Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


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


 
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