Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21460
- 21479)
21460. The Committee may remember there were
two options being floated the last time we met and we have decided
to go with the cofferdam option. It does not require an additional
provision because it falls within our limits of deviation, but
it does require to be assessed environmentally which is why there
is a supplementary Environmental Statement. The solution which
we are setting out here has been discussed in detail with the
boat owners and the position we have arrived at is that navigable
access consistent with that currently existing will be maintained
during the construction of Crossrail at Isle of Dogs subject to
possible temporary restrictions during the construction of the
cofferdam. What we mean by those last words has been set out to
Poplar Dock and Blackwall Basin residents in a letter dated 18
June 2007. In essence, we are talking about a period of about
three months when there may be some restrictions. They will be
able to get in and out but not all of the time, wholly unrestricted.
21461. In terms of the size of vessels, what
we have agreed is that the position of the cofferdam will be such
that the largest vessels currently in Popular Dock and Blackwall
Basin can safely navigate the channel. We are working with both
BWB and the Dock residents to achieve that result. In the light
of that work, and the discussions with the boat owners, they have
indicated that they are content not to appear in Committee. You
may remember they were adjourned last time, so they had the right
to come back even if they did not petition again, but they have
indicated that they are happy with the position. Hopefully that
is a happy end to that particular problem. Sir, that is all I
intend to do in opening, so unless the Committee have any questions
at this stage, I was going to hand over to Mr Mould to open specifically
on AMP.
21462. Mr Mould: We have up the map showing
the position of the station box and the position of the premises
at Woolwich, which Ms Lieven was showing you a few moments ago.[9]
AMP Limited and Mr Charlesworth are long leaseholders and business
occupiers of the building at number 16 Gunnery Terrace, Woolwich.
The footprint of that building is shown here outlined in red.
You can see on the southern side it has a little nib coming out
beyond the elevation there and we will see in a photograph in
a moment that is part of the building occupied by the Petitioners.
We have here the outline of the station box which Ms Lieven showed
you a few moments ago. As you have been told, that represents
the outline of the box that is proposed under the additional provisions
before the Committee. The construction arrangements for that box
are essentially a cut and cover proposal, so it follows that anything
that lies on or over that box at the present time will perforce
be called to be demolished and removed to enable the box to be
dug.
21463. As you can see straightaway, that would
include a portion of the Petitioner's building at 16 Gunnery Terrace.
The simple proposition is that the Petitioner's building and land
is needed for the purpose of constructing the proposed station
for Woolwich, for Crossrail. I will not repeat what has been said
by Ms Lieven as regards the constraints which have led to the
box being located where it is and the proposed line of the railway
as it passes through this location, she mentioned to you a number
of constraints which serve to govern what is proposed, both in
terms of horizontal alignment and in terms of vertical alignment.
Those are important points to bear in mind.
21464. If we turn to Exhibit 007, please, just
to see a photograph of what you have just seen on the plan.[10]
This is the AMP building and, as I mentioned, this is the element
of the AMP building at 16 Gunnery Terrace which just comes slightly
to the south of the main building line and roughly the area that
is required to be demolished for the purposes of digging the station
box includes this building and the portion of the main building
to about this point here. In physical terms, that is what is required
to enable the box to be constructed. What we propose then is the
compulsory acquisition of AMP's land at 16 Gunnery Terrace. The
demolition of the building is for the purposes of constructing
the station box and the integral ventilation and escape shafts,
the use of the balance of the Petitioner's land, that is to say,
the remainder of the building which will be demolished as part
of a larger worksite to serve the construction of the Woolwich
Station.
21465. If you could put up 004, please.[11]
Here you see in yellow the station box. Here is broadly the footprint
of the Petitioner's building and as you can see a larger worksite
extending to the north is proposed including, amongst other things,
the provision of a batching plant and fabrication yard. We have
shown the worksite as extending around the whole of the box work
area with indicative arrangements for activities and so forth.
I shall not take further time to describe the various elements,
but that information is before you. AMP occupy their building
as their headquarters for their mail distribution and storage
business and it is plain that our proposals will require them
to relocate to alternative premises. We recognise three matters
in relation to that requirement: firstly, that they should be
given as much advanced notice as is reasonably possible to enable
them to plan relocation. We have already committed to them that
we will give them 12 months' advanced notice of entry on to their
premises.
21466. The second point is we recognise that
they should have assistance with relocation and we have already
explained to you in earlier hearings that we have a policy to
set up an agency in relation to that to assist commercial occupiers
who are displaced as a result of the Crossrail proposals, and
we have in this case already sought information from AMP on their
requirements for relocation. There has been correspondence in
relation to that.
21467. Thirdly, they will be entitled to land
compensation which will embrace both the full market value of
their leasehold premises but also the reimbursement of their reasonable
costs incurred in relocating their business to another location
which will be recoverable as disturbance compensation. Not all
of the Petitioner's land is likely to be required for Crossrail
on a permanent basis and the surplus land, which will essentially
be a part of the balance of their site which is required for a
worksite, surplus land at 16 Gunnery Terrace, will be dealt with
following the completion of the construction phase in accordance
with the Secretary of State's adopted Land Disposal Policy. In
due course, I will ask Mr Smith to give evidence to explain to
you how that would work in a little more detail so far as is necessary
to enable you to complete your hearing of this Petition.
21468. Finally, the Petitioner's land had been
within the safeguarding for Crossrail Woolwich since 2005. Under
the Hybrid Bill scheme it was proposed that there should be a
vent shaft at the south-eastern end of the Arsenal Way car park.
If we could put up plan SE5(i), please.[12]
This shows the arrangements under the now superseded Hybrid Bill.
Here is AMP's building again, here is Arsenal Way. Under the Hybrid
Bill there was a proposal for a vent shaft at this location and
that would have affected AMP's land by virtue of not only the
location of the shaft but also the worksite arrangements associated
with it. Under Additional Provisions 3 the shaft was proposed
to be moved to the east, this location shown by the red dot and
the worksite shifted at the same time so that it fell within the
car parking and open space associated with this block here, which
is the IO Centre. You may recall Ferrotec, they are the occupiers
of that centre. Essentially, the purpose of that change under
AP3 was to enable AMP to remain in their premises throughout the
then current proposals for Crossrail at Woolwich. That arrangement
was the subject of an agreement in principle with the Petitioners
through their agents in May of last year, that is to say, well
in advance of this Committee's interim decisions in July which
led ultimately to the Secretary of State promoting the Woolwich
Station arrangements which we now see before you. It follows that
it is essentially the promotion of the proposed station at Woolwich
under AP4 in response to your Committee's interim decisions which
leads to the position we are now in whereby, as we have explained,
we require AMP's building to displace from their current premises
in order to enable Crossrail in its current form to proceed. The
reason I mention that in opening and just set out the factual
position is because I anticipate that one of the points which
Mr Jones, who is acting for AMP, will raise before you in a moment
is a question as to costs and I want to set out the basic history,
the chronology in relation to the proceedings.
21469. Chairman: Essentially you are
saying it is our fault!
21470. Mr Mould: I am not saying it is
your fault. I am not seeking to attribute blame; I am simply explaining
the chronology. Both yourself and the Secretary of State, as is
well known, have reached a sensible meeting of minds in relation
to Woolwich and today's proceedings very much reflect that. That
is all I propose to say by way of opening. I shall pass over to
Mr Jones.
21471. Mr Jones: Mr Mould has given me
the pointer, but I cannot guarantee to the Committee that I am
going to be as au fait as Ms Lieven and Mr Mould!
21472. Chairman: I always find it slightly
amazing that you are all on very good salaries but you never can
afford more than one pointer!
21473. Mr Mould: We have to account for
our own expenses and keep the taxman happy!
The Petition of Citipost AMP Limited.
Mr Gregory Jones appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.
21474. Mr Jones: We are trying to be
sustainable in recycling! Could I say, I am not going to open
at all in length, other than just to headline the issues, partly
foreshadowed by Mr Mould and then for Mr Danny Charlesworth to
give evidence. Could I say that so far as my clients are concerned,
we are not in the business of attributing blame to either the
Secretary of State or to this Committee, that is for others to
decide. One thing I think we can agree is we are not to blame
for the circumstances in which my client finds himself. As Mr
Mould rightly foreshadowed in correspondence, my client has been
co-operative as a Petitioner to the AP3 scheme. Right from pretty
much the start it indicated to the Promoters that it was not necessary
to put a shaft in the middle of our service area so that we were
forced to relocate our headquarters. We employed legal, engineering
and other consultants and we were successful in discussions with
the Promoter in persuading the Promoter, if you like, of the error
of their ways. The Promoter agreed that the matter could be dealt
with by way of an undertaking and that would have been it. The
position is we now face relocation. My client does not oppose
the scheme, my client sees the benefits for the area where most
of our employers come from, it does not oppose the scheme, but
we do say that those costs have been incurred and the question
for this Committee is where fairly should they fall? Should it
fall on my client, someone who is losing their land, having to
be relocated and then rubbing salt in the wound, we have got to
pay costs by being co-operative, doing everything that this Committee
and the Secretary of State would like us to do and the costs fall
with us. We say, and there can be no dispute about this, in my
submission, that that would be unfair.
21475. It is also right to note, as Ms Lieven
indicated in opening, the reason why we lose our site, quite justified
from the point of view of the Promoter, is that it is going to
save costs to the Promoter, do a cut and fill job for the station.
Another alignment for a deeper station would have avoided the
need for taking our site. We are not suggesting that that is an
alternative which should be taken, no doubt the cost/benefit justifies
that, but given that that is a saving of a considerable degree
to the Secretary of State, we are suffering the burden of having
to move our business as a result of that cost. We then have the
position of who should then bear the costs thrown away on AP3
and we say that should also be the Promoter's cost since in any
event, as it so happens, by following this scheme and taking our
land, it is actually saving a considerable amount of money. That
is one point that we will be raising for the Committee's consideration.
21476. The second point really flows and can
be sub-divided, and that is this: we do ask that the land, which,
as Mr Mould indicated, is not required permanently, be retained
within our ownership or that we be given a freestanding option
to repurchase it back it at market value. My client is prepared
to enter into any appropriate lease or licence arrangement so
as to allow the Promoters full access to that land to do with
as they wish for site construction.
21477. The Promoter says there is no agreement
with Berkeley Homes for the land to the east of Arsenal Way. We
may explore that a little bit further to see what stage that has
reached. There is no suggestion by the Promoter that the development
of the remainder of our land is necessary to fund the Woolwich
Station. That is not part of the case.
21478. In closing, I will deal with the principles
of compulsory purchase, which I think are trite law, but one should
not use a Draconian power to compulsorily purchase more than is
absolutely necessary for the public purpose. That means not just
geographically but the type of interest you are acquiring: freehold
rather than leasehold. Then we would say, first of all, that we
are prepared to offer a leasehold or a licence, and if the business
case was being promoted that that land was needed for some ulterior
purpose then that should be transparently put before the Committee,
and it has not been. In the alternative, we would also ask that
we be given an option to purchase back and not in accordance with
the land disposal policy of the Secretary of State, which you
have probably had cause to look at before—I do not know—but
which does not provide the guarantee of an option to purchase
back at market value.
21479. Can I say the second sub-point very briefly?
The reason we have such concern for the retention of our land,
and an interest in that—either by way of option or licence—is,
to be quite frank, we are very unsure how committed the Promoters
are to seeing through the Woolwich scheme and the Woolwich station.
We are reinforced in that view by today, which is the first time
we have been privy to the undertaking that has just been produced
today; we have not seen any sign of that, which is rather surprising.
I see it is dated 10 July. That undertaking, again, reflects the
uncertainty which one finds in the Environmental Statement as
to the commitment by the Promoters to do anything else than, via
Berkeley Homes (that well-known station builder) to provide a
shell of a station. We believe there is a very real risk, as envisaged
in the Environmental Statement, as envisaged by the undertaking,
and also the agreement which I will be making some submissions
on (Ms Lieven referred to the heads of terms agreement signed
in March which expresses that it was due to be completed by May
and is still not completed), that there can be certainty that
the scheme will go ahead.
9 Crossrail Ref: P159, Woolwich Station-Position of
a Station Box and Petitioner's Premises (GRCHLB-AP4-6-04-005). Back
10
Crossrail Ref: P159, Woolwich Station-16 Gunnery Terrace from
the south end of Cornwallis Road (GRCHLB-AP4-6-04-007). Back
11
Crossrail Ref: P159, Crossrail Woolwich Station-Worksite Arrangements
(GRCHLB-AP4-6-04-004). Back
12
Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES4), Map SE5(i),
Woolwich Station, Amendment of Provisions-Original Scheme and
Context Plan (LINEWD-AP4A-009). Back
|
