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
|
