Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21520
- 21539)
21520. I understand you have a point about costs
that you have incurred so far. I am not going to ask about that,
I am going to deal with that in submissions in a few moments'
time. The advance notice point is reflected at the top of the
page on the screen. Do you see that? I think you have accepted
that that is a valuable commitment to your business on our part.
(Mr Charlesworth) As I said when I opened,
I do not oppose the Crossrail scheme at all; I do not oppose it;
I think it is necessary; I think Woolwich needs it. It is unfortunate
that it has fallen on my shoulders, and I am the one that has
actually had to bear the brunt. I am going to be the one bearing
the brunt of probably making 60 or 70 local people redundant if
I cannot find something within the distance I need to do. Otherwise
I shall probably have to move the business somewhere else.
21521. In that respect (this is my final question
to you) clearly, the more you can be assisted by action taken
by the Promoter in arranging relocation for your business, the
more likely it is that you will be able to keep to a minimum the
disruption in terms of redundancies and so on that you have just
mentioned. Is that fair?
(Mr Charlesworth) I would like to think we
could keep it as a minimum, yes. I would think if the building
is available afterwards I would also like to re-employ people
from the local area, if I can actually take that land, even if
I used it as office space.
21522. Again, we have written to you on a number
of occasions in recent months indicating that we would be very
keen to hear from you at the earliest possible stage details of
your relocation requirements with a view to assisting you in relation
to that process.
(Mr Charlesworth) I am not too sure I have
actually received any of that correspondence.
21523. You will see it is referred to in the
second paragraph in the page before you—letters between
Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of the Promoter and your agents,
Messrs Bircham Dyson Bell. You are aware of that correspondence?
(Mr Charlesworth) I am aware of some of the
correspondence, but I would not say it was "many times".
You may have written on one occasion. I honestly cannot remember
that. Even so, that is still time, money, people, looking at these
places, going out and evaluating what we want, seeing what we
want—before we know anything is absolutely concrete. This
is not something I have developed or I have gone out and looked
for; this is something that has been put upon me. I am a local
person; I live in Sidcup, I operate a business in central London;
we had six or seven units in central London, and this particular
unit I liked; it was the proper unit, it allowed me to employ
200 people from within the local people—all good people,
all salt of the earth people—and I just think the way you
have come along and disrupted it is not great—is not good.
You did not do your homework. When the first people from Crossrail
came round to see me, they showed me pictures of an empty unit
and they said: "Ah, but this was empty when we looked at
it". Of course it was because I had not taken possession
then; they took the pictures two years before and decided that
was where their venture was going to be.
21524. Mr Charlesworth, the only point I am
seeking to establish is the modest one that, as I understand it,
you would welcome the opportunity to share your detailed relocation
requirements with the Promoter to enable him, as far as he is
able to do so, through agencies that he proposes to set up, to
assist you in relocating your business.
(Mr Charlesworth) All the help I could get
I would be glad of, yes.
21525. Mr Mould: Thank you very much.
Re-examined by Mr Jones
21526. Mr Jones: Just looking at context
here: we had this letter from Winckworth. I will make submissions—it
is a matter of legal submissions—as to the undertaking that
is now offered, and through the Chair I seek confirmation from
the Promoters that the undertaking referred to by Mr Mould at
paragraph 7 (I will make submissions on it later) is, nonetheless,
going to be offered as an undertaking to this House.
21527. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Is it paragraph
7 or 17?
21528. Mr Jones: Seventeen, referred
to by Mr Mould in cross-examination. I will make legal submissions
as to what it actually provides. That is a matter for me rather
than Mr Charlesworth. I would seek confirmation through the Committee
and ventilated here for the Promoters to acknowledge that this
has been offered as an undertaking to this House and not simply
a correspondence from Messrs Winckworth. Hitherto, it has not
been offered as an undertaking to the House; I would ask, particularly
since Mr Mould has sought to cross-examine relying on it before
this House, he gives it to this House. I am sure that should not
be too difficult. He nods. I will make submissions as to what
it actually provides as a matter of legal submissions rather than
Mr Charlesworth. I just want to ask Mr Charlesworth: you were
asked about a letter from Messrs Winckworth Sherwood about you
relocating. Is your company looking to relocate if Crossrail does
not go ahead?
(Mr Charlesworth) No.
21529. Would you want to relocate—
(Mr Charlesworth) No, not at all.
21530.—at any time if Crossrail did not
go ahead?
(Mr Charlesworth) Not at all.
21531. We know that this Bill has still got
to go to the other place. Can I have a look at paragraph 17 and
the position that we are in, so far as this aspect of the commitment
that is given? I do not want to ask you about the commitment itself
but can you help me with this: look at paragraph 17 of the undertakings
given. Is there any time limit on that commitment—that the
funding will be in place within two years, five years, 10 years,
20 years or 200 years, so far as you are aware?
(Mr Charlesworth) No.
21532. Mr Jones: Thank you very much.
No further questions.
Examined by the Committee
21533. Mr Liddell-Grainger: You said
something about letters; you said you had not had much communication
from the Promoters. Is that the case?
(Mr Charlesworth) I think they have kept us
up-to-speed on everything but it was the way he actually said
that I had received lots and lots of letters. I may have received
one or two. I think we have received them and I have definitely
seen this particular letter, but I cannot remember seeing letters
saying: "You will get all the help and what you need to actually
look at other units". I have actually had my own people out
looking anyway in the local vicinities.
21534. Chairman: Mr Jones, do you have
any more witnesses?
21535. Mr Jones: I do not have any more
witnesses. All I have, in due course, are my submissions.
The witness withdrew
21536. Mr Mould: Sir, I am going to call
two witnesses: first of all, Mr Berryman, very briefly indeed,
just to deal with two specific points. While Mr Berryman is taking
the seat, can I just be clear in the light of what was said by
Mr Liddell-Grainger? The paragraph you have in front of you refers
to a series of letters. The position is that those letters were
exchanged as correspondence between Messrs Winckworth Sherwood
and Messrs Bircham Dyson Bell acting on behalf of the Petitioner.
How those matters were dealt with internally, within the Petitioner's
team, I cannot say, but that is an accurate record of the position
as regards correspondence from us to the Petitioner. I hope that
clarifies that.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Mr Mould
21537. Mr Mould: Mr Berryman, just two
points, if I may. First of all, perhaps I should just ask you
this: Ms Lieven in opening, and I, to a degree, in opening in
relation to the AMP Petition outlined the basic logic of the current
proposals for the station at Woolwich, and in particular the engineering
logic which underlies the current proposals before the House.
Do you want to say anything more about that or are you content
that what has been said is an accurate account?
(Mr Berryman) I thought Ms Lieven gave a marvellous
exposition of the thinking behind the selection of the alignment.
21538. Thank you very much. I am not going to
ask you repeat it for a second or, even, a third time. That is
all I want on that. Just two points. If one was promoting a deep
station for Woolwich as opposed to the actual proposals before
the Committee, what do you say about the need, in that alternative
hypothetical scenario, for the Promoter to take powers to acquire
AMP's land?
(Mr Berryman) I think there are two things
to say. The first is that Members will realise from other station
designs that we have put up that every station needs escape stairs
at both ends of the station and also needs ventilation structures
at each of the stations. So whatever the depth of the station
there would need to be some structures at each end of it. You
will recall that even central London, where we have had to demolish
very substantial buildings in order to acquire those for the purposes
of making those escape stairs and ventilation shafts, the same
would apply here, and the area of Mr Charlesworth's premises would
certainly be significantly disturbed by these structures to the
extent that they become unusable. I had been thinking for a few
moments before I came in, because I knew Mr Mould was going to
ask me this question, and I cannot actually see a way of avoiding
that if there is to be a station at all.
21539. Just so I am clear, on the second scenario,
if the position was no station at all at Woolwich—that alternative
scenario he put forward for the sake of argument—what about
the situation then? Would you still need the AMP site in those
circumstances?
(Mr Berryman) Again, Members will remember
last year we talked about the issue of Ferrotec and AMP, and the
alternative sites for a ventilation shaft at that stage were either
to take the Ferrotec site or to take AMP. In the event, at that
point, before there was going to be a station, we decided to take
Ferrotec and Ferrotec appeared before you for us to explain why
that was. With the changed alignment that we have now adopted
which allows for the construction of the station, it would no
longer be practical to put the shaft on the Ferrotec site. So
we would be back to square one with Mr Charlesworth's point when
we originally spoke to him and said: "This is where we have
to have the shaft." So, in any event, there would be an intervention
of a ventilation shaft in that area.
| 
