Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17400
- 17418)
17400. Chairman: Just on the other point:
you say you only had 48 hours' notice; you never had anything
before that at all.
17401. Mr Goshchalk: We had various standard
letters. There was one complete document which I think is the
full, amended Bill in detail. I looked through that—I have
not got a date in front of me—a good few weeks before, and
I spent an evening looking through that. From what I could see
there were no concerns from our point of view. I then got a letter
from Crossrail earlier—a week on Friday—in which they
came down to the site. I sat down with three gentlemen from Crossrail
and they informed me that they thought it was going to be compulsorily
purchased, which completely dumbfounded me. So I did ask them
to go through the document and point out where, in the document,
it indicated that that was the case. Quite frankly, after ten
minutes they agreed it was impossible to point that out.
17402. Chairman: When you had the other
pieces of communication some weeks earlier and the document which
you said you received, did you not contact Crossrail and ask "What
does this mean for us?"
17403. Mr Goshchalk: I did not because
reading through it there was clearly nothing to indicate that
I should be concerned about anything. I had, in the meantime,
actually been trying to contact our landlords, as it happens,
to see what their view was, but they were not any clearer either.
17404. Chairman: So a lack of clarity.
17405. Mr Goshchalk: There was nothing
to give me any cause for concern on this.
17406. Chairman: Mr Mould?
17407. Mr Mould: Sir, what I can say
in relation to consultation is that a notice to owners, lessees
and occupiers in relation to the additional provisions was dispatched
to the Secretary of the Petitioner company on 9 May 2006. That
was the day I think on which the notice was published in the newspapers.
It was dispatched to the business address at Bow Triangle. Amongst
other things, that notice drew attention to the fact that those
affected by the proposed additional provisions for the Bow Triangle,
which obviously included Paperback (and those three occupiers
of one of the business units) had a period of, effectively, five
weeks from that date within which to lodge their Petitions with
this House. That was spelt out on the third page of that document.
The schedule of properties to which those proposals related included
the Paperback premises. They were noted in the schedule as one
of the occupiers. So it was clear from that notice that (a) these
were proposals that directly affected Paperback's occupation of
their premises and (b) they had a period of five weeks from that
point in which to make formal Petitions to this House.
17408. I can also say that in early June, June
7, of this year the head of operational property, as I understand
it, wrote to the occupiers of the three business units individually
indicating that he was proposing to visit the area with members
of his team with a view to dealing with any concerns, questions
and issues arising in relation to the relocation needs should
the additional provisions find their way into the Bill. He mentioned
he was proposing to have a visit to the site on 9 June, so a letter
went to him on the 7th and he visited, as I understand it, two
days later.
17409. So those are two points that I should
bring before the Committee to indicate that matters were formally
drawn to the Petitioner's attention and at that stage efforts
were being made, as I understand it, to engage in relation to
relocation requirements. Now, it is true to say that since that
time responsible officers within the Promoter's organisation have
been in correspondence with Messrs Montagu Evans, who are the
chartered surveyors instructed to act on behalf of Paperback,
and that correspondence is dealing with land compensation and
relocation issues which have been raised by the company arising
out of the additional provision proposals. That correspondence
has been continued, as I understand it, and the issues have narrowed
considerably to two or three points, important points, but nevertheless
it is an indication that it was a fruitful and very constructive
process and I think it is fair to say that we would expect that
process to continue. As I understand it, Montagu Evans and those
responsible within the Promoter's organisation are continuing
to address those points. I note that the concerns raised by the
Petitioner for which members of the Committee raised questions
did not actually focus on those points, but they were concerned
with the consultation process and also the perceived relegation
of Paperback's interest to those of the travellers. Because I
think Mr Hopkins did raise that concern and also yourself, I thought
I should mention that that is going on. I can certainly ask Mr
Smith to come and just explain what his understanding is of any
difficulties in principle that might present themselves in relocating
and assisting in relocating this occupier in conjunction with
the Bill.
17410. Chairman: It has caused difficulties
for us because it is not the first time that we are getting this
lack of clarity. It is not really acceptable for someone to get
a legal notice a couple of days before or an understanding of
what that actually means a couple of days before.
17411. Mr Mould: What I cannot tell you
is in detail about any consultation or attempts to notify the
Petitioner before that, so I simply cannot say whether that was
done or what was done, so I have to proceed on the basis that
I rely on the notice and I cannot say any more than I have in
relation to that. As I say, the notice is there and we have been
in discussion with property advisers since then. I should make
it clear that the notice makes it clear that the business end
of the additional provisions is the acquisition of Paperback's
property for the purpose of the scheme, so disposition and displacement
of the business was clearly foreshadowed in that notice.
17412. Chairman: Mr Goshchalk, you have
the last word.
17413. Mr Goshchalk: It is sort of just
my word, that someone came in from Crossrail and spent ten minutes
looking through the document and this gentleman said that it was
clear that we were going to have to move and he said to me, "No,
you are absolutely right, there is nothing in here to indicate
that is the case", which is what aggrieved me so much so
as to follow this whole procedure through as much as anything.
I think that is unfair and I would reiterate that it just seems
again unfair that there is a major development project that we
are having to move to accommodate not because of the project itself,
but because someone else is moving along and you sort of think
to yourself, "Well, where does that end? Perhaps we have
got a case and maybe someone else can move along a bit".
It just feels that you are being treated second-rate compared
to other people really.
17414. Chairman: Well, thank you very
much indeed.
17415. Mr Mould: I think I ought to put
this notice before the Committee.
17416. Chairman: I was just going to
conclude by saying that we will accept Mr Goshchalk's evidence
and take it all into consideration, but could you provide the
Committee with a copy of the legal notice so that we can examine
that in due course.
17417. Mr Mould: We can certainly do
that.
17418. Chairman: The Committee will now
adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 am.
| 
