Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 19380 - 19393)

  19380. Mr Fookes: Thank you very much.

  19381. Mr Mould: Thank you, Mr Smith.

  The witness withdrew

  19382. Mr Mould: Sir, I will work to the Land Securities' summary on the screen.[22] Insofar as one and two are concerned, we have indicated to you that the joint study that is already signed up to in relation to numbers 10 to 30 should also extend to consideration of number 40, and that would deal with point 2 on the screen.


  19383. Insofar as the costs of that study are concerned, Mr Berryman explained to you we would accept that we would pay 100 per cent of the reasonable costs of the study in relation to number 40. He has explained why that is our position and he has explained why the position is different in relation to the current redevelopment proposals that Land Securities have in mind in relation to numbers 10, 20 and 30, and how, in fact, our agreement to pay up to 50 per cent of their reasonable costs in relation to that aspect of the study is actually more generous than is usually the position.

  19384. Insofar as item 3 is concerned, Mr Smith has just explained that if what we think is an unrealistically extreme scenario arose where we simply were not able to find a way of providing a satisfactory permanent revised access to number 40 Eastbourne Terrace, if that were the situation, then effectively the building would have been rendered virtually valueless to the current owners, and land compensation would be assessed on that basis by the Lands Tribunal, if it could not be agreed beforehand. So that is the current right that these proprietors have under the Land Compensation Code in those circumstances. We say there is no reason for this Committee to look to make any changes or to extend that existing right in the current circumstances. I do stress, what we are talking about here is a situation where we have put forward for consideration in the Environmental Statement a podium solution as a way of resolving the needs to provide access arrangements to accommodate Eastbourne Terrace, and we believe that that will, subject to detailed design and negotiation, provide a solution which enables that building to continue to be effectively and properly let.

  19385. Finally, in relation to number 4, which relates to access during the construction phase, we have indicated that we will maintain access to the buildings throughout, including for fire and emergency. We cannot guarantee to maintain access to the current front door of each building throughout, but what we will do is to consult in advance in relation to what we expect to be relatively short periods of disruption in that respect, and look to give Land Securities as much notice as we reasonably can so that they can organise themselves as best they can to accommodate that temporary disruption. That is all I want to say in closing.

  19386. Mr Fookes: I will not limit myself to a minute and a half! Can I ask LS8 to be put on the screen?[23] This is just to explain the context of the matters we have been raising. This is from the Environmental Statement, 3.5.25, Mitigation and Residual Impacts: "Further detailed design will be required in discussion with businesses occupying properties at 10, 20, 30 and 40 Eastbourne Terrace in order to agree options for maintaining temporary access during the construction of the station box and lowering of Eastbourne Terrace, and permanent access arrangements." The principle of identifying environmental impacts in the Environmental Statement is that the decision maker, before approving the development consent, has to be satisfied that the impacts identified can be delivered at that time, not deferred until later. That is the principle of general environmental impact law.


  19387. Therefore, what we say is these matters that we have raised need to be sorted out before any improvements are granted, rather than left over. We do not want to be left with access in the air, as it were, with these buildings having to jump down on to the new pavement level.

  19388. If we then turn to my list, LS13.[24] These are the specific requests that we are making. I will take them in turn. First of all, we request the Committee to require the Promoter to pay the full costs of a joint study in relation to 10, 20 and 30. We are very grateful that the cap has been removed but we still say that all this cost relates to modifying our current planning application, a perfectly good application going, in with a perfectly good design of the building. If it needs to be modified for the scheme it is purely the cost of modification. There is no distinction in principle between number 40 and numbers 10, 20 and 30; it should be all the costs of the works that Crossrail require us to do to move on the application—the modified drawings required.


  19389. Secondly, to submit proposals in relation to the alteration of the entrance to number 40. That has been agreed, and we are grateful for that, but the third point still stands. This is the put option. We have heard that, first of all, they are right to be concerned because it is not necessarily the case that land would be taken; therefore, we do not have the right under the Compensation Code to serve a counter-notice requiring the whole building to be taken if there were an insuperable problem in finding a permanent access solution. So we are right to be concerned, Mr Berryman agreed that.

  19390. As far as the compensation is concerned, Mr Smith agreed I am right that we do not have, in those circumstances, the right to serve that notice. All this does is give us the same right as we would have had if the land was being taken. The distinction he drew with number 7 Soho Square was a completely false distinction because in that case land was being taken. So not only did number 7 have the right to serve a counter-notice under the Compensation Code for the whole land to be taken but they were given a back-up agreement in respect of a put option. We are saying we are in a worse position in the Compensation Code than number 7, but the circumstances are similar in that it could be that the solution, if one is found to the access of the building disrupts the building so substantially that it becomes unlettable. We hope it will not come to that but it could do and it would be prudent to seek that, and it would be fair for that to be granted, given that we are at a stage where no scheme has been put forward by the Promoters for how they are actually going to deal with the access. There is no study, there is no scheme. If one turns it back on to the Environmental Statement at the beginning, the only way that can be satisfied is by giving these undertakings which show how they are doing something here and now to deal with the impact identified, rather than leaving it with no real solution reached.

  19391. Lastly, the access question. Being given unspecified notice—it could be ten minutes, it could be tomorrow—is not going to address the problem of how people get into the front of the buildings. What we are saying is we need to be involved in the consultation but, also, to be able to say and agree when these works take place and how long they take place for and that if it is required to add some words to the words we are seeking, that we should not take an unreasonable stance or unreasonably refuse such a request, that would be perfectly acceptable. It does not give us a veto, and it deals with the only criticism that has been made on this particular point.

  19392. Those are our concerns and that is what we request you to do, and I will sit down.

  19393. Chairman: Thank you very much. That concludes the hearing this morning. There are a couple of announcements I have to make. The planned visit by the Committee to Romford tomorrow is now cancelled. The Committee will resume tomorrow morning to hear further Petitions at 10am in this room. Before we go, just to announce that the Committee will visit Bond Street Station, Brewers Court, Paddington Station and Old Oak Common on Thursday 22 February. Any Petitioners who are involved and wish to be on that, if they could either contact the Clerk or look on the website, it will be a very exciting day indeed.






22   Committee Ref: A219, Summary of Land Securities' requests of the Select Committee (SCN-20070207-009). Back

23   Amendment of Provisions 3 Crossrail Environmental Statement, Paragraph 3.5.25, Mitigation and Residual Impacts, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (SCN-20070207-008). Back

24   Committee Ref: A219, Summary of Land Securities' requests of the Select Committee (SCN-20070207-009). Back


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007