Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17380
- 17399)
17380. Chairman: I will suspend the Committee
until 11 o'clock.
After a short break
17381. Chairman: We will move to the
final Petition for today, the Petition of Paperback, who are represented
by Mr Alan Goshchalk. Mr Goshchalk, would you come forward? Mr
Mould will be outlining the case.
The Petition of Paperback Ltd
Mr Alan Goshchalk appeared as Agent
17382. Mr Mould: Yes, sir. Just to go
back, if I may, to the area, I am told I keep consistently referring
to the Bow Triangle as the Bow Street Triangle. It is the Bow
Triangle, and people think it is an anachronism of the well-known
magistrates' court which used to be at Bow Street, but there it
is.
17383. The Petitioner's premises, Paperback,
are number 2 in the middle unit in the Bow Business Unit.[4]
I did explain when I was opening the case in relation to the previous
Petitioner that under the proposals for this location, which are
in the additional provisions before the Committee, it would be
necessary to displace the Petitioner in order to carry out the
works and the relocation of the travellers' site within the Triangle
area.
17384. All I should say now, I think, is just
a little bit about the business, as I understand it. Paperback
is a merchant of recycled paper, it uses the unit as a warehouse
for the storage of paper and the unit has a floor area of some
390 square metres. The business offers customers a next-day deliver
service within the M25 area and relocation of the business as
a consequence of the Crossrail scheme would plainly take that
into account.
17385. Sir, that is all I intend to say at this
stage and I will respond after the Petitioner, as appropriate,
in a moment.
17386. Chairman: Mr Goshchalk, you have
not appeared in front of a Select Committee before. You will be
a bit nervous, I know, but just take your time and you are under
no pressure. However, could you speak up because we have stenographers
who take a word-for-word note of everything you say. Go ahead.
17387. Mr Goshchalk: Good morning. I
thought, first of all, if I did a bit more background to the company.
I am the general manager at Paperback. The business has been trading
for 20 plus years, 18 of which have been on this site. It is quite
an unusual business; it is an environmental business set up specifically
with an environmental objective of promoting recycled paper. In
fact, when we started there was, really, no one else doing it,
and even now there are not that many. It is also unusual in that
it is an employee-owned business, so again that makes it quite
unusual.
17388. I think I am coming to this Committee
mainly to have the opportunity to express our concern that in
the whole process that was involved, I feel we have had no consultation
from Crossrail. The first that I heard that the unit was going
to be compulsorily purchased was, I think, on the Friday before
the Tuesday morning by which the Petition had to be put in. Having
no experience of this whole procedure, that was quite daunting
in itself.
17389. We are a relatively small company; we
do not have the resources to employ expensive barristers or surveyors
to counter the arguments that are put forward on whether this
shaft should be here or it should not be, but I just think we
feel that we have been extremely unfairly treated in respect of
the amount of discussion there was considering the length of time
we have been at the premises.
17390. I think the other key point is that I
have been advised that this scenario whereby we are being forced
to move is not because Crossrail specifically needs our premises,
it is just a case that they want to relocate someone else. It
appears that our concerns and our interests have been relegated
behind someone else's, and I cannot see why that should be the
case. Whether it is politically correct to bring it up at this
sort of meeting I do not know, but I feel there is a political
element with regard to the local authority and their relationship
with the travellers and relocation, and so on, and again I think
we are unfortunately caught in the middle of this. Again, it just
seems unfair.
17391. We have had no consultation; we are being
forced to move because someone else has been put ahead of us.
We are, I think, an important business; we are still the only
business doing what we do in the UK. I think that is the best
way I can put our case.
17392. Kelvin Hopkins: Can I ask Mr Goshchalk
to help me? I am sympathetic to your situation. Are you able to
relocate somewhere else? Is it going to make your business more
difficult, costly or is it the lack of consultation or failure
to consult at an early stage that has mainly upset you?
17393. Mr Goshchalk: I do not know the
answer because we have not relocated. I think there are certain
difficulties but they are not—if truth be told—insurmountable,
but there are certain requirements of the business regarding the
height of the unit and access for container lorries, and this
sort of thing, as well as with distances that people have to travel
to work, and that sort of thing. I do not think it is impossible
but it is going to be difficult, and the last thing we want in
an extremely competitive market. Although I have sold the case
that we are an unique business and so on it is very hard to compete
as a small player. Any additional costs that we incur will make
life very difficult. So I am not sure about that, but I feel quite
aggrieved that we had 48 hours' notice to put a Petition into
a process that I know absolutely nothing about. I reiterate that.
17394. Chairman: One question, Mr Goshchalk.
You said a "political" motivation re the council's plans
for resettlement of the travelling community. Would you care to
elaborate a little bit on that?
17395. Mr Goshchalk: Well, I do not know
any facts, it is just impression. Some people perceive that travellers
are not ideal neighbours, so I suspect there is a certain sensitivity
around the decision to relocate them, and if it could be done
by moving them, effectively, 150 metres at our expense then that
would avoid that sort of issue.
17396. Chairman: Just on the travellers:
are you aware that other neighbours have also been contacted and,
in fact, some of their concerns were about the travelling community
themselves? You have given us a view which is a little bit different.
17397. Mr Goshchalk: I do not know about
that.
17398. Chairman: As I understand it,
we have received a Petition from the travelling residents' community
and within that the Promoters have actually talked to other neighbours
in the area about their concerns over the relationship with the
settled travellers' community. You have not been contacted on
that?
17399. Mr Goshchalk: No.
4 Crossrail Ref: P122, Eleanor Street Shaft-Current
Site Plan, Aerial Photograph (TOWHLB-AP2-9-04-009). Back
| 
