Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21500 - 21519)

  21500. Failing that, if I am right, you heard me say that you would want an option, not subject to conditions and caveats and the code that is suggested by the Secretary of State, to purchase back if you cannot have that by way of lease, the remainder of the land at the appropriate market value?
  (Mr Charlesworth) If at all possible, I would, yes.

  21501. Is there anything you would like to add at this stage, Mr Charlesworth?
  (Mr Charlesworth) No, only to say that I have co-operated in every possible way that I can with Crossrail. I was only in the building, probably, nine months or a year when all of a sudden this sort of came on top as such, and they came in with this petition and said what they were going to do—I have just spent something in the order of £1 million developing this building and getting it to exactly how we wanted it. Obviously, the building itself—it is a lovely building; it is where they used to make the armaments in the War and it is a bit of history attached to it, and I particularly liked the building at the time and wanted to retain it. So to say I was put out and a bit peeved was a complete and utter understatement. As I said, we co-operated, and I understand the need for the station. We need to move it forward with congestion and whatever, so I do understand. My son, actually, has a house just behind the actual unit, which we bought, and it is a Berkeley Homes house. But I just feel slightly aggrieved at the way it has been done and how I have been treated and, really, I went into all of this with solicitors and barristers and all the different people, and spent God knows how much—there must be in excess of £100,000 in legal bills—and I think them probably knowing at the time there was probably going to be this station anyway. I would have liked some sort of warning or some sort of forethought on it—you know, from anybody.

  21502. Obviously, if you were to be awarded by the Committee (and I will deal with that in submissions), there are taxation provisions, but you are indicating a global sum of around £100,000. You say "legal fees" but that includes also, as I understand it, the engineering costs.
  (Mr Charlesworth) The engineering costs as well.

  21503. It is a global figure. That does not include my fees! Unless there is anything we can assist further with for the Committee, thank you.

  Cross-examined by Mr Mould

  21504. Mr Mould: Just one or two questions, Mr Charlesworth, if I may. Just so the Committee is clear on the land ownership position: your company has a long under-lease of the premises at 16 Gunnery Terrace, does it not?
  (Mr Charlesworth) It is 1,000 years.

  21505. Nine-nine-nine. Near enough. Your landlords are C&P, are they not?
  (Mr Charlesworth) They are, yes.

  21506. You understand they are head lessees and the freeholder is the London Development Agency.
  (Mr Charlesworth) Yes.

  21507. So the site is in multiple ownership in that sense. That is right, is it not?
  (Mr Charlesworth) Mmm.

  21508. You lease the premises—your company—as your place of business.
  (Mr Charlesworth) I do, yes.

  21509. That is its principle virtue to you, that it provides you with an appropriate place in which to conduct your business. Is that fair?
  (Mr Charlesworth) Yes.

  21510. You have acknowledged that in order for the Crossrail proposals for Woolwich Station to proceed you accept that it is necessary for the building within which you conduct your business to be demolished.
  (Mr Charlesworth) I do not concede that. I have not seen every engineer's report possible. I was not going to sort of go down another road of employing more engineers, but when they first actually did this development, I see that you raised the way the tunnel comes up—originally they were going to put it a lot lower when it suited them and bring it up until it was not quite vertical and it was not a funicular railway but most certainly it was going to come up at a lot steeper angle than is now the case.

  21511. Ms Lieven dealt with that in opening. I do not think you challenge, do you, that, from an engineering point of view, it is necessary to proceed with the proposal for the station in the way that we have described to the Committee?
  (Mr Charlesworth) I would not challenge it but I do not know that there is not another option.

  21512. On the assumption that those proposals go forward and your building is then demolished, clearly so far as your principal interest in the site is concerned it has gone away; you need to find somewhere else from which to do your business. That is right, is it not?
  (Mr Charlesworth) Yes.

  21513. I do not know if you are aware of this, but the works to construct the station box are expected to last about three years and seven months. Have you seen that in the statement?
  (Mr Charlesworth) I have not read every detail but I did read something about three years, and I would probably anticipate about five.

  21514. You have mentioned that you would be looking for some sort of commitment from the Promoter that if he does acquire your building he acquires it to enable the station box fitting-out works at Woolwich to be carried out. You accept that.
  (Mr Charlesworth) Yes.

  21515. Can we put up page 05-011 from the Petitioner's document, just so the Committee can see what we have committed to.[17] Just glance down, if you will please. This is from our Petition Response Document. I expect you have seen it before.

  (Mr Charlesworth) Mm.

  21516. Paragraph 17. Do you see there: "The Promoter has already provided the Petitioner with commitments regarding the circumstances in which the powers of acquisition of its land will be exercised ... " (and it refers to earlier correspondence). It quotes two passages. Firstly: "The Promoter will not exercise its powers of compulsory acquisition over your clients' property before there is a commitment on the funding of the rest of the Crossrail scheme (i.e. other than provision of a station box and other station works at Woolwich)" and, secondly: "it will not exercise its powers of compulsory acquisition over your clients' property before there is a commitment on the funding of the rest of the south-eastern spur (other than provision of a station box and other station works at Woolwich) and that the land will be acquired for the purposes of Crossrail." You have seen that before. Would you accept that you do have there a firm commitment from the Promoter that, at least, so far as your land is concerned, it will not be taken from you for the purposes of Crossrail unless and until the Secretary of State is committed to the funding of the rest of the scheme as a whole, and indeed the rest of the south-eastern section? The gives you the comfort you need, does it not, in relation to the theoretical uncertainties that Mr Jones mentioned when he opened the case, as to whether and when and how far the scheme for Woolwich Station will be proceeded with. Is that right?
  (Mr Charlesworth) Yes, definitely. There is no problem there.

  21517. Thank you very much. Finally, just in relation to compensation, you have agreed that your principal interest in the building is as a place of business. It has been explained to you, has it, that on being displaced from the building so that it can be demolished for Crossrail purposes, you will be entitled to receive compensation which reflects the open market value of your long lease? That has been explained to you, has it?
  (Mr Charlesworth) Yes, it has.

  21518. You will also be entitled to claim back the costs which are incurred in relocating your business to other premises.
  (Mr Charlesworth) Yes.

  21519. We have also committed, have we not, to giving you 12 months' notice of entry into your premises for the purposes of Crossrail works? We have given you that commitment already.
  (Mr Charlesworth) Yes, I agree with that. May I just say something? Obviously, you have committed to all of this and you are telling me to read this paragraph 17. In it you say you might not take the land and if you do not take the land that is fine, but then what compensation do I get for being messed around for the last 18 months? I have not taken management time into this—into my costs. I have not even included management time and the amount of meetings with Bircham Dyson Bell and your people.


17   Committee Ref: A247, Crossrail Petitioner's Response Document, Para 17-Commitment to proceed with project in advance of acquisition (GRCHLB-AP4-6-05-011). Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007