Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7620
- 7639)
7620. Chairman: Yes, we will break until
ten to 12.
After a short break
7621. Chairman: Mr Elvin?
7622. Mr Elvin: I only have a few questions
for Mr McCollum.
Cross-examined by Mr Elvin
7623. Mr Elvin: Mr McCollum, can I just
get the timescales clear. It has been mentioned both by Mr Jones
and by yourself the point about Woolwich being removed from the
Crossrail scheme. Can I just clarify two things: firstly, that
Woolwich was never part of the original Crossrail scheme in the
early 1990s, was it?
(Mr McCollum): Sir, I am going to have to defer
to people better qualified to talk about the exact history of
when Woolwich was out, when Woolwich was in and when Woolwich
was out of that, so I am sorry, I will try to help if you would
like me to, but I do think there are people better able to answer
that than I am.
7624. The point being that the original Crossrail
in the early 1990s did not go south of the river, did it?
(Mr McCollum): All I would say to that is I
am not quite sure what the original Crossrail was. Crossrail has
been talked about for a very long time in different forms and
there have been different routes attached to it, but, as I say,
there are people more specialist in this area than me.
7625. Mr McCollum, you raised the point, so
forgive me if I just pursue it a little bit further. The scheme
that was assessed in the Crossrail business case and which went
for review by Adrian Montague, who reported in 2004, the benchmark
scheme, which formed the core of the Crossrail business case which
Mr Montague accepted, did not include Woolwich either, did it?
(Mr McCollum): Again I cannot answer that.
What I can say is that at times Woolwich has been included, or
at least that has been our understanding, but the exact moments
of inclusion and exclusion, I am sorry, I will have to leave it
to others.
7626. You will forgive me, but I just wanted
to correct any misapprehension that Woolwich was somehow removed
at the time the Bill came out. The Bill, following the benchmark
scheme, did not include Woolwich and the scheme, as assessed by
Adrian Montague, did not include Woolwich and we can see that
if we go to Promoter Exhibit 029.[30]
This is the benchmark scheme in the Montague Report. Could we
zoom in on the benchmark diagram please. You will see there, if
we look at the south-eastern limb of Crossrail as it is in the
Bill scheme, there is the Custom House Station and following that
the Abbey Wood Station, and clearly the benchmark scheme went
much further into Kent than the Bill scheme, but Woolwich was
not part of that benchmark.
(Mr McCollum): It is not there,
sir, that is clear.
7627. As I say, Mr McCollum, I just want to
get it clear that Woolwich was not removed at a late stage; it
was never part of the benchmark scheme assessed.
(Mr McCollum): No, but I think it was at times
part of the scheme, but, as I say, I can say no more on that,
I am sorry.
7628. You mentioned it, so I thought I had better
clarify it. Secondly, I want to ask you about the comparison with
the north Greenwich Peninsula. Before the Jubilee Line extension
to the north Greenwich Peninsula, there was no station at all
in, or close to, the heart of the Peninsula, was there?
(Mr McCollum): That is absolutely so.
7629. The Greenwich DLR Station is some distance
away to the west on the Peninsula. It is in the historic part
of Greenwich, is it not?
(Mr McCollum): It is, yes.
7630. In Woolwich, on the contrary, the DLR
station which, as I understand it, opens in 2009; is that right?
(Mr McCollum): Yes.
7631. That is in the heart of the Woolwich town
centre, as is the Woolwich mainline station which exists already?
(Mr McCollum): Yes.
7632. So in terms of that as a parallel, the
north Greenwich Peninsula is quite different?
(Mr McCollum): The circumstances of the two
developments are different, and I make no other contention to
that. The mainline station, the overground railway, North Kent
line in Woolwich has been there for a very long time and there
was, in that sense, therefore, a major transport infrastructure,
if that is what it is, at a time of one of the most dramatic declines
of any urban area of London, so that was there then and it is
still there now. The Docklands Light Railway, as I referred to
in my evidence earlier, is very, very important to us and we have
worked very, very hard to support it, and the Docklands Light
Railway forms part of our Woolwich Regeneration Agency Board and
so on, but it is a different sort of transportation. It is quite
different and my contention again is that there will be more specialist
transport planners and regeneration people to whom these questions
can be put, but taking the overview of this from where I stand,
having been involved in the regeneration of this town for many,
many years, is that the kind of step change that would be achieved
would be comparable, but the circumstances of regeneration of
north Greenwich and Woolwich are certainly different, and I would
not claim otherwise.
7633. I just want to explore two other differences
with you. Riverside frontage is important, is it not, in terms
of attracting residential development? You get premium prices
for development along the river?
(Mr McCollum): Yes, I would certainly agree
with that.
7634. And the north Greenwich Peninsula has,
by virtue of its nature, there being a loop in the river with
the Peninsula there, a significantly greater amount of riverside
frontage than is available in Woolwich town centre?
(Mr McCollum): Well, it is a peninsula. I have
not measured the two, but it is a peninsula and, therefore, I
suppose it has a higher ratio of river frontage. I would not claim
that the same land values would be secured in Woolwich as would
be secured on the Greenwich Peninsula and they certainly have
not been in the past. There is, however, a very substantial river
frontage at Woolwich. It is on the river, it is a town on the
river and it is, therefore, unique in the Thames Gateway, being
a town on the river. River frontage creates value, but being part
of a town also creates value and the circumstances, I think we
are all agreed, are different, but it is possible to draw some
parallels. I am sure the ratio of river frontage to land would
be less in Woolwich, but there is substantial land in Woolwich,
particularly just to the west of Woolwich town centre which is
still largely undeveloped.
7635. Mr McCollum, all I am picking up is that
you were seeking, in trying to rebut something I said in my initial
remarks, to draw parallels with the significant growth of north
Greenwich and I am just exploring it briefly with you because
it may have implications later with parallels. The next one I
want to draw your attention to is that, as you have made clear,
the north Greenwich Peninsula is in relatively few ownerships,
is it not? It has been organised so that there are significant
areas under the control of one or a group of developers?
(Mr McCollum): That is so. One of the advantages
it had of course was that it was almost all owned by British Gas,
so it was almost in its entirety passed to English Partnerships.
7636. That is in contrast with the centre of
Woolwich which is in a diversity of fragmented ownerships which
is an issue which has to be overcome in carrying out development?
(Mr McCollum): Not entirely, no. Woolwich is
a very interesting town centre. There are some small ownerships,
so to that extent I have to agree that there is a diversity of
ownerships there, but in practice almost the entire town centre
is in the ownership of two institutions. One is called Powis Street
Estates, which virtually owns the whole of the high street, and
the other is the London Borough of Greenwich, which are the two
main landowners in Greenwich. I do not have a percentage. It is
unusual; it is not fragmented ownership. There is a simplicity
of ownership in Woolwich, almost certainly the Powis Street Estates
and the simplicity of the commercial ownership going back to the
strength of the Royal Arsenal Cooperative movement from which
much of the retail is driven.
7637. One of the key drivers, if not the key
driver really in Woolwich, is residential regeneration, is it
not?
(Mr McCollum) Yes.
7638. And one of the problems that you face
in Woolwich is regenerating the large estates of social housing
which are not up to standard and which require renewal.
(Mr McCollum) That is so.
7639. One of the issues that you face with those
is decanting tenants, getting tenants to vote on new schemes and
getting agreement before those schemes can go ahead? You require
the tenants to participate and to agree to the Council's proposals
because they have to be moved?
(Mr McCollum) I take issue with the last part
of that, sir. This is a complicated area because we are not talking
about transferring tenancy to a different landlord necessarily
in this. What we are doing is paralleling what the council is
doing in a place called the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke. The Ferrier
Estate in Kidbrooke, which I mentioned in my evidence, is a council
estate of 1900 dwellings, to which the council is working towards
demolition and complete renewal, with all those wishing to be
rehoused being rehoused. So it is not a transfer of landlord/tenancy
arrangements, such as are prescribed through processes of tenant
consultation, though of course there will be extensive tenant
consultation. All the tenant consultation to date, I have to say,
have been that, "We want better houses."
30 Crossrail Ref: P77, Crossrail Review, Evaluation
of the CLRL benchmark scheme, Montague Report, p8 (GRCHLB-3604-029). Back
|
