Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4080
- 4099)
4080. Chairman: Can I say, do not worry
about what you have to say, we now have the knowledge, Ms Lieven,
about the position but when this is raised later on, if you want
to cross-examine any witness that may be called, you may do that.
Mr Goodman?
4081. Mr Goodman: Thank you. I appear
as a Director of Springdene Ltd, and I am accompanied by a professional
adviser, Mr James Winbourne, here a chartered surveyor who will
give objective oral evidence as may be required and whose written
advice to us, that is to Springdene Ltd, is attached to these
notes. I have, Chairman, supplied 15 copies of these notes with
the attachments already to Mr David Walker this morning. The Committee
should also note that although I am a corporate member of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, I am not appearing in an engineering
capacity as I have not been practising as a professional civil
engineer for over 30 years, I am a touch rusty on that.
4082. By way of background to the business that
we are in, we formed the company in 1997 to find suitable premises
in this general area from which we could trade as a drinks and
food operation. The ground floor and basement of 40-42 Charterhouse
Street were identified as suitable premises as they had conditional
planning permission for a change of use from shop and storage
to A3, which was the ability to be able to serve food and drink.
They were well located in the Smithfield area where the outlet
might be amongst the first to offer this type of service. In addition,
the premises were located opposite one of the Crossrail stations,
so we were told, that if the project ever went ahead, that would
further enhance our location. The premises, however, were dilapidated
and could not obtain the A3 usage until substantial refurbishment
was carried out including the renewal of all services, the installation
of heating and ventilation in the basement, the tanking of the
walls in the basement to prevent ingress of water, and, of course,
the change to the interior layout to provide for its new usage
as a drinks and food operation.
4083. All necessary searches were carried out
by our solicitors with particular reference to any effect that
the Crossrail project might have on the premises. Apart from local
authority notification that the space beneath the building was
reserved and safeguarded for any tunnelling works that Crossrail
might need to do, they were no other obstacles or reservations
which could endanger our business in the future. Accordingly,
a business lease was entered in to on 19 January 1998 for a term
of 25 years such that it will expire on 18 January 2023. The company's
substantial refurbishment works were then set in motion and a
sum of over £250,000 was spent to replace all the services,
install ventilation, put tanking works in the basement and to
refurbish the two floors such that the drinks and food operation
could be offered on both floors. The bar opened in June 1998 under
the name of Fluid to sell alcoholic drinks and oriental food and
to provide live music on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays with
a late licence on those days until 2am which has now been changed
until 4am. In order to prevent the use of the name by others an
application was also made to the trademarks registry at the Patent
Office to trademark the name and this was subsequently granted
on 29 March 1999 for a period initially of ten years but renewal
for further periods of ten years. Fluid has become well known
and successful even after other competitive outlets opened in
the general area and has continued this success through to the
present time.
4084. Chairman, that is by way of background
as opposed to finding premises which are already fitted out for
A3 usage in which we would have to just paint and redecorate,
we had to substantially transform the storage building which would
not work in the basement, that was not allowed in to one where
we could offer our service to both sides. A large sum of money
was spent on that in that regard as opposed to moving into more
or less suitable premises for A3 usage. The effect of the rate
changes to the Crossrail project, it was not until we received
a letter dated 18 February 2005 from Terraquest Solutions PLC
that we were informed officially that the Crossrail project, far
from only having the effects of tunnelling on the company's premises
would now have a much more profound effect requiring the total
demolition and the compulsory purchase of Lindsay House for the
Bill. In effect, this would now bring about the destruction and
the total extinguishment of our business.
4085. We have had no direct experience of such
Bills in Parliament or of compulsory purchase orders but from
information, from various chartered surveyors known to us previously,
and our present advisers, we believe that the process could take
at least three years before any real negotiations could begin.
With this uncertain timing of the project and the uncertain timing
of the compulsory purchase negotiations, the matter of further
capital expenditure by our business that in the normal course
we would need to make to keep the business fresh and ahead of
the competition, will now be very difficult to address and we
believe our business is now blighted, although it appears that
we are outside the official blight notice limits, albeit just
above. We were also led to believe that with the recent award
of the Olympic Games to London it might take even longer as the
games have a fixed deadline of 2012 whereas Crossrail, to the
best of my knowledge, does not. Therefore, if there is any question
of priorities, then in our view the games will always take precedence.
Accordingly, we believed we had no option other than to petition
Parliament against this measure which was submitted on 16 September
2005.
4086. We received the Promoter's response document
to our Petition and we read carefully their responses and we comment
as follows; we questioned in our Petition why the very late changes
were necessary such as the whole of the island site comprising
38 Charterhouse Street and 40-42 Charterhouse Street building,
both of which were not under any sort of threat prior to 2005
should now be targeted for demolition purely and simply to accommodate
the relocation of escape stairs from the platforms below. We also
pointed out that both of the buildings were within the Charterhouse
conservation area and therefore given the general character and
appearance of the area, demolition should only be carried out,
in our view, where absolutely necessary. The Promoter's response
was to state that although escape stairs are normally formed within
the ticket hall infrastructure, they could not do so in this case
if the ticket hall is off the line of the Crossrail platforms,
and, hence, the island site comprising of 38 and 40-42 Charterhouse
Street offered the closest feasible distance from the platform
ends. Against this, we would now assert that this reasoning does
not sufficiently address the overall policies that buildings of
note, within the conservation area, should only be demolished
as a last resort and we believe that not enough investigation
has been carried out to avoid this outcome. Therefore, in the
next part of this representation, we indicate one possible alternative
site for the escape stairs in Charterhouse Square requiring no
demolition whatsoever, of course, there may be others. Our view,
therefore, is that not enough investigation has been carried out
by the Promoter to avoid the demolition of two worthy buildings
within the conservation area.
4087. We understand that concurrent objections
have been made by our superior landlord, and local authority,
the City of London. The effects of these changes on Springdene
and our business and a sudden change in our security of tenure
in 2005, has suddenly put a blight on our business because we
have no idea how long we will have to wait before we can begin
negotiations on compensation nor do we have any idea on how much,
or more likely, how little this compensation will be. As before,
we are advised that a blight purchase notice cannot lie.
4088. Our premises after some seven to eight
years of operation are now in need of refurbishment, and we had
already undertaken business planning to determine the extent and
the cost of such a capital expenditure prior to the news of compulsory
purchase threat. Our plans for refurbishment have now had to be
halted for the time being. As indicated earlier in this presentation,
the shareholders in Springdene have invested over £250,000
into the business and, although we have a successful business,
we could have reasonably expected this business to continue throughout
the remaining 17 years of our lease. Therefore, to invest further
money into the business now, when we cannot be sure how long it
will be until we are compensated or how much that compensation
will be, is a very difficult decision for the board of Springdene
to make. Clearly, some investment improvements will have to be
made to avoid the business closing down.
4089. Therefore, we put a proposal to the Committee.
Under the present proposal, Springdene cannot enjoy the benefits
of its leasehold interest in 40-42 Charterhouse Street, which
it reasonably could have expected over its remaining 17 years
of this lease. In our view, there seems to be a very suitable
alternative location for the escape stairs and that is within
the vehicular and car park around Charterhouse Square. Now there
was a slide that I put up, that is it, you will see on the slide
on the right-hand side the triangular building with brown opposite,
opposite the ticket hall which is there and we have suggested
in our line that the alternative location could be where it is
shown in green.[3]
This location for the escape stairs is, in effect, closer to the
ticket hall than the present one and, as it involves simply the
confiscation of a part of the Smithfield Market ringroad which,
in any case, cannot at present exit on to the main road and a
number of car parking spaces, we believe it is worthy of further
investigation.
4090. I now call up the next slide which is
photographs; I think you have seen these already. The top slide
is taken from the main road outside, the extension of Charterhouse
Street, and you will see the white van on the right-hand side.[4]
There I have taken a photograph showing the little guard hut on
the right and that white van. Now, we are not giving exact mention
as to the location as to where it should be, but it seems to me
reasonable common sense that if we were to simply erect escape
stairs in that area, it would not have any significant detrimental
effect on the square. After all, during working hours—this
was taken on a Sunday morning—that space is full of cars
and it is very difficult get a parking space in there. It would
be, as it were, a canopy coming up from below with stairs where
people could exit and exit straight onto the main road outside.
Whilst this location is nearer to the ticket hall than the present
one, we do understand that from the platform level below, which
we see here on the right-hand side of the yellow area which is
the platform end is the top part, you will see a dotted circle,
that is the shaft going up into 40-42 Charterhouse Street.[5]
It abuts number 38 Charterhouse Street which the Promoter did
suggest might give engineering problems for subsequent underpinning
and in his response to us he said, "In any case, we need
further working area". That building is a flatiron building
which they did say earlier was worthy of retention. It is very
difficult to see our location on that, but you will see I have
marked on "Extent Platform Length" or "Tunnel Through"
from the end of the platform to that location in Charterhouse
Street. The distance is roughly, there was a scale on the plan
given to me, some 50 metres. We believe that with a little bit
of effort and will we could have escape stairs located where we
park cars during the week and we could retain two buildings, one
of which is worthy of retention, so we said, and our building
which does house our business which we take very much to heart
as being valuable. As I have made clear, we are not practising
engineers, but we do believe with an effort and will a solution
to this problem could be found and given that the more suitable
location, in our view, for the escape stairs at ground floor level,
the demolition of two buildings within the conservation area could
be avoided. We are not equipped to carry out a detailed investigation
or a resultant cost-benefit analysis of this proposal, but we
are advised that Crossrail's engineers are expected to investigate
and evaluate objectively all reasonable schemes and all partial
mitigation proposals. Common sense to us suggests that one should
try to avoid the environmental disturbance and heavy compensation
that would be payable for demolishing two buildings within the
Charterhouse conservation area, one of which the Promoters themselves
suggest is worthy of saving. Furthermore, it would seem to us
that there would be very little compensation for a portion of
an employers' row and some carpark spaces, and this substitution
and mitigation, if agreed, should be beneficial to the Promoter
to those involved in the demolition of two buildings, to those
in those buildings and to London generally. We anticipate that
Crossrail may be reluctant to look at further re-design and in
all my dealings with Crossrail, or in several dealings I have
had with Crossrail, it was made fairly clear that they did not
believe that there was any suitable alternative other than 40-42
Charterhouse Street. We anticipate they may be reluctant to look
at further re-design and therefore we urge the Committee to accept
our proposal for an entirely objective investigation to take place,
both of our proposal and/or of any location that might just avoid
the demolition of two buildings worthy of retention and remove
a blight on our business and that of others within the two buildings.
Therefore, we propose to the Committee that an investigation,
either by Crossrail or, preferably, by an independent body be
carried out to investigate the following: the design implications
of relocating the escape stairs in Charterhouse Square or any
other suitable location, such that the island site of both 38
and 40-42 Charterhouse Street is removed from total compulsory
purchase and demolition under the Crossrail Bill; and, secondly,
that if a stairs and passages can be relocated satisfactorily
in a physical sense, as we believe, that a cost-benefit analysis
and comparison for the proposed relocation should be undertaken.
4091. Chairman, I prepared this presentation,
and up to yesterday it was still being revised. Late yesterday
afternoon I received by email the attachments which have been
circulated here. I know who it was from, but there was no wording,
no text, nothing to indicate to us what they were or whether they
would be presented today or anything. It was just a pure plank
email with some attachments. When we looked at the attachments,
we could see—I think, to our bit of joy at that stage that—yes,
it could be relocated in Charterhouse Square, although there would
be some extra tunneling needed to do so. Conveniently, they put
the escape stairs right in the middle of that road opposite the
RBS building entrance rather than to one side.
4092. Mr Binley: Forgive me, these are
the attachments?
4093. Mr Goodman: Those are what I received
late yesterday afternoon by email, with no notification of what
the purpose of sending them to me was.
4094. Mr Binley: Thank you. I know now
what we are talking about. My apologies.
4095. Mr Goodman: You will see the last
two attachments, after the photograph of the building, which you
see there, do show a tunnel possible from the end of platform
through into Charterhouse Square. There a rather alarming S there;
I am not sure exactly sure what that S is on the right-hand side
of that picture. We could only deduce that from that that, yes,
this was a doable proposal if accepted; where I have said to you
on the top-right picture you will see the staircase coming out
of the middle of the road, that does not make any sense to us.[6]
We would move it down, so it came out on the main road. Now I
understand these proposals will be referred to by Crossrail this
morning, but I just want to make the point I have received them
without any notification. It would have been courteous, polite
and quite sensible to have said, "These are the attachments
that will be presented at the hearing tomorrow". If I had
not been in my office at that time, I probably would not have
got them, so they would be fresh.
4096. In conclusion, I thank the hon Select
Committee for its patience and for giving us the opportunity to
present our considerable concerns at this relatively new Crossrail
revision which affects us so drastically. Chairman, thank you.
4097. Chairman: Mr Goodman, do you want
to call your witness?
4098. Mr Binley: Chairman, can I ask
a couple of questions which appear to me to be relevant. I find
it slightly disturbing that your paper, through no fault of your
own, is based not on information that is up to date, quite frankly,
because we have clearly had discussion about the building that
you referred to, the older building at the apex of the group you
are talking about. I wonder through you, Chairman, whether we
can know why that information was not sent to you at the time
it became known to this body, because it seems to me to be particularly
relevant to the case you are making. It seems your case is slightly
changed because that information was not sent to you, and I do
not understand that. The second point I would like an explanation
of at this stage is why these were sent to you not saying where
they came from, because they are relevant too, it seems, to your
case, and we need to know both answers to both of those questions
before it seems sensible to proceed.
4099. Chairman: Mr Goodman, I just want
to finish. I think it is true to say that you reflect on both
of those questions?
3 Committee Ref: A48, Farringdon Station Street Level
Plan (ISLNLB-22505-001). Back
4
Committee Ref: A48, Petitioners photographs of alternative location
(ISLNLB-22505-003). Back
5
Committee Ref: A48, Diagram of alternative intervention site
location (ISLNLB-22505-002). Back
6
Crossrail Ref: P54, 3 plans: Farringdon station escape shaft
(circular); Springdene proposal (ISLNLB-22504-003). Back
|
