Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21600
- 21619)
21600. Just one final point going back to compensation,
if you just think about what the Petitioner's land compensation
entitlement will be, clearly, as the Committee understands, land
compensation following compulsory purchase is assessed in what
is known as the no-scheme world, that is you leave out any value
effects of the Crossrail scheme, but with that in mind would the
assessment of market value take account of the development value,
such as it is, which the building possesses?
(Mr Smith) Yes, it would take account of any
development value that it has at the present time, but obviously
being in a conservation area and a building linked with other
buildings I would expect that the development value would be less
than its existing use as a depot.
21601. But it is a matter to be taken into account?
(Mr Smith) It can be taken into account.
21602. Mr Mould: Thank you very much
indeed.
21603. Chairman: Mr Jones?
Cross-examined by Mr Jones
21604. Mr Jones: Thank you very much.
Mr Smith, can we just begin with compensation points that I think
we can agree. Any compensation payable to my client will be in
the so-called no-scheme world, so as matters stand they would
not share in the bounty of Crossrail.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21605. Second point: insofar as this Committee
is considering the costs in the region of £100,000 expended
by my client in respect of AP3, those costs would not be recoverable,
would they, under the ordinary Compensation Code to which you
refer?
(Mr Smith) No, they would not.
21606. In respect of dealing with a site, first
of all, you raised the spectre of double-recovery if my client
were to go off the site and come back, but it is a principle of
compensation that my client would be under a duty to mitigate,
so there would be no prospect of double-recovery. Particularly
if you are doing your job for Crossrail, or your successors, there
is no way you are going to pay double-recovery, is there? We would
not be entitled to it?
(Mr Smith) In the normal course there is no
question of that. I think the point that was put to me was in
the circumstances that you put forward this morning to the Committee
there could be a chance of double-recovery, particularly moving
the businesses twice. It depends on exactly what you were referring
to, but I can see the prospect of paying more.
21607. Mr Smith, can I put it to you pretty
fairly and squarely, if it was either under a lease arrangement
or with an option you, as a valuer, would be taking that into
account in any disturbance costs that were payable, as would the
Lands Tribunal on any appeal to the Lands Tribunal. That is a
prospect that you would guard against. There is no right to double-recovery.
(Mr Smith) There is not under the compensation
law but I suppose I did not quite know what it was you were suggesting
and, therefore, I was commenting on that. It seems to me if we
accept that your client's site has to go and that we are applying
the Compensation Code in the normal way and we do not make it
a special arrangement here then I would agree that there is no
double-recovery.
21608. What we are asking the Committee to do
is not to follow, that is the whole point, your standard policy
on compensation but to depart from it, and as a consequence of
departing from it, either by taking a lease or granting us an
option, the compensation would be adjusted accordingly, we recognise
that, it is a different package. Do you follow?
(Mr Smith) Yes. I am struggling to think how
that would work, with the greatest respect, because I do not see
how it could work under the existing arrangements. I do not see
what we would do with the other landowners on the site. The whole
thing would be difficult.
21609. Let us take it in stages. I want to distinguish
between whether it is convenient to you or whether you actually
need it. I can understand it is inconvenient that you actually
have to address the particular merits of a site rather than having
a blanket policy that is very convenient to apply. First of all,
it was never suggested to Mr Charlesworth that there was anything
difficult in the lease arrangements of 999 years—you were
here when he was cross-examined—that made it impossible
for you to go by way of lease or licence or option agreement,
was it? Mr Mould did not suggest that to Mr Charlesworth, did
he?
(Mr Smith) No.
21610. Insofar as your position is concerned,
is there any evidence that you want to show to the Committee that
you have taken steps to approach any of the other parties with
an interest in the property to see whether this arrangement by
way of an option, a lease or a licence is possible and that being
rejected? There is no evidence, is there?
(Mr Smith) No.
21611. Mr Mould referred to the terms of the
lease, do you produce the terms of the lease to the Committee
or are there any clauses that you want to refer the Committee
to?
(Mr Smith) No. I only heard this proposal this
morning so I have not come here prepared for it. I was answering
a question on that proposal.
21612. You were aware that we wanted an option
though, were you not, to buy back?
(Mr Smith) An option to buy back is different.
21613. Yes, I realise that.
(Mr Smith) The point I am making, and elsewhere
along the line of route, is we have followed the Land Acquisition
Policy. This land is in part required permanently and part required
temporarily, the problem being that the building has to be demolished.
21614. Yes.
(Mr Smith) In other cases where we have acquired
what we have agreed to do, which is commonsense I think, is to
buy the land and once we have bought it and finished we apply
the Land Disposal Policy to the surplus land which does give existing
owners the ability to come back and buy the site.
21615. We will look at the terms under which
your policy allows that in a moment. So far as the lease arrangements
are concerned, as to your requirements, the station would be a
cut-and-fill box and there would be a roof over it.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21616. You are not saying to this Committee
that Crossrail has foreclosed for any technical reasons the ability
to sell the rights to develop over the station to a third party.
It is not your evidence to the Committee that that is the case,
is it?
(Mr Smith) Absolutely not.
21617. Indeed, you would wish to encourage that,
would you not?
(Mr Smith) Yes, with certain safeguards.
21618. Although you would retain the freehold
of, if I can call it, the subterranean box of the station, legal
arrangements would be in place so that a third party, whoever
it is, would be able to develop, whether on a leasehold or other
arrangement, even above the station. That is a possibility, is
it not?
(Mr Smith) Yes. That presumes that we actually
buy the land first and then we grant back those rights with various
protections for the railway considered within that agreement.
21619. That is the position with the box.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
| 
