Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21640
- 21659)
21640. Are you aware of any negotiations that
have taken place with Berkeley Homes?
(Mr Smith) I am aware that—
21641. Just at that stage?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21642. Fine. So there is no-one I can ask about
that. Mr Smith, finally, because a point was being made in respect
of the Armouries, can you just help me with this, they are not
listed buildings, are they? They are not.
(Mr Smith) Are you referring to your client's
property?
21643. Yes.
(Mr Smith) No, it is not a listed building.
21644. But it is within a conservation area,
as you have indicated.
(Mr Smith) Yes, it is.
21645. And, therefore, ordinarily its demolition
would require conservation area consent.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21646. Can we agree this: although they are
not listed they are historic buildings, they are part of the historical
Woolwich Armoury, are they not?
(Mr Smith) Yes, I believe they are.
21647. Can we just confirm this finally: insofar
as the undertaking that Mr Mould kindly gave this House this afternoon,
the reference to a commitment by the Secretary of State—This
is paragraph 17 of the letter which you will find in the Petitioner's
bundle of exhibits and I think it can be put up on the screen.[22]
(Mr Smith) Thank you.
21648. Paragraph 17, insofar as that commitment
on funding is concerned, that is not time-sensitive, is it? There
is no commitment as to when a commitment will be given, if I make
myself clear?
(Mr Smith) No, except I would add that obviously
the powers, if granted by this House, will last only for five
years and after that period they either lapse or the Promoters
would have to come back to the House to have them renewed. It
is not indefinite, this has to be implemented within that period
or else the powers will need renewal.
21649. Are you referring to the full powers,
that they have to be exercised in every respect or if they are
implemented elsewhere in the Crossrail scheme that will trigger
the five year requirement?
(Mr Smith) No, I am referring to the land acquisition
powers which I believe have to be implemented on each site within
five years from the date of Royal Assent.
21650. Mr Jones: Thank you very much,
Mr Smith.
21651. Chairman: Mr Mould?
Re-examined by Mr Mould
21652. Mr Mould: Just one matter, Mr
Smith. I am asking for the Land Disposal Policy, which was shown
a moment ago, to be put back on the screen. Cast your mind back
to the scenario that Mr Jones was putting to you, which I think
I am right in saying was essentially along these lines: that it
would be open to the Promoter to enter into arrangements with
the owners of land interests in relation to 16 Gunnery Terrace,
that is to say AMP themselves, City and Provincial, the head-lessees,
and the London Development Agency, the freeholders, and by agreement
to make arrangements for the future hand back of any surplus land
and its appropriate redevelopment after that had taken place.
Do you remember that?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21653. Just glance, please, at 5.1(iv) and 4.4.[23]
(Mr Smith) Yes.
21654. In principle, does the Land Disposal
Policy allow for such an eventuality?
(Mr Smith) Yes, it does.
21655. What would have to be demonstrated to
the Secretary of State in order for the policy to have that effect?
(Mr Smith) We would want to see—If I
can just say, 5.1(iv), where there is fragmented ownership, firstly
it is left open that if the owners get together and form a consortium,
ie one owner, then obviously the Promoter is in a different position.
What the Promoter would not have to do is choose between Owner
A and Owner B on a particular site: "You can bid for the
site, but you can't". If they form a consortium obviously
you are dealing with one person, one site, and that is a way in
which these former owners can get together and have an interest.
We would still want to qualify that with paragraph 4.4 and say
that we would want them to have the necessary development and
financial expertise to show that the site can be developed early,
we do not want this thing hanging around. We would want the bidders
to be experienced and qualified in property development.
21656. So in principle the opportunity that
Mr Jones mentioned is there; whether it can be realised in practice
will depend upon the points that you have just mentioned.
(Mr Smith) Absolutely, yes. He has the opportunity.
21657. Mr Mould: Thank you very much.
21658. Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed, Mr Smith. Mr Mould, would you like to sum up?
The witness withdrew
21659. Mr Mould: Sir, before I do, and
I will be as brief as I reasonably can, can I say that Mr Jones
has stored up one or two points for his closing as you have heard
during the course of his submissions and in particular he indicated
that he might make some submissions about the document that was
handed to you a few moments ago. He has not given any indication
as to what the substance of those submissions might be and he
has not asked Mr Berryman, for example, any questions about them.
What I am going to do, if I may, is to reserve my position and
if there is anything there in relation to what is an important
facet—
22 Committee Ref: A247, Crossrail Petitioner's Response
Document, Para 17-Commitment to proceed with project in advance
of acquisition (GRCHLB-AP4-6-05-011). Back
23
Crossrail Information Paper C10-Land Disposal Policy, Para 4.4,
The interest to be offered back/ Para 5.1 Interests qualifying
for offer back, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (SCN-20070710-004). Back
| 
