Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15780
- 15799)
15780. Mr Newcombe: If I break it, sir,
I shall go outside and fall on my Swiss army knife in mortification!
15781. Sir, Mr George introduced his Petition
earlier by saying that this is a "not until" petition.
Ours is similar in that respect, in that it involves new subject
matter as Ms Lieven has very helpfully explained. I will give
you are little bit of the background, but the nub of the issue
is the impact upon the parking and throughput of vehicles both
permanently and temporarily. The impact of that is because the
ExCel Centre as it presently exists, and as imminently to be extended
pursuant of a Phase 2 development to which the Committee has just
been referred, is essentially an empty box.
15782. It is an internationally important exhibition
centre. Indeed members of the Committee will certainly be familiar
with it, I anticipate, and may well have visited it. Imminently
the Motor Show is opening there next week. In terms of the attraction
of business to this country, it is already estimated of the order
of some £600 million per annum, going up to of the order
of a £1 billion with the advent of Phase 2. It is not in
dispute that this is important. There is an additional element
of importance which may be of assistance to the Committee. The
Excel Centre will also be one of the venues for the 2012 Olympics,
housing such matters as the boxing and the judo.
15783. The empty box to which I referred is
exactly that. It is a stage to be set as a business showcase.
Its success or failure in that respect is wholly dependent upon
the ability to bring in and set up in attractive form whatever
is the product or service being showcased. That is wholly dependent
upon the throughput of significant traffic in terms of articulated
lorries and smaller vehicles in the place management. They are
presently in the existing situation, even before Crossrail, very
tightly constrained in two important respects.
15784. Firstly, as Ms Lieven has already identified,
and this is common ground, the existing space is extremely constrained.
One can see from the exhibit that remains on the screen that the
access has to be through a narrow corridor, sandwiched between
the northern end of the site and the existing rail corridor.
15785. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Newcombe,
could you orientate us. When you say "the north", it
is the road on the right-hand side, above the yellow? That is
the access road, is it?
15786. Mr Newcombe: It runs along the
front. Yes, you can see the north arrow, top left-hand corner
and the access road runs roughly east-west along it.
15787. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Okay, thank
you.
15788. Mr Newcombe: If I can invite those
who operate the machine to bring up ExCel 5, the Committee will
there see the London dome in the Greenwich loop, and away from
the left of that we are looking from the west essentially towards
the east.[65]
The red light has been helpfully put on the existing centre, so
one can see the Royal Victoria Dock immediately to the right and
south of that and London City Airport just beyond the runway.
If you go back to ExCel 4.[66]
You can see a slightly closer view from the same direction, identifying
the existing Phase 1 development and the Phase 2 development,
which was granted permission under exactly the same permission
back in the1990s as the Phase 1 development, and at the moment
is actively being pursued in negotiations so the final details
can be agreed and a start made in the very near future will take
out virtually the entirety of the land beyond the existing Phase
1 just between the existing Phase 1 centre and that large building
just above where the red light is, which is the Ramada Hotel.
I will come back to that in a moment.
15789. In terms of the access, sir, we can then
move to ExCel 8.[67]
If the facility exists, it would be helpful if we can blow it
up slightly to move in to concentrate on the corridor to the north
of the existing Phase 1 side. One can see there, marked by coloured
blocks, the sequencing. It is not helpful for me to go through
with the Committee at this stage the detail of this. If questions
arise, my witness in due course can deal with it, but, essentially,
the box which is Phase 1 and the enlarged box which is Phase 2
are wholly dependent upon stage management, and I deliberately
use the theatrical metaphor. The key person in all of this is
my witness to come, Mr Melrose. He and his team, with the constraints
which exist, namely space and time, have to bring in significant
amounts of kit, not just what is on display but the display stands,
the lighting, everything to garnish the empty box to make an attractive
centre. They are always up against the stops and the bottom line
is that the land-take proposed, both temporarily and permanently,
for the Crossrail project has so adversely impacted on this as
to materially affect the ability of ExCel to perform its given
function. That is not to say it will shut up its shop and go home,
but given its international importance, we say the effect will
be sufficiently adverse. The tensions between the present operation
of ExCel and the Crossrail proposal are such that we are saying
to the Committee respectfully that Crossrail should not be allowed
to progress until certain matters have been identified. Ms Lieven
helpfully referred the Committee to the undertakings which presently
have been put forward but, with respect, they go nowhere to give
any certainty or comfort to your Petitioners today for two reasons.
15790. If we take the temporary situation, the
undertaking presently on offer does not even condescend to the
number of vehicles available or to be serviced. That of itself
is sufficient to fundamentally flaw the Promoter's provision in
that respect.
15791. As regards the permanent position, Ms
Lieven did not show you the undertaking there on offer, but what
Crossrail presently proposed, to those who might want to know,
is that they, "Crossrail, will use their reasonable endeavours"
in consultation with us. Parenthetically, that is extremely helpful
to consult us, to identify within the existing ExCel site mitigation
for permanent acquisition. I deliberately read that slowly because,
essentially, Crossrail is saying to us two things. Firstly, "We
do not know what the solution is, but we are not really very fussed
about providing one at this stage", and, secondly, perhaps
even more interestingly, implicit in the explicit with the undertaking
presently on offer is a contention by Crossrail that "We
do not know our business sufficiently but do not worry in due
course, we, Crossrail, will come along, we will look at your problem
and we will help you with it". For reasons, I hope the Committee
will appreciate, that is simply not sufficient. Not until, we
urge upon the Committee, is set out in a position statement which
we have had prepared, because it occurred to us it is always helpful
to have the matters set out in writing so there is no dubiety
about what is being asked for. If I can invite that position statement
to be put up. Unfortunately, we have not had this ingested as
yet, but hopefully people will be able to read it and see it sufficiently.
15792. Mr Liddell-Grainger: That will
be A 177.[68]
15793. Mr Newcombe: Thank you very much,
I am grateful. I am not going to read it all, sir, I am going
to give you the gist of it. The Promoter should undertake, to
the extent it exercises the power to acquire any of our land compulsorily,
before doing so, to provide the Petitioner will alternative land
in substitution. Of course, all sides accept here that the area
we presently use for this most important servicing is going to
be materially reduced. It is our evidence that we cannot manage
without it. In the case of the land to be taken permanently, we
clearly want it on appropriate terms, otherwise it is of no use
to us which is why we put in slight legalese, for which I make
slight apology, on the terms which it comes.
15794. The third point, for which we ask, is
in the case of the land proposed to be taken temporarily. Firstly,
if it is only to be temporarily used by the Promoters, there is
no justification for them acquiring it on a permanent basis. A
perfectly good provision is available here for the identification
powers to enter on land temporarily for the purposes of construction
or whatever and then there are various other safeguards proposed
under paragraph 1.3. Paragraph 1.4, in the case of both those
scenarios, sets the criteria of the land which we need, we say,
to allow us to continue to perform a function that everybody accepts
is important.
15795. Then point number two, to the extent
the Promoter is neither unable or, as presently appears, unwilling—I
will come back to whether or not it is unable, at the moment it
is certainly unwilling—to promote an additional provision.
In that case and the "Promoter fails to secure"—I
am reading from paragraph 2.2—"in the inclusion of
the Bill such additional powers", then we seek additionally
such a clause to be included to enable us to claim compensation.
Again I make a slight apology to the Committee, I anticipate this
point may well have been raised by other Petitioners. The Committee
will be familiar with the compensation code and, put shortly,
whilst it is an admirable tool albeit complicated for quantifying
the value of land, it is, on any analysis, defective in providing
adequate compensation for such matters as business loss. As you
will hear from Mr Melrose, there is no question that if this acquisition
temporarily and permanently proceeds on the basis presently proposed
by Crossrail, there will be business loss and it will appear that
the compensation code will be inadequate to cover it. In my closing
submission, sir, I will return to that, I am simply flagging the
point at this stage.
15796. Sir, then point three comes back precisely
to the `not until' provision. I promise I will come back to the
question of whether or not the Promoters here are able to promote
an additional provision because, clearly, if they are unable to
do so, then I am wasting my time and I am wasting the Committee's
time, but it is a matter of common ground between us and the Promoters
that there are alternative sites available. Therefore, the only
sticking point is that presently the Crossrail team are not prepared,
as we understand it, to countenance an additional provision. It
may be, in due course of the evidence, sir, that we have to take
the Committee to a report commissioned by Crossrail itself, by
Mott MacDonald, reputable engineers, which looked at the question
of alternative sites. They identified seven. They did not consult
us in advance of that report, so we were not able to have an input
into it. Indeed, as Mr Melrose will tell you in due course, that
report was delivered to us in slightly unusual circumstances,
rather like a volume of the Yellow Pages left on the doorstep
without a covering letter. Nonetheless we got it, we have read
it and are grateful for it. There are two of those sites which
we think have some promise and there are additionally two other
sites, one of which is on the third site, which are on lands available
elsewhere. It, therefore, follows, unless we fundamentally misunderstand
the evidence already produced by the Promoters including their
minutes of a meeting with us on 26 June, that they themselves
in those minutes identified the possibility of bringing forward
an additional provision. They themselves in those minutes identified
these sites which are available. They themselves have indicated
that promoting an additional provision is perfectly possible.
The only sticking point, therefore, sir, is will they or will
they no? It is for that reason in a nutshell why the Petitioners
come before you today and, in the nicest possible sense, invite
the Committee in tactful and gentle terms to encourage those who
promote this Bill to re-think this in terms of the additional
provision. This is not simply a case of a petitioner coming forward,
saying, "I have a business. I do not want to lose money.
I do not care how nationally important this is, my business is
very important". Nobody is denying that Crossrail is a massively
important and laudable project. Although I have been slightly
rude about the Crossrail team, having been on the other side myself
in promoting bills and I entirely understand the difficulty of
attending to all the various and disparate matters raised by the
Petitioners and I anticipate this may very well be a welter of
petitions and insufficient time to concentrate sufficiently on
one particular aspect. There comes a time and this tension is
clear and we invite the Committee in those terms to take the course
we have set out in legal terms in our position statement and encourage
Crossrail to do that which we seek. Of course, the Committee retains
the element of sanction because we say "not until, not unless".
15797. Sir, those are the matters which I would
indicate to you in opening. There is only one other point which
I could usefully draw to your attention here, because I am deliberately
seeking to sketch matters as briefly as I can here, so I can take
less time in due course with Mr Melrose so you do not hear the
same thing from both of us.
15798. Could I ask for ExCel 6 to be put up.[69]
To orientate the Committee again, we can see the north point.
It is exactly the same as the orientations we have seen before,
we have got the dock to the south and the red block is the existing
Phase 1. This exhibit has the advantage of having blocked off
in blue the already consented Phase 2, already consented under
the 1990s permission, but which presently simply requires approval
of certain matters reserved under conditions. This identifies
in graphic and clear form the fundamental incompatibility between
the only solution, as we understand it, that the Crossrail team
could promote, and the Phase 2 development. Additionally, sir,
I should note that this solution shown there by the green outline,
and, indeed, Ms Lieven took you to an earlier version of one of
the Crossrail exhibits showing it as well. This is a very recent
innovation by the Crossrail team, it did not feature in the Mott
MacDonald report and it is only in the lead-up to this Committee
hearing today that this has emerged. Those are the matters which
I would wish to summarise for the Committee in opening. I am just
looking at the time. I am entirely in the Committee's hands.
15799. Mr Liddell-Grainger: No, given
that there are three minutes to go, we will have lunch and come
back to Mr Melrose. You are finished at this stage?
65 Committee Ref: A176, Site 2 and 3-North Dock Road:
Alternatives to preferred site for temporary and permanent marshalling
area (NEWMLB-17305-005). Back
66
Committee Ref: A176, Beckton-Preferred site for temporary and
permanent marshalling area (NEWMLB-17305-004). Back
67
Committee Ref: A176, Excel London-Lorry Management Venue Overview
(NEWMLB-17305-007). Back
68
Committee Ref: A177, Position Statement on Matters Not Agreed
with the Promoter (SCN-20060713-004 to -006). Back
69
Committee Ref: A176, Excel London Plan-Phases 1 and 2 (NEWMLB-17305-006). Back
|
