Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4200
- 4219)
4200. Just to correct you, Mr Winbourne, I did
say that the materials which had been sent had not been explained
and arrived very late and I asked for that to be changed. I was
not stating there had been anything else. Certainly the latest
reasoning of my criticism and of Members of the Committee was
that the latest drawings arrived very late. I just want that on
the record.
(Mr Winbourne) Sorry, I did not mean to put
words in your mouth by any means. From my perspective, if there
are ongoing alterations which are being considered by the Crossrail
team with regard to adjacent property which materially affect
our property—and this has been going on for several weeks—if
it was possible to get an email to us the day before today's hearing,
stating, "Here is a plan showing your proposals", it
would have been possible to say, "We are now looking at underpinning
38", if that is indeed what the suggestion is. Certainly
there has been no cost-benefit analysis provided to us, which
seems reasonable with a reasonable proposal like this that is
sustainable, although it may not, in your view, be desirable,
and in our view obviously because it ceases the necessary confiscation
of our property. Lastly, because I think I have said enough on
those points, I would like to move on to the question of compensation.
As Mr Smith agreed, Mr Goodman is below a blight notice. A blight
notice limit is £29,200; I know the figures and the rateable
value for Mr Goodman's premises is £44,250. As a result,
there is a difference of value there. The blight notice limit
does not take into account the fact that there is a difference
in London as to what a small property is and a small bar is as
opposed to perhaps a provincial town, maybe Staines or somewhere,
for example. Here we have a small independent operator who could
be delayed from receiving any of this so-called compensation.
I say "so-called" because it is compensation but it
is compensation when the arresting declaration is served on the
property, it is not before. With a band of £30,000 in London,
it will leave a lot of people like Mr Goodman hanging in there.
4201. I well understand that, Mr Winbourne,
but it is not within the parameters of this Committee to change
that guideline. That guideline is laid down by statute by Parliament.
It is not within the remit of our inquiry as a Committee to change
that. I think you have made your point.
(Mr Winbourne) Okay, so briefly to summarise:
the question mark initially in my mind is the change in the Thameslink
2000 situation brought Mr Goodman's property within the Crossrail
CPO project. If that situation is altered then is there a need
for us to be here, do they still need the property? Secondly,
looking at the alternative costs of decanting—the nicest
way of putting it—Mr Goodman and the offices above, the
three floors which are all occupied and the compensation both
for the property itself, which is, in my opinion, going to be
a minimum of a couple of million pounds for the property before
you take into account the disturbance of all of the individual
occupiers with regard to finding alternative premises. That I
would say is unlikely to find something which is going to produce,
cherry-picked in this case, in view of the fact I think they always
quote that three-in-one new restaurant businesses which, effectively,
would, if moved to a new location, fail in the first year. I think
it is food for thought. Essentially we would like the Select Committee
to ask for cost-benefit analysis to be put into this alternative
suggestion and also to question mark the need and timetabling
with the Thameslink 2000.
4202. Just to ask you a question, there is a
`To Let' sign in the picture.[19]
(Mr Winbourne) There are three
names on there, I cannot tell if there is anyone in there at the
moment.
4203. Mr Goodman: Mr Winbourne, there
is an implication that Crossrail should do whatever possible not
to demolish buildings unnecessarily. Given the alternative suggestion
we made, which has been worked up into an approximate scheme,
although it will add 48 metres to the escape distance, it does
not, as I understand, contravene any escape distance criteria.
That is hearsay, and Mr Berryman has told me that, so it is not
illegal, it is just that the code has suggested it should be as
short as possible. So it does not contravene that. Given that
the scheme is workable and the extra 48 metres does not contravene
any regulations, is it your view that Crossrail are willing to
investigate this proposal in any depth or are they saying, as
they seem to be suggesting, it will not succeed and it will carry
on to demolish the building?
(Mr Winbourne) I think what is
clear is that we would appear to have before us a hastily prepared
representation without any costs attached to it in response to
Mr Goodman's proposal for an alternative exit. There has been
no pragmatic consultation about the scheme so there does not appear
to be a willingness to consider a reasonable alternative here.
4204. Mr Goodman: I have no further questions.
4205. Chairman: Thank you. Ms Lieven?
Cross-examined by Ms
Lieven
4206. Ms Lieven: Can I have up our exhibit
number seven?[20]
This is in respect of the parking attendant's hut that you referred
to. You referred to that as being a structure in the square. That
hut is two metres by two metres, I understand. Does that sound
right to you?
(Mr Winbourne) Yes.
4207. So a square metreage of four square metres.
At the headhouse structure, according to Mr Berryman, it would
need to be seven metres by 11 metres, so a square metreage of
77 square metres, something like 20 times bigger. Is that your
understanding?
(Mr Winbourne) I measure things all day long
and you are asking me to look at that objectively. I would say
it has got to be about a car's length, would you not? We have
had quoted that as being about 3.6 metres in length, not two by
two, so we are talking about double a car's length, which was
seven metres for the ticket hall. We are looking at something
maybe four times the size.
4208. Ms Lieven: Just for the Committee's
information—I do not want to get too stuck into this—Mr
Berryman visited last night and stepped out the size of that hut.
We are not saying it is exact but that is the basis for the question
I have just asked you. I think the Committee has all the information
it needs. I am not intending to ask anything else.
4209. Mr Goodman: Just one minor point.
It was alleged that the question of an alternative location for
the staircase was only brought to Crossrail's notice in the last
week. Might I say I had a meeting with Crossrail staff before
Christmas last year and at that point I put forward our suggestion
that rather than knocking down this building which we occupy it
would be better served in Charterhouse Square where you are only
confiscating some car parking spaces and a portion of the road.
The answer I got was it would destroy the amenity of Charterhouse
Square and they could not really consider that.
4210. Chairman: Was that verbal or in
writing?
4211. Mr Goodman: It was verbal. The
question of us suggesting this location has been around for two
to three months and, therefore, coming up to attend the Select
Committee, as we are doing now, I cannot see what other point
we would make other than to bring this point up. It is not within
your remit to discuss compensation, therefore the only thing it
could possibly be would be the question of relocating this into
Charterhouse Square. I just raise that as clarification.
4212. Chairman: That is two valid points
you make there. Do you have any more questions for Mr Winbourne?
4213. Ms Lieven: No, thank you.
The witness withdrew
4214. Ms Lieven: I will close now, sir,
in very short terms. The starting point for what you have to consider
is the degree of concern about demolishing the building in question.
It is perfectly plain from the photograph that the building has
no architectural merit whatsoever. I appreciate that does not
mean much to Mr Goodman but in conservation terms, looking at
the balance, there is simply nothing on the conservation side
in terms of preserving that balance. As Mr Anderson told you,
the Environmental Statement assesses it as having a negative impact
on the conservation area and in my submission that is the right
assessment. Perhaps more importantly, neither the City Corporation,
who are the freeholders, nor Islington, who are the local planning
authority, has raised any concern about the demolition of that
building. Of course, the Committee is very aware that Islington
are greatly concerned about the demolition of the building next
door, so they have assessed this area and they know which building
they wish to see retained. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest
that a new building on that site could be a significant enhancement
to the conservation area there.
4215. The proposed alternative that Mr Goodman
puts forward is, in my submission, significantly worse both in
passenger safety and design terms and also in environmental terms.
There is the significantly longer emergency passage which if one
takes the midpoint of the Crossrail platforms is adding a very
significant percentage to the journey length of somebody trying
to escape from that part of the platform. That is a very important
consideration to the Promoters. In my submission it is highly
undesirable to extend emergency escape lengths unless there is
an overwhelming fact on the other side of the balance: that you
are protecting an important building in other words or some other
important consideration. There is also the point that Mr Berryman
made that it is not just that you have this additional 48 metres
but the escapee, and it is necessary to put oneself into the situation
that such a person would be in—hopefully they never would
be—is being forced to move quickly towards a blind corner,
which is not a desirable layout, to put it mildly.
4216. In terms of the environmental considerations
above ground, the proposal comes out in a very important protected
London square with a large number of listed buildings, including
a very large Grade I listed building. If I can just remind the
Committee that the railings themselves are listed, a point that
Mr Winbourne did not seem to appreciate. Even if you put a headhouse
structure closer to the main road, thereby taking it away from
some of the listed buildings, you then impact all the more greatly
on the listed railings.
4217. The headhouse structure, however designed,
is going to be a very prominent structure there and, in my submission,
highly intrusive and large. You can see the parking attendant's
hut just at the corner of that photograph and Mr Winbourne highlighting
that was quite useful to see as a scale of magnitude. Whether
or not Mr Berryman has got the scale absolutely right, we are
talking about something in the region of four square metres going
up to something in the region of 77 square metres, a big increase
at a very sensitive location.
4218. Finally, on compensation: obviously this
is not the place to discuss, let alone try to assess, compensation
in detail but equally I am sure the Committee would want to have
its mind set at rest that people in the position of Mr Goodman
will get acceptable compensation. You have heard the evidence
of Mr Smith. He will be fully compensated on the basis of the
business as a going concern. If he does not wish to relocate for
his own reasons then he will still receive compensation and that
compensation, perhaps importantly, will take into account the
investment that he has put into the property both up to now and
during a period when he did not know Crossrail was coming and
after that up to the point where he gets the CPO. That will all
be eligible for compensation.
4219. In the light of Mr Winbourne's comments
about Thameslink 2000, of course to some extent one has to feel
for owners/occupiers, such as Mr Goodman, who unlike those whose
properties were affected way back to the early 1990s, the news
that their property is going to be affected has come very late
in the day. I am afraid that is simply an unalterable consequence
of changes that have taken place to Thameslink 2000. We have to
provide an emergency shaft and it is unfortunate for Mr Goodman
but there is no escaping that.
19 Crossrail Ref: P54, Photograph of 38-42 Charterhouse
Street (ISLNLB-22504-002). Back
20
Crossrail Ref: P54, Photograph of Charterhouse Square; Gates
and Hut (ISLNLB-22504-007). Back
|
