park. There have been considerable discussions and negotiations both with the Promoter and Thames Water to seek to secure the removal of the shaft from the scheme. However, Thames Water has advised the council that the shaft is essential in meeting Thames Water's health and safety responsibilities towards their employees while working underground. 17336. Although we understand that such underground working is unlikely to take place more than once in every ten years or more, the council has had to weigh up the adverse construction impacts for a six month construction period against minimising the risk to Thames Water's employees. It accepts that very considerable weight will, of necessity, be given to health and safety issues. 17337. Reluctantly, we have concluded that the balance must lie with the health and safety of underground workers and so the council has withdrawn its objection to the principle of the shaft subject to a range of mitigation measures which have been agreed with the Promoter. These include an undertaking to consult the council on the exact location of the shaft and manhole, and undertakings relating to the management of the haul route and vehicular access. 17338. Manhattan and Lexington buildings will also be significantly affected by construction works that will take place right next door to people's homes in these buildings. The seriousness of the impact is demonstrated by the fact that 28 of the properties may qualify for temporary rehousing for a period of 15 weeks. The residents will also lose total access to their car park for three nights as well as suffer serious inconvenience throughout the construction period. 17339. In view of this severe impact, the council requests that the Promoter makes more effort to develop proposals to reduce the scale of the work site at this location and the construction impacts on local residents. We are seeking a similar undertaking that was given by the Promoter in relation to Hanbury Street when the Promoter agreed to minimise the size and impact of the work site. We do not believe there is any difference in principle between the parties on the issue and some comfort is given in the letter of 11 October. However, this is an example of a case where some further attention may have to be given to the wording. 17340. At the southern end of the sewer diversion, the construction works necessitate the demolition of a McDonald's restaurant and the loss of on street parking bays. These parking spaces are important to attracting visitors to the adjoining Greenlight Youth Centre and helping to maintain its financial viability. The Promoter has therefore agreed to work with the council to identify alternative parking spaces for use by visitors to the centre. Although not a construction site as such, the council would also like to draw attention to the concerns expressed by the residents of the Fairfield Road Conservation Area who will be affected not just by the Crossrail tunnel running underneath their properties but also by the tunnel sewer diversion. In order to provide adequate protection to the area the Promoter has given an undertaking that the protection of the Ground Settlement Policy (leading to the availability of settlement deeds) will be available to local residents. Once again, some further detailed discussions on the wording may be necessary. 17341. Finally, in this connection, there will be construction impacts arising at the four other smaller work sites in the area. Most of these will be covered by the Construction Code of Practice and other generic policies but there are particular concerns that could arise as a result of traffic diverted by the night time closures of the Blackwall Northern approach. 17342. The Council is aware that residents will shortly be advancing a case in front of you stressing the need to ensure that the Promoter maintain pedestrian access through the Wick Lane work sites at all times. Of course this is a busy pedestrian link between the Bow Flyover and Old Ford. The council sees the force of this case and would like to place on record its support for it. 17343. Finally, before I conclude, a word on consultation. We return to the issue of consultation. The council, as we have made it clear throughout, supports the Crossrail project but is extremely anxious to ensure that it is carried through with all available mitigation measures and on the basis of the fullest possible consultation with those who will inevitably be affected by its construction. The letter of 11 October indicates that the Promoter is committed to working constructively with the council on an ongoing consultation on Crossrail proposals in the Tower Hamlet area. For its part, the council is committed to attempting to ensure that full consultation machinery is set up by the Promoter and operated across the borough as a whole. 17344. Conclusion: as will be clear to the Committee, the construction impact of the H.A.M & Wicks Sewer will be very severe and effective mitigation is essential. The council acknowledges that the revised proposals deal with the construction and sustainability objections to the original proposals that would have required a much longer diversion in a new pumping station at Abbey Mills. However, we repeat, this must not be at the expense of further disruption to the residents of Tower Hamlets. Thank you. 17345. MR MOULD: The issues arising in relation to H.A.M & Wicks Sewer proposals are to be the subject of a more detailed examination through the Petitioners you are going to hear tomorrow, and in the light of that, I am not proposing to say anymore at this stage than this. The Promoter acknowledges the points that have just been made by Mr Drabble on behalf of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and it is right to say that those matters have been the subject of recent correspondence and the substance of that correspondence is reflected in remarks that he has just made to the Committee. The Promoter welcomes the fact that in the light of recent correspondence, particularly the letters sent to the borough council on 11 and 16 October this year, we have now reached a position where matters of substance in relation to the concerns raised by the local authority, and other matters which you have heard today, have reached a common position and that matters of detailed wording are all that effectively remains for some further consideration. We are content that the matter should remain on that basis. Sir, one or two other matters, if I may. One particular matter is the borough council has raised a question if the Promoter could make efforts to develop proposals to reduce the scale of the work site at the Manhattan building location and the result of construction impacts on local residents arising from that work site. I can confirm that, as was made clear in the letter of 16 October from the Promoter to the local authority, the Promoter will ensure that the nominated undertaker limits the physical area of each proposed work site in Tower Hamlets, that would include the work sites to which reference has just been made, to that is reasonably required for the construction of the works and the Promoter shall release each site for reinstatement as soon is reasonably practicable after the construction work there has been completed. That is an undertaking in relation to the work site across the borough. It embraces these sites as well. Sir, I think unless there are any matters that the Committee wish to raise that is all I would wish to say in response to the borough council and the statement made Mr Drabble. 17346. MR DRABBLE: I have nothing further to add. 17347. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We now move on to the next Petition, Eleanor Street Travellers All Resident Group. 17348. MR MOULD: Perhaps I should outline the position in relation to the Eleanor Street site because you are going to be hearing from two or three Petitioners in the course of the next few moments in relation to that. What I will do is set out our position in relation to that. 17349. Could we have our document number AP2/904009. The Committee is now concerned with what is known as the Bow Street Triangle. You can see that the Bow Street Triangle is now being shown with lines along Eleanor Street and other streets in the surrounding areas. Presently within the Triangle area itself there is a very well established travellers' site, outlined in red, which we understand from Tower Hamlets is an important travellers' site facility. There are also some industrial units - Bow Business Units 1-3 - which are outlined in green; and what is known as the Laundry site, another industrial site to the north of the travellers' site. 17350. The proposals for the scheme in relation to the travellers' site are that there should be an access and ventilation shaft (which is being pointed out) to the south-east corner of the Bow Street Triangle. Proposals under the amended provisions AP2 are designed to mitigate the impact of the construction of that shaft particularly on the travellers who occupy the travellers' site. The clear preference and policy of the Borough Council as planning authority in discussions with the Promoter was that the travellers' site should remain in itself a settled location - the reasons for that I will go through. This is a site which is very well settled and it clearly accords with Government policy that sites of that kind, which are often very difficult to locate, should be protected where possible, if it is possible to do so. 17351. In relation to that site, the Promoter has looked at a number of options for relocating the site within the Triangle, with a view to trying to accommodate the need to locate the shaft and to minimise the impact on the travellers during the construction phase. Could we go to 04-10; this is the construction phase. This involves the acquisition of numbers 39-41 Eleanor Street, and Units 1-3 of the Bow Business Park, which I pointed out to you earlier, just to the south-west of the Triangle, and the realignment of Business Park Road and the phased construction of new caravan pitches to be carried out before the construction of the shaft; we would carry out those works to relocate the travellers within the site prior to construction of the shaft. After construction of the shaft the Crossrail work sites would then become available for redevelopment in accordance with our policies. That is the area broadly to the south-east of the Triangle site. The advantages of that are that the disruption to the travellers is minimised through the construction process. 17352. If you go to page 011 we can see the permanent rearrangement. You can see the travellers' site, the access road and then the surplus land which is shown in purple, and the permanent operational landtake to the south-eastern corner just adjacent to the land that would be available for disposal. That is the position in relation to the travellers. I think it is the travellers whom the current Petitioner is speaking on behalf of. 17353. I will deal with this a little later when the relevant Petitioner appears so that he is not disadvantaged. I should just foreshadow, you are going to hear from Petitioner Paperback who are the business occupiers of one of the business units at the Bow Business Park. They would be displaced by these proposals and would need to secure alternative premises for their business. I will deal with the nature of their business and the details in relation to what we can do for them in terms of compensation and assisting in the relocation process later. The Committee ought to note that that is one of the consequences of the arrangements that we are proposing and would be asked to confirm later on today. 17354. Chairman, I think that is a brief overview of the proposals in relation to the Bow Street Triangle, and I will hand over to the Petitioner.
The Petition of Eleanor Street All Residents Group
MRS MARIAN MAHONEY appeared as Agent
17355. CHAIRMAN: If this is your first time here, however worried you may be about this it is probably nothing compared with the dread that Mr Mould felt on his first day here! Just take your time. 17356. MS MAHONEY: Greetings, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee. My name is Marian Mahoney. I am a resident of Eleanor Street Gypsy and Traveller Residential Site, and I am also the secretary of the Eleanor Street Residents Group. For the past two years I have represented our site at all meetings and negotiations with Crossrail and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. 17357. I am here today to speak on behalf of all the residents on the Eleanor Street site to explain to the select committee how Crossrail's proposals will affect our community. I would like to explain the agreement we have come to with Crossrail and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets since our Petition was lodged, and to ask the select committee to consider the Additional Provisions 2. 17358. Our existing gypsy and traveller residential site, which is run by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, has been home to 20 families for the last 24 years. Three generations of our children have attended the same schools in the Bow area for the last 24 years. We have children of all ages from nursery upwards attending local schools. We feel that any disruption to their education at this time would be devastating. We have built up very good relations with the local community. 17359. We also have residents with health problems, such as heart problems and mental and neurological problems, and residents who are terminally ill. These residents need to be near to doctors, hospitals and clinics at all times. 17360. We are well established with our local services such as youth clubs, the local parish churches and other amenities. We have very strong relationships with our local neighbours, which have been built up through the years. Some of the younger travellers are now married to members of the local settled community.
17361. We have been in negotiations with Crossrail since 2004. Communication and consultation were very poor at the start. We were not informed officially by Crossrail of our homes being under threat by the building of the ventilation shaft for their railway. With much perseverance by myself and the residents group we have negotiated with Crossrail for many months, and have come to an agreement that we feel confident will save our homes and our community. 17362. We are in support of Crossrail's proposal to acquire the two pieces of land as outlined in the Additional Provisions statement paragraph 4.2.3. This is known as option 4B. This includes the Laundry Building (39-41 Eleanor Street) and Units 1-3 of Bow Triangle Business Centre. 17363. We are supporting Option 4B for the following reasons: 17364. Our caravan site will be relocated within the Bow Triangle and we will be able to remain as a community and continue with our traditional way of life. There will be less upheaval and stress for our community as our children will be able to remain in their primary and secondary schools, and their education will not be disrupted. We will be able to continue our strong links with the local community and local services, which has taken us many years to establish. We will not have to face an uncertain future. 17365. We will only have to face the upheaval of one phased move rather than a double move, as proposed by Crossrail in Option 4A. 17366. We do not consider Option 4A (which is acquiring the laundry building only) as a suitable option for our community. This will mean a double-phased move and living on a temporary basis for four years with uncertainty. We are concerned that half the residents would not have the same standard of amenities they have now. The site will be smaller and the conditions will be unacceptable. This will cause stress and conflict in the community. 17367. Acquiring the two pieces of land will provide enough space to accommodate all the residents.
17368. We are keen to support and work with Crossrail in the building of their railway, and we believe that this option will satisfy both parties. We also believe that this option will save Crossrail's resources. We believe that Option 4 is the only solution which we think is acceptable for the residents of Eleanor Street and provides Crossrail with a way forward to building their railway. 17369. Thank you for your time. We would appreciate if you would please consider all of the above in our favour when making your decision. 17370. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. 17371. MR MOULD: Chairman, the principal point to make in relation to this Petition is plainly that the Petitioner is speaking on behalf of the proposed additional provision that I outlined to the Committee in my brief opening statement; and plainly we welcome that and we, for the reasons I have given, believe that what she calls Option 4B and what I have described as Option 2 are one and the same thing - the arrangements I outlined to you earlier - that, on balance, that is the appropriate way forward here and we commend that to the Committee. 17372. All I need to say beyond that is this: the Petitioner raised concerns about the quality of the consultation process earlier in the development of the Bill scheme. What I would say is, my instructions are that there was certainly a meeting with the occupiers of the travellers' site and the London Gypsy Travellers' unit on 10 November 2004, which was followed up with a further meeting between the Promoter and the borough council, the occupiers and the GLA on 25 April 2005. There was a consultative process in place. I can say no more about any concerns that have been raised today in relation to the quality of that; but it would not be right for the Committee to conclude that contact was not being made and matters not being explained to the occupiers as the scheme proposals progressed. 17373. Unless there is anything else, that is all I wanted to say in response to this Petition. 17374. MS MAHONEY: I am happy to the extent that at the start of the negotiations we had to go ourselves and find out what was happening to our site because I do not think Crossrail knew we existed in the caravan site - it just came up as Eleanor Street. We, in the Residents' Group, found information for ourselves and got in contact with Crossrail and informed Crossrail that 20 families were living on Eleanor Street. From then on we took up negotiations with Crossrail. 17375. CHAIRMAN: Can I, on behalf of the Committee commend the Promoters for eventually communicating and reaching a sensible agreement. In so many of these cases that does not apply, particularly with traveller and gypsy groups who are left with very little communication. May I place on record the Committee's thanks for the work done in this respect. 17376. For the record, can I call the next Petitioner, Mr McIntyre. 17377. MR MOULD: Chairman, I have seen an e-mail exchange which certainly indicated to me that Mr McIntyre was content to leave his Petition in writing. 17378. CHAIRMAN: Could I also call Mr Alan Goshchalk on behalf of Paperback Limited if he is in attendance. 17379. MS LIEVEN: Chairman, we know that Mr Goshchalk is coming because Mr Smith had a telephone conversation with him this morning, but we do not think he is here yet. Mr Smith spoke to him just before ten o'clock and at that stage he was in the Bow Business Unit so he is on his way. 17380. CHAIRMAN: I will suspend the Committee until 11 o'clock.
After a short break
17381. CHAIRMAN: We will move to the final Petition for today, the Petition of Paperback, who are represented by Mr Alan Goshchalk. Mr Goshchalk, would you come forward? Mr Mould will be outlining the case. 17382. MR MOULD: Yes, sir. Just to go back, if I may, to the area, I am told I keep consistently referring to the Bow Triangle as the Bow Street Triangle. It is the Bow Triangle, and people think it is an anachronism (?) on behalf of the well-known magistrates' court which used to be at Bow Street, but there it is.
17383. The Petitioner's premises, Paperback, are number 2 in the middle unit in the Bow Business Unit. I did explain when I was opening the case in relation to the previous Petitioner that under the proposals for this location, which are in the additional provisions before the Committee, it would be necessary to displace the Petitioner in order to carry out the works and the relocation of the travellers' site within the Triangle area. 17384. All I should say now, I think, is just a little bit about the business, as I understand it. Paperback is a merchant of recycled paper, it uses the unit as a warehouse for the storage of paper and the unit has a floor area of some 390 square metres. The business offers customers a next-day deliver service within the M25 area and relocation of the business as a consequence of the Crossrail scheme would plainly take that into account. 17385. Sir, that is all I intend to say at this stage and I will respond after the Petitioner, as appropriate, in a moment. 17386. CHAIRMAN: Mr Goshchalk, you have not appeared in front of a Select Committee before. You will be a bit nervous, I know, but just take your time and you are under no pressure. However, could you speak up because we have stenographers who take a word-for-word note of everything you say. Go ahead. 17387. MR GOSHCHALK: Good morning. I thought, first of all, if I did a bit more background to the company. I am the general manager at Paperback. The business has been trading for 20+ years, 18 of which have been on this site. It is quite an unusual business; it is an environmental business set up specifically with an environmental objective of promoting recycled paper. In fact, when we started there was, really, no one else doing it, and even now there are not that many. It is also unusual in that it is an employee-owned business, so again that makes it quite unusual. 17388. I think I am coming to this Committee mainly to have the opportunity to express our concern that in the whole process that was involved, I feel we have had no consultation from Crossrail. The first that I heard that the unit was going to be compulsorily purchased was, I think, on the Friday before the Tuesday morning by which the Petition had to be put in. Having no experience of this whole procedure, that was quite daunting in itself. 17389. We are a relatively small company; we do not have the resources to employ expensive barristers or surveyors to counter the arguments that are put forward on whether this shaft should be here or it should not be, but I just think we feel that we have been extremely unfairly treated in respect of the amount of discussion there was considering the length of time we have been at the premises. 17390. I think the other key point is that I have been advised that this scenario whereby we are being forced to move is not because Crossrail specifically needs our premises, it is just a case that they want to relocate someone else. It appears that our concerns and our interests have been relegated behind someone else's, and I cannot see why that should be the case. Whether it is politically correct to bring it up at this sort of meeting I do not know, but I feel there is a political element with regard to the local authority and their relationship with the travellers and relocation, and so on, and again I think we are unfortunately caught in the middle of this. Again, it just seems unfair. 17391. We have had no consultation; we are being forced to move because someone else has been put ahead of us. W are, I think, an important business; we are still the only business doing what we do in the UK. I think that is the best way I can put our case. 17392. KELVIN HOPKINS: Can I ask Mr Goshchalk to help me? I am sympathetic to your situation. Are you able to relocate somewhere else? Is it going to make your business more difficult, costly or is it the lack of consultation or failure to consult at an early stage that has mainly upset you? 17393. MR GOSHCHALK: I do not know the answer because we have not relocated. I think there are certain difficulties but they are not - if truth be told - insurmountable, but there are certain requirements of the business regarding the height of the unit and access for container lorries, and this sort of thing, as well as with distances that people have to travel to work, and that sort of thing. I do not think it is impossible but it is going to be difficult, and the last thing we want in an extremely competitive market. Although I have sold the case that we are an unique business and so on it is very hard to compete as a small player. Any additional costs that we incur will make life very difficult. So I am not sure about that, but I feel quite aggrieved that we had 48 hours' notice to put a Petition into a process that I know absolutely nothing about. I reiterate that. 17394. CHAIRMAN: One question, Mr Goshchalk. You said a "political" motivation re the council's plans for resettlement of the travelling community. Would you care to elaborate a little bit on that? 17395. MR GOSHCHALK: Well, I do not know any facts, it is just impression. Some people perceive that travellers are not ideal neighbours, so I suspect there is a certain sensitivity around the decision to relocate them, and if it could be done by moving them, effectively, 150 metres at our expense then that would avoid that sort of issue. 17396. CHAIRMAN: Just on the travellers: are you aware that other neighbours have also been contacted and, in fact, some of their concerns were about the travelling community themselves? You have given us a view which is a little bit different. 17397. MR GOSHCHALK: I do not know about that. 17398. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, we have received a Petition from the travelling residents' community and within that the Promoters have actually talked to other neighbours in the area about their concerns over the relationship with the settled travellers' community. You have not been contacted on that? 17399. MR GOSHCHALK: No. 17400. CHAIRMAN: Just on the other point: you say you only had 48 hours' notice; you never had anything before that at all. 17401. MR GOSHCHALK: We had various standard letters. There was one complete document which I think is the full, amended Bill in detail. I looked through that - I have not got a date in front of me - a good few weeks before, and I spent an evening looking through that. From what I could see there were no concerns from our point of view. I then got a letter from Crossrail earlier - a week on Friday - in which they came down to the site. I sat down with three gentlemen from Crossrail and they informed me that they thought it was going to be compulsorily purchased, which completely dumbfounded me. So I did ask them to go through the document and point out where, in the document, it indicated that that was the case. Quite frankly, after ten minutes they agreed it was impossible to point that out. 17402. CHAIRMAN: When you had the other pieces of communication some weeks earlier and the document which you said you received, did you not contact Crossrail and ask "What does this mean for us?" 17403. MR GOSHCHALK: I did not because reading through it there was clearly nothing to indicate that I should be concerned about anything. I had, in the meantime, actually been trying to contact our landlords, as it happens, to se what their view was, but they were not any clearer either. 17404. CHAIRMAN: So a lack of clarity. 17405. MR GOSHCHALK: There was nothing to give me any cause for concern on this. 17406. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould? 17407. MR MOULD: Sir, what I can say in relation to consultation is that a notice to owners, lessees and occupiers in relation to the additional provisions was dispatched to the Secretary of the Petitioner company on 9 May 2006. That was the day I think on which the notice was published in the newspapers. It was dispatched to the business address at Bow Triangle. Amongst other things, that notice drew attention to the fact that those affected by the proposed additional provisions for the Bow Triangle, which obviously included Paperback (and those three occupiers of one of the business units) had a period of, effectively, five weeks from that date within which to lodge their Petitions with this House. That was spelt out on the third page of that document. The schedule of properties to which those proposals related included the Paperback premises. They were noted in the schedule as one of the occupiers. So it was clear from that notice that (a) these were proposals that directly affected Paperback's occupation of their premises and (b) they had a period of five weeks from that point in which to make formal Petitions to this House. 17408. I can also say that in early June, June 7, of this year the head of operational property (?), as I understand it, wrote to the occupiers of the three business units individually indicating that he was proposing to visit the area with members of his team with a view to dealing with any concerns, questions and issues arising in relation to the relocation needs should the additional provisions find their way into the Bill. He mentioned he was proposing to have a visit to the site on 9 June, so a letter went to him on the 7th and he visited, as I understand it, two days later. 17409. So those are two points that I should bring before the Committee to indicate that matters were formally drawn to the Petitioner's attention and at that stage efforts were being made, as I understand it, to engage in relation to relocation requirements. Now, it is true to say that since that time responsible officers within the Promoter's organisation have been in correspondence with Messrs Montagu Evans, who are the chartered surveyors instructed to act on behalf of Paperback, and that correspondence is dealing with land compensation and relocation issues which have been raised by the company arising out of the additional provision proposals. That correspondence has been continued, as I understand it, and the issues have narrowed considerably to two or three points, important points, but nevertheless it is an indication that it was a fruitful and very constructive process and I think it is fair to say that we would expect that process to continue. As I understand it, Montagu Evans and those responsible within the Promoter's organisation are continuing to address those points. I note that the concerns raised by the Petitioner for which members of the Committee raised questions did not actually focus on those points, but they were concerned with the consultation process and also the perceived relegation of Paperback's interest to those of the travellers. Because I think Mr Hopkins did raise that concern and also yourself, I thought I should mention that that is going on. I can certainly ask Mr Smith to come and just explain what his understanding is of any difficulties in principle that might present themselves in relocating and assisting in relocating this occupier in conjunction with the Bill. 17410. CHAIRMAN: It has caused difficulties for us because it is not the first time that we are getting this lack of clarity. It is not really acceptable for someone to get a legal notice a couple of days before or an understanding of what that actually means a couple of days before. 17411. MR MOULD: What I cannot tell you is in detail about any consultation or attempts to notify the Petitioner before that, so I simply cannot say whether that was done or what was done, so I have to proceed on the basis that I rely on the notice and I cannot say any more than I have in relation to that. As I say, the notice is there and we have been in discussion with property advisers since then. I should make it clear that the notice makes it clear that the business end of the additional provisions is the acquisition of Paperback's property for the purpose of the scheme, so disposition and displacement of the business was clearly foreshadowed in that notice. 17412. CHAIRMAN: Mr Goshchalk, you have the last word. 17413. MR GOSHCHALK: It is sort of just my word, that someone came in from Crossrail and spent ten minutes looking through the document and this gentleman said that it was clear that we were going to have to move and he said to me, "No, you are absolutely right, there is nothing in here to indicate that is the case", which is what aggrieved me so much so as to follow this whole procedure through as much as anything. I think that is unfair and I would reiterate that it just seems again unfair that there is a major development project that we are having to move to accommodate not because of the project itself, but because someone else is moving along and you sort of think to yourself, "Well, where does that end? Perhaps we have got a case and maybe someone else can move along a bit". It just feels that you are being treated second-rate compared to other people really. 17414. CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very much indeed. 17415. MR MOULD: I think I ought to put this notice before the Committee. 17416. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to conclude by saying that we will accept Mr Goshchalk's evidence and take it all into consideration, but could you provide the Committee with a copy of the legal notice so that we can examine that in due course. 17417. MR MOULD: We can certainly do that. 17418. CHAIRMAN: The Committee will now adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 am. |