Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21620
- 21639)
21620. Even on the box it is not the case that
you take the freehold completely with no prospect of development
over the top. The rest of my client's land which you do not need
permanently you can use for a construction site and there is nothing
there that would prohibit you either taking a lease or a licence.
It is more inconvenient.
(Mr Smith) Do you mean acquiring a lease?
21621. Yes.
(Mr Smith) Right, okay.
21622. You would have to go and speak to the
various parties but there is nothing legally that prohibits you
from doing that. It may require you not just to follow your standard
policy but there is nothing that has been put forward to this
Committee as a matter of fact or as a matter of law, other than
inconvenience, that stops you doing that.
(Mr Smith) We would want to acquire your client's
leasehold interest so that it enabled us to build Crossrail, that
is the point I think I am making.
21623. Yes, but that can be granted to you under
a lease arrangement.
(Mr Smith) By agreement.
21624. Yes.
(Mr Smith) Provided that the other landowners
are also in agreement.
21625. But you have taken no steps to do that,
you have come in with compulsory purchase. The effect will be
compulsory purchase.
(Mr Smith) Yes, and to be fair I think normally
getting six landowners to agree all to dispose of interests to
us by agreement is slim and the reason that we have compulsory
purchase powers, or we are applying for them in the public interest,
is so that we can secure the site.
21626. Come now, Mr Smith, when you talk about
the six different owners, this is not a site that is divided up
into different ownerships. You have got a 999 year lease and you
have got some headlease people whose only interest in it is a
financial one.
(Mr Smith) But they are all different land
interests. They own different land interests, it is in multi-ownership.
21627. The Committee can recall that no steps
have been taken even to approach those other owners.
(Mr Smith) With the greatest respect, we have
not got this House to approve the scheme yet. It would not be
normal to do that. It is normal for a scheme of this importance
not to leave it to chance that we will get all existing owners
to be friendly and agree with us but that we do have the power
to go in and acquire the site and secure it for the works.
21628. Let us look at the Land Disposal Policy.
The Committee no doubt have been over this a number of times,
and I am not going to go over it, but we can agree this: it gives
no right, does it, to my client to have first option, no absolute
right?
(Mr Smith) No.
21629. There is a series of exceptions, and
I do not want to go through all of them that could apply but one
of them is if the Secretary of State at 8.1(ii) is of the opinion
that the nature of the site is so small it would not be commercially
worthwhile, or elsewhere if the Secretary of State thinks it is
advantageous to include land in adjoining ownerships in joint
disposal.[20]
(Mr Smith) Can I just say that
these exceptions are all included in the Government's advice on
disposal of surplus land in the Crichel Down policies. We have
generally followed those but extended them slightly. Yes, there
are exceptions to the policy.
21630. Mr Jones: You indicated there
is no overriding desire to develop the land although it is not
really in your control. So far as the arrangements with Berkeley
Homes are concerned, we have seen the stage of --- I do not know
if the Committee has a copy of the document that Ms Lieven referred
to, the final agreed version. I do not know whether it has been
put before the Committee: "Final Agreed Version. Non-Binding
Outline Agreement on Station Box at Woolwich". It is at the
back of the Promoter's exhibit bundle, is that right? No, it is
in another volume. It is in this bundle that was on our table.[21]
21631. Chairman: It is numbered A248.
21632. Mr Jones: This is a document Ms
Lieven referred to in opening.
21633. Ms Lieven: I did not put the document
in, I simply referred to it. I do not think that it is in front
of the Committee unless Mr Elvin has referred to it. It may have
been handed around.
21634. Mr Liddell-Grainger: We have it,
"Non-Binding Outline Agreement on Station Box at Woolwich".
21635. Mr Jones: It is your exhibit bundle,
this is the one I found on my desk when I came in.
21636. Mr Mould: That is not before the
Committee, that Petitioner is not coming now.
21637. Chairman: We have the document.
21638. Mr Jones: It is probably right
that you should have it. Mr Smith, the position is when this was
signed on 20 March 2007 it was envisaged, was it not, that it
was hoped to use reasonable endeavours to have a conditional contract
by 31 May. Do you see that in the first paragraph?
(Mr Smith) Yes. Could I say to you and to the
Committee at this stage that I have not been involved in these
discussions and, therefore, what I can say is from hearsay and
limited.
21639. That is very fair, Mr Smith. On that
basis, I am not going to waste the Committee's time on going through
the document, I will make whatever submissions I want to make.
Is it right that you have not been involved in any negotiations
with Berkeley Homes?
(Mr Smith) No, Sir.
20 Crossrail Information Paper C10-Land Disposal Policy,
Para 8.1 Exceptions, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (SCN-20070710-005). Back
21
Non-Binding Outline Agreement on Station Box at Woolwich (SCN-20070710-006). Back
| 
