Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8620
- 8639)
8620. Later in the debate the Minister, Mr Twigg,
went on to say that the Secretary of State made it clear on several
occasions that he expects the Select Committee to be able to consider
representations about and objections to the route. If the Select
committee believes the objections have merit it can report them
to the House. He also said a little later that if the Select Committee
thinks that it cannot consider any matter that it judges to have
merit the Government are prepared to consider the terms of the
Instruction, so that the House will have every opportunity to
properly discuss the Bill.
8621. So I think, Mr Elvin, it is right to remind
us of the constraints but it is clear from what was said in the
debate that if the Committee do have a view on the merits of this,
or indeed other Petitions, we do have some options for expressing
them. I hope that is helpful.
8622. Mr Hopkins: I wonder if I might
have some clarification on that, because Mr Elvin made a very
strong case that extending to Ebbsfleet would undermine or override
the principle of the Bill and the decision made on second reading.
However, in other areas we have discussed possible variations
for the route into central London and we have talked about extra
stations and these were apparently not outside the principle of
the decision taken on second reading. I just wonder is there a
very clear dividing line between what is a matter of principle
and what is not a matter of principle in changing the route or
extending routes? If either or any one of you—
8623. Sir Peter Soulsby: I would suggest
it might not be appropriate for us to pursue that at this stage.
I do think, actually, that the Committee may well wish to consider
this in private in the very near future. It was discussed at some
length in the debate and, indeed, a number of Members did raise
whether particular issues, Ebbsfleet and others, could be considered,
and I think it would be helpful for us to look again at the Instructions
and look at what the Minister said in response.
8624. Mr Elvin: Can I say briefly that
I understand completely your desire for that discussion to be
kept within the Committee in private session. Firstly, sir, I
hope it has not been understood that I am suggesting to the Committee
that it has no options; I merely say that the options really go
in a particular way. Secondly, we will address this, if that will
help, in a little more detail when we come to do our main closing.
8625. Sir Peter Soulsby: I am sure that
will be helpful when we get to that, Mr Elvin. I did indicate
in my earlier remarks that you were quite right, and indeed are
quite right, to remind us.
8626. Mr Elvin: Thank you very much.
8627. Sir Peter Soulsby: In that case,
we adjourn now until six o'clock.
Adjourned until 6 pm
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
The Petition of David Waterman
The Petition of I Waterman (Box Makers) Limited
The Petition of The A A Waterman Trust
The Petition of Alberon Securities Limited
The Petition of the Executor of A A Waterman
The Petition of the Trustees of I Waterman Pension
Limited
Mr David Waterman appeared as Agent
8628. Chairman: Mr Waterman, will you
be making six separate representations or one?
8629. Mr Waterman: I represent, as Director,
Trustee and Executor, all together.
8630. Chairman: That is extremely helpful.
8631. Mr Waterman: And, probably, a lot
quicker!
8632. Chairman: Mr Elvin, is it you or
Mr Taylor?
8633. Mr Elvin: It is me. We are going
to do a double act this evening but I will just introduce the
various Petitions 55 to 60. Sir, the various, if I can call them
that, Waterman Petitions all raise the same point: they relate
to a group of properties which are owned and occupied variously
by the Petitioners, and they are just off the Mile End Road in
the East End.[102]
You can see the properties highlighted in a beige colour; they
are properties in Redman's Road, London E1 and Assembly Passage.
The basic complaint by the Petitioner is that the tunnels for
Crossrail—and you can see them outlined and how they interact
under the properties—will have an effect on the development
or redevelopment potential of their properties. That is the basic
concern.
8634. Chairman: Mr Waterman, would you
like to open the case?
8635. Mr Waterman: Mr Chairman, and Committee
Members, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to
speak. As the gentleman explained, collectively all these properties
together actually form the site for I Waterman Box Makers, which
is a manufacturing, as the name implies, box business. I see you
have got one of my boxes here today!
8636. The principal issue is that this is a
very old industrial area and the company has been there for a
considerable period of time. Because of the density of residential
around the area it actually is becoming increasingly difficult
to operate as a manufacturing business in the existing area, and
it has always been the view that the company, at the right time,
would actually want to move. Now, when this first came to light,
first of all, we were told it was not going to happen but then
it became absolutely clear that the two tunnels were going to
be coming underneath the building. What it does immediately is
put a shadow over the whole site in that whatever potential ability
we have to move it would obviously reduce the overall value of
the building, whether it is as an industrial site or as a potential
residential redevelopment. If it is an industrial site for someone
to eventually move into, they have got to buy into the fact that
there could be potential issues of subsidence in the site and
I think, probably, certainly at the moment, very big problems
in terms of local disruption as a result of the overall Crossrail
development.
8637. If this was to be a residential development
I think it would probably become even more acute because, clearly,
the Crossrail guidelines have stated that we would not able to
add any additional ways on to the site. Therefore, whatever potential
developments were to take place it would have to be within the
confines of what exists, which is simply just a two-storey building.
Additionally, the costs incurred in this site would be greater
as a result of the Crossrail development taking place.
8638. The problem that we face is that it has
severely restricted the ability of us and the actual individual
properties to be sold on the open market in the same way as adjoining
properties that are not restrained in this way, other than from
the point of view of the local disruption, because we are actually
very close to what would be the new Whitechapel Station, which
again does actually add, from a local traffic point of view, another
quite considerable factor. In that particular tight area of London
there is a huge amount of redevelopment going on, as we all know,
for the sort of next seven or eight years.
8639. So, for our part, it is very much restricting
the ability for us to move on from here. For us to move we can
say: "Okay, we are an inner city company; we can move to
some sort of far-away part of the country", but our business
is very much a local business and we would have to find a local
site, and to get the yield from the actual land we have to move
locally, this will quite seriously restrict the ability. We have
had numerous offers—we got one recently—which is,
as far as we are concerned, considerably below what it should
be, but then people turn round and say they have to take on board
that there are certain constraints in terms of potential costs.
At the moment, I think everybody accepts these are unknowns but
there are potential issues that will arise as a result of the
actual Crossrail development if it goes through.
102 Crossrail Ref: P82, Location of Petitioners David
Waterman; I Waterman Ltd; The AA Waterman Trust; Alberon Securities
Limited; Executor of AA Waterman; and Trustees of I Waterman Pension
Limited (TOWHLB-5503-001. Back
| 
