Examination of Witnesses (Questions 19320
- 19339)
19320. And the construction of an escalator
which comes within a few metres of the basement of the property?
(Mr Harrington) Yes.
19321. In the case of number 40, Crossrail proposes
no works beneath the building at all, does it?
(Mr Harrington) They have not proposed anything
in terms of the works they propose to do, no.
19322. Mr Mould: That is all I wish to
ask.
Re-examined by Mr Fookes
19323. Mr Fookes: There are just a couple
of questions. First of all, what you are offered in respect of
the access point is notice and the concern that point 4 talks
about is agreeing to access.[20]
Is there a difference between being told that you are not going
to have access at some notice, unspecified, and agreeing in advance
when it is that there might not be access?
(Mr Harrington) Sorry, can you
repeat that?
19324. What you have been offered is advance
notice and what you have asked for is consultation and agreement
over when the works will take place. Are the two the same?
(Mr Harrington) No.
19325. Why do you want to be involved in consultation
and agreement as to when?
(Mr Harrington) It gets
back to my point about the fact that we have customers in the
building and their interests are important to us because they
pay us rent and, therefore, we need to take their concerns in
hand and ensure that it does not cause such disruption to them
that it would render them unable to carry on their business.
19326. For example, the notice that is being
offered relates to restricting access for a "short period".
Do you have any idea what a "short period" is without
having some form of consultation or agreement?
(Mr Harrington) I have no
idea, no.
19327. On the offer made for the study, can
we just understand the position. As far as 10, 20 and 30 are concerned,
the position at the moment is that Crossrail already would pay
50 per cent, but that it was capped to £20,000?
(Mr Harrington) That is
correct.
19328. As I understand it, what is being said
now is that there would be no cap on the half.
(Mr Harrington) That is
my understanding.
19329. There would be no cap on half for number
40, an offer of doing a study which has not been made before,
but is there any reason why for the works necessary for the Crossrail
scheme Land Securities should pay anything towards that study
to be told what we have got to do?
(Mr Harrington) No, none
at all.
19330. Finally, on the question of the material
detriment notice and compensation from the Lands Tribunal, is
there anything in what you have seen that obliges Crossrail to
take any of your land, thereby triggering any right to compensation?
(Mr Harrington) We have
seen their Environmental Statement and their potential acquisition
of two plots of land, 113 and 118, which would front up to our
buildings. We have not seen, and this is my point, any detail
on the design of the podiums which may or may not have a material
impact on the plant which sits below us.
19331. As far as the station box and then refilling
over the top of the box and reinstating the road and pavement
are concerned, does that take any land of yours?
(Mr Harrington) No.
19332. Mr Fookes: Thank you.
The witness withdrew
19333. Chairman: Mr Mould, would you
like to sum up?
19334. Mr Mould: I was going to call
Mr Berryman to deal with one or two points which have arisen,
if that is convenient to you.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Mr Mould
19335. Mr Mould: Mr Berryman, just one
or two points have been made, first of all, the question of maintaining
access to the existing front doors of the buildings during the
construction phase. Can you just explain, what can we commit to
in terms of advance notice and so forth?
(Mr Berryman) Well, we can
certainly agree to consult with the Petitioner. We do in reality
consult with all landowners who are adjacent to the works as we
go along, we have to do that and, as a result of those consultations,
we can try to accommodate as best we can the needs of the Petitioner,
as we would with any other landowner alongside us. What we cannot
do unfortunately is give the Petitioner a right of veto over our
works for obvious reasons, but obviously we would always agree
to act reasonably.
19336. So just looking at number 4 on the list,
the prior agreement point or, as you put it, the right of veto,
that is the point at which we part company?[21]
(Mr Berryman) That is the point
to which we could not go. Consultation is fine and we would expect
to set up again, as I said, with all the landowners alongside
the project a formal consultation mechanism to do that.
19337. Can we just turn to the position in relation
to Soho Square. First of all, insofar as the buildings in Eastbourne
Terrace are concerned, can you help the Committee with the extent
to which the proposed works in Eastbourne Terrace will directly
involve land of the Petitioner?
(Mr Berryman) The works
for the actual station do not involve land from the Petitioner
at all. It would only be any accommodation works that we needed
to do to their buildings where we would require to enter on to
their land.
19338. This is the podium that we talked about?
(Mr Berryman) The podium
or alternative solutions, yes.
19339. Do you think that the comparison which
Mr Harrington seeks to draw between number 40 Eastbourne Terrace
and number 7 Soho Square is a fair one?
(Mr Berryman) Not at all.
The Soho Square property actually fronts on to Dean Street. It
is immediately adjacent to our Dean Street ticket hall and we
have an escalator which goes underneath their building and passes
very, very close to the building to the extent that, as I think
we have already agreed, there is certainly a possibility, I would
not put it as strongly as a probability, but a possibility that
the building will not be occupied because the escalator shaft
will be constructed so close to it. We may have to go in there
and actually put props inside the building while we tunnel because
we are that close. It is marginal whether we ought to demolish
it, but certainly I can see an easy case why we should make provision
for what happens if the building cannot be occupied.
20 Committee Ref: A219, Summary of Land Securities'
requests of the Select Committee (SCN-20070207-009). Back
21
Committee Ref: A219, Summary of Land Securities' requests of
the Select Committee (SCN-20070207-009). Back
| 
