Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21580
- 21599)
21580. For who do Mott MacDonald work in relation
to Crossrail?
(Mr Berryman) They work for us.
21581. Mr Mould: Thank you very much
indeed.
The witness withdrew
21582. Chairman: Mr Mould, do you have
a second witness?
21583. Mr Mould: Yes, Sir. Just before
Mr Smith gives his evidence, it may be helpful for the Committee
to hear me say two things because his evidence may touch on this.
First of all, Mr Jones asked rhetorically whether the commitments
that I drew attention to when I cross-examined Mr Charlesworth
were commitments that the Promoter was prepared to give to the
House, and the answer is yes, those commitments are given to this
House.
21584. The second point is this: Mr Jones also
observed that the revised over-site development undertaking that
Ms Lieven presented to you this morning was one that I think we
had not addressed publicly in this House until today, for obvious
reasons, but I thought I ought to mention that the need for such
an undertaking and the substance of that undertaking are set out
clearly in the Environmental Statement in support of AP4 in paragraph
2.2.24.[18]
So that matter has been a matter of public record since, I think,
early May of this year when the Environmental Statement was published.
Thank you very much.
Mr Colin Smith, Recalled
Examined by Mr Mould
21585. Mr Mould: Mr Smith, you are well-known
to the Committee but just for the benefit of the Petitioners,
you have been giving evidence to the Committee on behalf of the
Promoter in relation to property purchase and land compensation
matters, is that right?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21586. In relation to this particular Petition,
I have just one or two points, if I may. Can you proceed, please,
on the basis that it is established that the Promoter requires
to acquire number 16 Gunnery Terrace and to demolish it for the
purpose of the Crossrail scheme?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21587. That fact, as I think was accepted by
Mr Charlesworth, will inevitably involve the displacement and
relocation elsewhere of his business which is currently carried
on within the property.
(Mr Smith) Yes, it will.
21588. What does the land compensation regime
provide to the Petitioner in those circumstances?
(Mr Smith) Broadly speaking, Sir, he will gain
the value of his land interest whatever that may be at the time
we proceed with Crossrail and, in addition to that, he will receive
disturbance or any other losses not based on the value of land
which in this particular case, most importantly, will include
the cost of relocating the business and any temporary or permanent
losses that may be shown to have occurred to that business as
a result of the relocation only due to the acquisition of the
premises by Crossrail.
21589. Insofar as any policy arrangements that
the Promoter has put in place to address the impact of displacement
over and above those matters, those matters that are provided
for in money terms under the Land Compensation Code, is there
anything you would wish to draw to the Committee's attention in
terms of relocation?
(Mr Smith) Yes. Obviously in terms of our policy
of helping businesses in this sense the Promoter has agreed to
set up an agency to inform Petitioners and people who are actually
displaced of the availability of potentially suitable alternative
premises and to assist in their moving wherever that is practically
possible.
21590. Can I then turn to the two issues which
were raised by Mr Charlesworth. The first of those was he indicated
that whilst he accepted the need for the Promoter to occupy his
premises for the purposes of constructing the proposed station,
he would propose rather than compulsory acquisition some form
of consensual arrangement, perhaps by way of a lease or an option,
which would enable his company to effectively retain its leasehold
interest in the property and resume it after the works had been
completed. Do you recall that he said that?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21591. I want you just to help the Committee
on that. First of all, what are the existing tenancy arrangements
insofar as this particular property is concerned? What are the
property interests that relate to it?
(Mr Smith) It is a little complicated in this
area. As I understand it, the land east of Arsenal Way and west
of Cornwallis Terrace, which is shown on the plan to be the land
which AMP occupies, that land is owned by the London Development
Agency and they are the regeneration arm now of the Greater London
Authority. It is let on a 999 year lease to a property investment
company called City and Provincial, who then under-let the property
on 999 years, I believe less one day, to AMP and other occupiers
in that block, so it is not a straightforward land arrangement.
21592. So we have a property which is in multiple
occupation and which is proposed to be acquired for clearance
of existing buildings in order to enable the Crossrail works to
proceed.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21593. What is the Secretary of State's approach
to land acquisition in relation to such property?
(Mr Smith) In accordance with our Land Acquisition
Policy, which has been published and put before the Committee,
in these cases the Promoter would acquire the interests of the
various occupiers and the owners because the building is not just
required, it has to be demolished and we have to move the people
out. We do require part of it long-term freehold for the works
and, as I say, this is pretty standard practice. It would not
be possible for Crossrail to construct the works on that site
under the existing tenure arrangements, we would be in breach
of those leases. The general policy, and this is not just Crossrail
but major works, would be to acquire those premises.
21594. Just one other point on this issue. We
mentioned the inevitability of the Petitioner having to move their
business to other premises and we have already identified in proceedings
this morning the likely duration of the works: three years and
seven months for the station box and a further 15 months for the
fit-out. What would be the position as regards land compensation
in the event that Mr Charlesworth's proposed arrangement was to
be given effect?
(Mr Smith) Obviously, unfortunately, we are
going to have to displace Mr Charlesworth's business anyway and,
therefore, we have to pay all of those costs. If the building
is retained, again it must give rise to the potential of double
compensation if it is suggested that we move them out and move
them back.
21595. Thank you very much. Now turning to the
other issue, where I think Mr Charlesworth assumed that his land
was acquired compulsorily but, as he made clear his understanding,
in the long-term there may be some part of the cleared site that
would become surplus to the Promoter's requirements following
completion of the construction phrase. Do you recall that?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21596. Can you explain to the Committee the
Secretary of State's policy position insofar as the disposal of
land of that character is concerned following completion of the
Crossrail works?
(Mr Smith) Yes. I think it is fair to say that
the overriding principle that we are trying to follow is that
wherever we have surplus land we wish to make it available in
a way that will in the public interest meet the Secretary of State's
undertaking on early development, that is the overriding principle.
Obviously there are other principles, but that is the most important
one. Accordingly, the Land Disposal Policy in a multi-owned site
would not look to maintain a patchwork of ownerships but would
generally look to dispose of the site as a whole in one lot to
one person, which is likely to lead to the early redevelopment
of the site. Obviously it would also achieve best value but it
would achieve early redevelopment. The danger if one were to dispose
of it in small pieces is that you would effectively not secure
early redevelopment, you would have different landowners arguing
about what should happen and we want to avoid that at all costs.
21597. I have had put up an extract from the
Land Disposal Policy, paragraph 4.4.[19]
I wonder if you just might glance at that. Is that helpful?
(Mr Smith) Yes. Taking the case
where we have a parcel of interest, the Land Disposal Policy then
says owners who have qualifying interests on the site, and AMP
have a qualifying interest, they have a 999 year lease, can bid
for the acquisition of that site, so in implementing the policy
that would be the case, but also the Secretary of State would
require people bidding for the site to demonstrate that they have
the necessary financial and technical expertise to ensure, again,
that the site is developed early. What we want to avoid generally
speaking, and I am not suggesting by any means this applies to
the Petitioner, is disposing of these sites to property speculators
who sit on them for years and then sell them at a profit. We want
to see the sites redeveloped, so we want to ensure that whoever
we sell to will and can redevelop those sites.
21598. As regards the planning circumstances
of this site and its surrounding area, is the site in a conservation
area?
(Mr Smith) Yes, it is.
21599. Does that have any bearing on the policy
that you have just mentioned?
(Mr Smith) It would not have a bearing on the
policy but probably in its implementation. Obviously the Promoter
is not the person who will determine what is built on this site,
that will be down to the local planning authority and it could
be that there will be some restrictions on what can be built there
because of the conservation area. As I say, it is not for the
Promoter to decide upon that, it is for Greenwich Council.
18 Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement
(SES4), Over-site Development, Para 2.2.24 (LINEWD-AP4-012). Back
19
Crossrail Information Paper C10-Land Disposal Policy, Para 4.4,
The interest to be offered back, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(SCN-20070710-004). Back
| 
