Examination of Witnesses (Questions 19360
- 19379)
19360. Exactly the same effect on number 7 would
take place because the accommodation works would have caused the
disruption of the building, if they did prove to be, which is
of course a qualification that has to be satisfied.
(Mr Berryman) Do you mean
the mechanical plant and so on?
19361. Yes.
(Mr Berryman) I do not think
that is the case at all. We are talking about a difference here
between designing something and constructing it in accordance
with that design, and that includes the phasing of the works so
that there is no interruption to power supplies and so on.
19362. We are talking about if you have a ground
entrance to either number 30 or number 40.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
19363. But if you have to remove the plant.
(Mr Berryman) You do not
move it until you have got something to put—you do not just
disconnect the power and take the substation away; what you do
is you put a new substation, connect that up and then take the
old one away. We are talking about two different situations. What
I am talking about in the case of Eastbourne Terrace are planned
works which are phased properly in order to avoid interruptions
of the occupants' amenity. What I am talking about at Soho Square
is an entirely different matter; it is the possibility of major
impact on a building which cannot be planned for and cannot be
ameliorated by providing alternative sources of power. What we
are talking about at Soho Square, as I understand it, is chillers
and the like for the food store.
19364. Can I draw you back to the point? You
do not know, because no study has been done, as to what works
will be necessary.
(Mr Berryman) No, we do
not know, but it is a general principle when you are modifying
a building that you do not just disconnect the services until
you have got another way of providing those services. You do not
just cut them off and say: "Sorry, we had to cut your electricity
off for three weeks" or something like that. That is not
the way it is done.
19365. Going on to the cost of the 10 to 30
joint study, the only work required to alter the planning permission
that is going forward are to accommodate your scheme. Where is
the distinction you draw between paying all for number 40 and
only half for number 30?
(Mr Berryman) Number 40
exists; it is already there. We will have to alter the entrance
significantly, not the whole building, obviously. It is something
which arises totally as a result of our actions. I think the situation
is different at the other three buildings because they are still
in the design process for a refurbishment and alteration which
is going to take place in any event.
19366. But if the plans exist and the cost is
purely related to the alteration of the plans—100 per cent
related to the alteration of the plans—
(Mr Berryman) The costs relate to the alteration
of the plans but the Petitioner will also benefit from that. It
is worth remembering, of course, that these buildings are safeguarded
in the Crossrail scheme so we could, in theory (we would not want
to but we could) object to the alteration plans.
19367. Mr Fookes: Thank you very much.
Re-examined by Mr Mould
19368. Mr Mould: Mr Berryman, I want
to clarify one point, if I may, relating to the question you were
asked about the temporary access arrangements and consultation.
You were asked about an arbitration arrangement. Can I just be
clear: is the Promoter prepared to accept arbitration with Land
Securities on the sequence of construction works in Eastbourne
Terrace?
(Mr Berryman) No, I do not
think we are prepared to accept arbitration on that point. It
was the "not unreasonably withheld" part which I think
was of more interest. The problem would be arbitration takes time.
The period of time we have got between making the decision to
do a certain piece of work and actually doing it is probably relatively
short—maybe a month or two at most. I think if there were
to be any arbitration provision like that it would need to be
based on the premise that it would be very, very quick—very
quickly done.
19369. So far as the timing of the construction
work programme is concerned, the same question to you. Is that
something that the Promoter can agree to and to arbitrate with?
(Mr Berryman) No, I do not
think that is—unless I am misunderstanding the Petitioner—what
they are asking for. They were talking purely about the entrance
to their buildings, unless I have misunderstood the question.
19370. Mr Mould: Thank you very much
indeed.
The witness withdrew
19371. Mr Mould: I say, with the usual
hesitation when we come to questions of compensation, there was
a point left hanging there. Mr Smith is here, we can ask him to
deal with that, and then I can move to my closing, which will
take about a minute and a half, I think.
19372. Chairman: We will time you!
Mr Colin Smith, recalled
Examined by Mr Mould
19373. Mr Mould: Mr Smith, just to remind
everybody, you are giving evidence on behalf of the Promoters
in relation to property and land compensation matters. I think
the point that was being raised with Mr Berryman was this: the
premise was that if we failed to find a solution in terms of providing
a replacement permanent access arrangement for, say, number 40
Eastbourne Terrace (what we call the accommodation works) then
there would not be any right to take matters to the Lands Tribunal
for adjudication. What do you say about that?
(Mr Smith) That is wrong.
As I understand the position, Land Securities buildings in Eastbourne
Terrace will have no land directly acquired from them by the Promoters
for the works but they are adjacent to the works and they can
claim under the Compensation Code even though they have no land
taken; they are perfectly entitled to claim for losses that they
may suffer as a result of the execution of the works. They have
full rights. If there is disagreement on any loss they suffer,
they can go to the Lands Tribunal through an independent third
party who will adjudicate. So I would disagree entirely with that
statement.
19374. Let us put it absolutely starkly: we
do not accept this is realistic but let us take the extreme situation
where we cannot find a permanent access solution to number 40
so, effectively, it no longer has a viable access and it is rendered,
technically, unrentable. What would be the land compensation payable
to Land Securities?
(Mr Smith) It would be considerable.
It would be a very high percentage of the value of the building,
I would have thought, and something the Promoters would want to
avoid at all costs.
19375. Mr Mould: Thank you.
Cross-examined by Mr Fookes
19376. Mr Fookes: Mr Smith, the point
of the Compensation Code is that if some land is acquired the
person whose partial interest is acquired has the right to serve
a notice for the whole of the property to be taken by the acquiring
authority. Correct?
(Mr Smith) If it can demonstrate
it suffers material detriment, yes.
19377. If no land is taken you are thrown back
on to Section 10 damages, are you not?
(Mr Smith) Yes, absolutely.
19378. There is no right for the owner of the
property to require the whole of his land to be taken by the acquiring
authority.
(Mr Smith) That is correct.
19379. In those circumstances, our suggestion
three makes sense, as I think the previous witness agreed. That
is the situation we would be in; we would have no right that compensation
would grant if you were not taking the land.
(Mr Smith) No, you do not
have a right, that is absolutely correct, in terms that as no
land is taken, I am afraid, that does not apply. It is totally
different to the situation in Soho Square, where, of course, we
do take land.
| 
