Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21000
- 21019)
21000. Chairman: That is what I am trying
to get to now. As I understand it, it is possible the Committee
could put some kind of decision like that albeit difficult to
pick up after the event. If we are not being given the help, the
guidance and the participation that we seek, could we not then
in return say, "We would have little other option but to
look at both these scenarios"?
21001. Ms Lieven: Sir, I would strongly
urge, as far as this Petition is concerned and Middle Branch
Dock, that would be the wrong way to go. Cooperation with Canary
Wharf Group will be much more productive. I am speculating because
I do not claim to have full knowledge of the detail of Middle
Branch, but what would happen is we would promote an additional
provision potentially in the light of your request, and then that
would be bitterly opposed by Canary Wharf Group and potentially
by other occupiers around Middle Branch Dock.
21002. Chairman: Having heard your remit
and response to that, what about Poplar Dock?
21003. Ms Lieven: Can I just make one
final word on Middle Branch, sir. We understand from the discussions
we have had with Canary Wharf Group that they see these commercial
boats as being an asset to Middle Branch Dock. They are not opposed
to having them in principle. It is a question of getting them
to fit in with their timetable. If we put that one to one side.
21004. Sir, the position with Poplar is significantly
more complicated. If we could just put up the plan, please. Obviously
to some degree I am adlibbing because we were going to deal with
this on Thursday. The Committee will remember Poplar Docks up
here, and we also have the Blackwall Basin boats here. Between
the two there are over one hundred boats. You will hear on Thursday,
or whenever we hear their petition, there are question marks over
how many of those boats leave the dock regularly anyway. There
is a division between the ones that are used residentially primarily
and some that are used mainly for leisure purposes. The leisure
ones obviously leave a lot; the residential ones, some leave but
some do not leave so much. There are issues there.
21005. If the Committee is minded to try to
find a home for all of them for three and a half to five years,
which is the time we are talking about, which gives them access
out into the Thames then there are effectively two options: there
is the Royal Docks, which are way off over here somewhere, which
have various problems, including the fact they have to go through
the Thames Barrier to get to them, but where there is space for
the whole lot potentially to go together; and then there is the
West India Dock complex of which we have Millwall Inner Dock here
and Millwall Outer Dock here.
21006. What BWB are saying to us is that as
far as Millwall Outer Dock is concerned there is a sailing club
going on there and I think there are certain other activities
which are planned there but, as far as both are concerned, there
are residential blocks and houses round the dock. It is British
Waterways' case, as I understand it and I have not seen their
detailed submission, that there is neither space in these docks
for all these boats but nor is it at all feasible to put in the
pontoons and the associated infrastructure that would allow all
hundred-odd boats to go into either Millwall Inner Dock or Millwall
Outer Dock, so that is their position. What they have said to
us, and I think this will probably be in the letter that they
will write to the Committee, is that if we do promote an additional
provision in either Millwall Inner or Outer Dock, they will fight
it tooth and nail and they expect adjoining occupiers to fight
it as well. It is really for them to explain why, but my understanding
is it is a combination of the uses that they already have in the
dock, the impact on the residential properties around, the infrastructure
concerns and their development plans for the docks in any event.
Sir, as a matter of law, there would be difficulties with an additional
provision because we would be seeking only temporary powers and
we would probably have to take the land permanently but those
problems are probably superable, I am not suggesting they are
not, but it is important that the Committee understands we had
lots of discussions with British Waterways about this and they
are absolutely adamant in their opposition. To some degree, I
stand here as a middleperson because it is British Waterways which
is saying all of this to us. Could I put it colloquially, sir:
there is nothing in what British Waterways is saying to us which
is so obviously wrong that we can say, "That is rubbish,
we are not going to pay any attention to you". We are faced
with a statutory undertaker and a landowner who is saying, "Absolutely
no way" to us and we are slightly caught in the middle here.
I hope that explains the situation. We certainly are not keen,
to put it mildly, to promote an additional provision which we
know will be bitterly opposed. Where we have promoted additional
provisions so far has been in circumstances where we are seeking
to make as many people as possible happy and where we know there
is going to be relatively little opposition, certainly compared
with the original proposal; here, we are caught between two forces.
21007. Chairman: Could I say that is
helpful, albeit not the fullest reply. What I have to say is that,
for the record, British Waterways have been asked to come along
and help the Committee in its endeavours and they are refusing
to do that. It is true to say that we cannot force them to attend,
but if common sense is to prevail—bear in mind what I have
put on the record today, an option which may cause them difficulty
in which they may or may not have to petition against in the future—I
hope that they take a common sense attitude. They might have a
look at those words, then reflect on them and see if they can
come back and talk to us and answer the queries we have put before
them, because one of the main considerations that members had
after the visit to Poplar was to see how we could try and get
this family of people and keep them together. It is a serious
consideration because it is their petition to us and we would
have to look on their petition fairly, so we cannot really do
that if all the options are closed down. It was made perfectly
clear to us by them that for them to go there was not an option
in their respect. British Waterways is not normally an antagonistic
organisation and it is not known to be and I hope they will be
sensible and agree to come to us if requested in the next day
or so.
21008. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am very content
to leave the matter there and we will ensure—I am sure you
will as well—that those words are brought to the attention
of the British Waterways' agent after this hearing.
21009. Chairman: Mr Cartwright, you wanted
a moment.
21010. Mr Cartwright: Thank you. The
first point I would make is perhaps something I should have mentioned
earlier and I am sure it is something that has been raised by
the Poplar Dock owners, that there is no Landlord and Tenant Act
or any similar legislation which protects people living on boats,
you do not have any rights in that regard. I believe that some
submissions were submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
but I have not seen anything come out the other side yet. That
obviously places them in a particularly vulnerable position and
your protection is of great value to us.
21011. In the submission that we made, we made
three suggestions. Our obvious preferred and desirable solution
is to find something within the West India Dock complex. We realise,
because we know the dock well and the difficulties that all parties
face in trying to resolve this issue, that it may not be possible
to put everybody together and it may be possible that some people
decide where they are offered is not where they want to be. Therefore,
as a second proposition, we propose that Crossrail assists in
relocation and compensation for those people who have to go away
to find something else in the London area which would be suitable
for them for the period. The third solution, if they decide that
the whole thing is just getting too awful and too tremendous and
they have to stop, is that they are compensated and go away and
cease to be a problem at all for Crossrail. I put those together
as propositions, understanding the sheer enormity of the problem
and so splitting us up—the church may need to go within
its parish; other people may need to go somewhere else—is
not what we want but are not so critical as the Poplar Dock boaters
who are more residential and a family community. We are a business
community but very small and we could be split up if we had to.
21012. With regard to the Middle Branch Dock
option, which I am pleased to see is moving back into interest,
the area to the east of the Docklands Light Railway on the plan
is, in fact, completely developed and that area, whilst not wonderful,
would provide a viable alternative and I believe is one that Canary
Wharf and British Waterways are looking at. Certainly, some of
the barges could be accommodated there, providing parking and
access for business purposes are available. The only problem with
the Middle Branch Dock is, because it is not part of the main
dock complex, the water became quite stagnant and, therefore,
is heavily oxygenated and there is, in fact, an oxygenation system
that bubbles water into this. I am not a great scientist, but
I do know that if you put a tin box in highly oxygenated water
it will rust quite quickly despite your best endeavours. Therefore,
I think it may be necessary—and I have not gone into this
in any great depth, I have only become aware of it this morning—for
any craft that go in there to be specially coated to protect them
from this highly oxygenated water. Certainly, the craft that is
already moored in there I know came out of the water not long
ago and has already started to rust through in quite a remarkable
way and the owner was only showing it to me last week. That is
a small consideration, which I would obviously look to Crossrail
to assist us with should that become an issue and I would need
to know more on the science of that. Thank you, sir.
21013. Mr Binley: I am still concerned
about the limited time resource, quite frankly. I am not happy
that I understand how that is going to work to ensure that these
good people can fully claim the rights which they need to claim.
21014. Ms Lieven: I may have misunderstood
your question, sir, but could I answer a question anyway. So far
as the bit of Middle Branch Dock that Mr Cartwright was pointing
to, which I think is this area here, the east side, that is where
Mr Berryman has been talking to Mr Berry of Canary Wharf about
and that area is separated from the area where development is
likely to be going ahead over here, so we are hopeful that we
will be able to reach agreement with Canary Wharf with a bit of
assistance from this Committee before we finish the parliamentary
process. Hopefully, on timing there is a good window there.
21015. Sir, could I make two other points as
I am on my feet. As far as the issue of water quality in Middle
Branch is concerned, Mr Berryman is happy to say that we will
look into it. He instructs me that he does not think there is
likely to be too much of a problem and it should be sortable,
so it looks like one that could be overcome with proper treatment
if there is a problem at all. So far as compensation is concerned,
sir, what I would like to do with the allowance of the Committee
is to write to Mr Cartwright and the Committee in the next 48
hours setting out our understanding of their compensation rights.
Sir, I would like to do it that way because I have not Mr Smith
here today and because Mr Cartwright is absolutely right that
boat owners are in a different position to commercial occupiers
on the land because they do not have the protection of the Landlord
and Tenant Act 1954, that is why I referred in answer to a question
from Mr Binley earlier to the interruption of private rights of
navigation. That is precisely in order to ensure that these people
are entitled to compensation because it is not something that
is covered standardly under the Compensation Code but as far as
the precise perimeters of that compensation are concerned, sir,
I do not feel myself qualified to give chapter and verse on it.
I think it is important we take instructions from our property
advisers and check with Mr Smith. The last thing I want to do
is to say anything that is incorrect, to give Mr Cartwright the
wrong impression and then cause trouble, so if we can deal with
it that way. We will write to Mr Cartwright and the Committee
in the next 48 hours setting out our understanding of the compensation
rights that arise here so then everybody understands. Mr Smith
is attending to give evidence on Poplar Dock and if the Committee
wants to ask any questions of him then that might be an appropriate
moment.
21016. Chairman: Both of those are helpful:
first, the letter, which we will look forward to receiving, and,
secondly, the matter that negotiations will continue to see if
you can find a solution to this.
21017. Mr Binley: You clearly are mindful
of our concerns of timing, you will take that into account and
make sure that you do come back to us. If the hopes you have do
not come to fruition, we still have to solve this problem if that
is the case. As long as there is an undertaking from you to come
back to us within the time frame, I am happy.
21018. Ms Lieven: Thank you, sir.
21019. Chairman: That concludes this
morning's hearing. The Committee will next meet at six pm this
evening.
Adjourned until 6 pm Ordered: That Counsel and
Parties be called in.
The Petition of Woodseer and Hanbury Residents Association
Mr Stephen Whale appeared on behalf of the Petitioners
|
