|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 235-xix HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the DAY EIGHTY-TWO Tuesday 10 July 2007 Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Kelvin Hopkins Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in 21450. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, welcome back. I am sure you all missed us these last few weeks. Just to recall, it is my intention to break about 11:30 for 15 minutes' or so comfort break for everybody. We are here today to deal with one remaining Petitioner deposited against the full set of additional provisions that need to be heard. First of all, could I call on Ms Lieven to introduce the new AP4. 21451. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, sir. What I intend to do is briefly introduce AP4 and also touch on the matters in the supplementary ES on Popular Dock, just to give the Committee an update and then Mr Mould is dealing with the AMP Petition which is the outstanding business of the day. 21452. As the Committee are well aware, AP4 concerns the provision of a Crossrail station at Woolwich and, as the Committee is equally aware, Woolwich lies on the south-east branch of Crossrail, south of the Thames and to the west of Abbey Wood. If I could have up the first exhibit, please, 001. This shows the alignment of the route coming across the Thames going past ‑ I am afraid it has not come up terribly well on the screen, it is better on the screens in front of us ‑ the Warren Lane shaft, which is a ventilation shaft and emergency shaft. On the left here, the west side of the alignment is the demolished Woolwich power station which is relevant because of the position of its foundations; I will show the Committee in a minute. The route then swings down to the location of the station, which is here, and which lies between Plumstead Road to the south and the Royal Arsenal site which is the old munitions site which lies to the north here and, in particular, the Royal Carriage factory which is the building there. As the Committee are probably aware, the Promoters have put a great deal of effort into trying to bring forward a more affordable scheme at Woolwich. That has involved somewhat changing the alignment of the route in order to allow the station to be a less deep station and, therefore, reduce the costs of construction. Just before we look at more detail on the station box, the change in alignment is very difficult to pick up on the large screen but is much easier in front of you. The original alignment went effectively through the same location as the box but then swung to the south to avoid the southern outfall sewer and to go under the Docklands Light Railway which is this line here, presently under construction and it then went off to the east towards Plumstead where it emerged at a portal at Plumstead Goods Yard. Because the line has been made less deep in order to reduce the costs, the alignment has had to change somewhat, and I will show the Committee the vertical alignment in a moment. As far as the horizontal alignment is concerned, what now happens is the line stays further to the north, it goes over the DLR rather than under and it stays to the north of the sewer ‑ Mr Berryman will go through all this in more detail later ‑ and proceeds to the north of Plumstead Road off towards Plumstead Goods Yard. 21453. If I can put up 005. It is, again, not a brilliant plan, I had forgotten how poorly these things come up, but this shows in more detail the constraints in the area because this is the station box and, as I have already shown, and to the north we have got listed buildings and to the west listed buildings and we can see more clearly here the DLR here and the southern outfall sewer which lies to the south there. Just while we have got this one up - it is not shown on this plan but I will indicate - the above ground structures on the station are two emergency shafts, one at either end, emergency and ventilation shafts, and the entrance to the station which lies somewhat in the middle. Just looking at this plan, the Committee may remember, those of you who went on the site visit, the majority of the station box lies to the west on a road called "Arsenal Way" which you will hear more of when we come to the Petition of AMP, which I am indicating on the drawing now. The area to the west of Arsenal Way is currently an open car park, so there is no demolition in that area, it is just open land at the moment, and the box will be constructed underneath. The position to the east of Arsenal Way is that there are a number of properties here, Gunnery Terrace properties, and the box goes into the building of number 16 Gunnery Terrace which is the AMP building. Mr Mould will go through that in more detail, but one can see the line of number 16, I am indicating at the moment, and the box goes into it where it lies to the east of Arsenal Way. The ventilation shaft, which was previously a free‑standing structure, has now been incorporated into the eastern part of the station, as is normally the case in our other stations as well. 21454. If I can put up 002, please. This shows the vertical alignment and it is just useful to see some of the constraints. I do not know whether it is possible to expand it on the top one so we can see in a bit more detail? On the west side we have the line coming under the Thames and the first constraint is that it has to avoid the foundations and the water outlets from the demolished Woolwich power station; the foundations are still in the ground, so there is a fixed point that has to come underneath. It then goes through the Warren Lane shaft, that is this building here. The next constraint ---- No, sorry, because it has been split in two. It then has to rise the line to the optimum level for the station, this is the station box. An important constraint at this point is that the gradients on the route have to accord with the Crossrail standards, one cannot have trains zipping up steep gradients or, indeed, zipping down the other side, so we are tightening the constraint on this side by the Thames and the power station. Then if we swap to the eastern side of the power station, we have got the station box here, but the critical issues on the eastern side are that somehow Crossrail has to get past the DLR, these are the two DLR tunnels. As I told you a moment ago, originally the line came underneath the DLR tunnels, but that necessarily would have involved a very deep station with much greater expense so we are now coming over the DLR tunnels. The next problem, which I have referred to and which Mr Berryman will explain in more detail, is the position of this sewer, the southern outfall sewer which is a major sewer in South London. It is absolutely critical that, firstly, obviously we avoid it but, secondly, we do not cause settlement to it. Those are the constraints on the route which Mr Berryman will go through in more detail. 21455. The other point to say about the route is that further east, because of the changed alignment, the portal at Plumstead Goods Yard has been shifted somewhat to the east, but there are no petitions respecting Plumstead Goods Yard that are outstanding in this House, so I do not intend to say any more other than that, but there is that knock‑on effect further east. 21456. Perhaps we can go back to one of the general pictures to set the context. Could I then turn to the position of Woolwich Station within the powers of the Bill. As the Committee know, the construction of the station box at Woolwich is dependent on the successful completion of a binding agreement between the Secretary of State and Berkeley Homes. There is, as you know, an outline agreement which you were informed about by Mr Elvin in the last session. The Department is currently in negotiations with Berkeley Homes to finalise that agreement and those negotiations are progressing satisfactorily. The outline agreement is that Berkeley Homes will fund and build the station box, receiving a contribution from the Department commensurate to the savings of the project from avoiding Crossrail works in the area, principally the Arsenal Way shafts and the tunnels. The fitting‑out of the box depends on the project receiving sufficient contributions either from developers and/or businesses which stand to benefit from the station, so there is a division in the agreement between the construction of the box, which is down to Berkeley Homes, and the fitting‑out. It is because of that agreement that the Environmental Statement is somewhat complicated in respect of Woolwich because what it does is it assesses the base position, which is the construction of a fully operational station at Woolwich and then assesses four alternative scenarios: first of all, the fit‑out of the station being delayed by five years; secondly, the construction of the box but no fit‑out; thirdly, the construction of the shaft at the eastern end but no station; and, fourthly, and this is a very minor point, having a surface level ticket hall rather than a subsurface ticket hall, the primary assumption is the subsurface ticket hall. I think it is worth explaining that because it is a different position from many of the other parts of the Environmental Statement. 21457. If we can have up the more detailed plan that shows Gunnery Terrace, please, 005. It is just worth explaining one detailed point about Berkeley Homes, the outline agreement for Berkeley Homes. The outline agreement involves Berkeley Homes retaining the land to the west of Arsenal Way ‑ the Committee will recall this is Arsenal Way ‑ that being allowed, Berkeley Homes currently have a development option so the agreement is Berkeley Homes keep their rights over that land and that is being dealt with in detail in the agreement. That is also the land where Berkeley Homes currently have a benefit of an outline planning permission for development on that land, but the agreement does not involve any provision as to Berkeley Homes gaining rights over the land to the east of Arsenal Way, that is land which they currently have no interest in and there is no agreement, outline or final, with the Secretary of State that Berkeley Homes will be given any rights to, so there is a crucial distinction by the boundary of Arsenal Way. 21458. Could I then turn to a specific point about overstation development at Woolwich. The Committee may remember, although I do not think it is a subject we have ever really had to labour in a petition, that the Secretary of State gave an undertaking in respect of those sites where there is demolition within a conservation area where Crossrail is going to demolish the buildings. We gave an undertaking as to the process that we would go through to give some level of certainty as to the future of those sites that development would come back, so that the Committee and local planning authorities could place some reliance on the sites not being left vacant and an eyesore for prolonged periods. In respect of Woolwich, the undertaking has no relevance to the land west of Arsenal Way because, the Committee will remember, there are no buildings on that land, and so there is no demolition. The undertaking is only relevant in respect of the land to the east of Arsenal Way, the Gunnery Terrace properties which are to be demolished. Because of the particular agreement in respect of Woolwich and the timing issues that throws up, there is a slightly different undertaking in respect of Woolwich and the land to the east of Arsenal. I know it is tedious but I have been instructed to read that undertaking into the record so that there is no confusion. Perhaps if we could have it up. I will read it, sir, while it is going up. "The Secretary of State will take steps to ensure that: (1) If ‑ (a) a decision is made to proceed with the fitting out of station at Woolwich; or (b) a decision is made that a station will not be provided at Woolwich; a planning application and (if required) an accompanying environmental statement for a proposed OSD is submitted as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event no later than 2 years after" ‑ I should say I have changed "that" from "that" to "either" ‑ "after either decision has been made and the construction of Crossrail Works at Woolwich has commenced, unless the Local Planning Authority agree to a deferral or agree that an application is not required". That gives a long stop date for when a planning application should be made, but it does in respect of the particular Woolwich situation which is in (1)(a) taking into account the fitting-out of the station because that is a separate stage and in (1)(b) the possibility that the whole deal with Berkeley Homes collapses, so that is Woolwich specific. Then "(2) There is consultation with the local planning authority, prior to submission of a planning application for OSD on: (a) the proposed use, quantum, lay‑out, scale, access, appearance and response to context of the proposed OSD (including where appropriate co‑operation in the preparation of a Planning Brief and/or SPD)" ‑ that is Supplementary Planning Documents for those who are not in the know - "and (b) the means by which the fundamental design elements of the new development will be integrated with the Crossrail Works (including loadings, support and access)." That is all in exactly the same terms as the standard undertaken. "(3) the OSD will be designed in accordance with relevant national, regional, spatial and local planning policies, and in consultation with English Heritage", again standard. "(4) In assessing the contribution that the OSD will make to the character or enhancement of conservation areas the quality of buildings that existed prior to demolition will be a material consideration", again exactly the same as the others. "(5) reasonable endeavours will be used to obtain planning consent by the date the works for the new station or railway on the" - "site", it should be, not "sites" - "site is completed. (6) Reasonable endeavours will be used to ensure that development is commenced in accordance with the planning consent granted once the works to the new stations or railway on the site is completed". Five and six are taking into account the possibility that there will not be a station. Sir, that is the slightly amended undertaking in respect of Woolwich. 21459. Sir, that is all I intended to say in respect of Woolwich. The other matter I am to deal with in opening is just a touch on the Poplar Dock and Blackwall Basin issue, that the Committee will remember was, I think, the business of the last time we sat and was left slightly over. The Committee will remember that the issue ‑ could we have up the Poplar Dock plan ‑ was the boat residents of Poplar Dock and Blackwall Basin being able to get access out of the dock during construction and that at the last session we brought forward a possible change to the scheme which would allow such access to be maintained. Now we have taken that work forward and what we are now proposing to do is to construct a long cofferdam along the eastern section of North Dock to allow access through. 21460. The Committee may remember there were two options being floated the last time we met and we have decided to go with the cofferdam option. It does not require an additional provision because it falls within our limits of deviation, but it does require to be assessed environmentally which is why there is a supplementary Environmental Statement. The solution which we are setting out here has been discussed in detail with the boat owners and the position we have arrived at is that navigable access consistent with that currently existing will be maintained during the construction of Crossrail at Isle of Dogs subject to possible temporary restrictions during the construction of the cofferdam. What we mean by those last words has been set out in a letter to Poplar Dock and Blackwall Basin residents in a letter dated 18 June 2007. In essence, we are talking about a period of about three months when there may be some restrictions. They will be able to get in and out but not all of the time, wholly unrestricted. 21461. In terms of the size of vessels, what we have agreed is that the position of the cofferdam will be such that the largest vessels currently in Popular Dock and Blackwall Basin can safely navigate the channel. We are working with both BWB and the Dock residents to achieve that result. In the light of that work, and the discussions with the boat owners, they have indicated that they are content not to appear in Committee. You may remember they were adjourned last time, so they had the right to come back even if they did not petition again, but they have indicated that they are happy with the position. Hopefully that is a happy end to that particular problem. Sir, that is all I intend to do in opening, so unless the Committee have any questions at this stage, I was going to hand over to Mr Mould to open specifically on AMP. 21462. MR MOULD: We have up the map showing the position of the station box and the position of the premises at Woolwich, which Ms Lieven was showing you a few moments ago. AMP Limited and Mr Charlesworth are long leaseholders and business occupiers of the building at number 16 Gunnery Terrace, Woolwich. The footprint of that building is shown here (indicating) outlined in red. You can see on the southern side it has a little nib coming out beyond the elevation there and we will see in a photograph in a moment that is part of the building occupied by the Petitioners. We have here (indicating) the outline of the station box which Ms Lieven showed you a few moments ago. As you have been told, that represents the outline of the box that is proposed under the additional provisions before the Committee. The construction arrangements for that box are essentially a cut and cover proposal, so it follows that anything that lies on or over that box at the present time will perforce be called to be demolished and removed to enable the box to be dug. 21463. As you can see straightaway, that would include a portion of the Petitioner's building at 16 Gunnery Terrace. The simple proposition is that the Petitioner's building and land is needed for the purpose of constructing the proposed station for Woolwich, for Crossrail. I will not repeat what has been said by Ms Lieven as regards the constraints which have led to the box being located where it is and the proposed line of the railway as it passes through this location, she mentioned to you a number of constraints which serve to govern what is proposed, both in terms of horizontal alignment and in terms of vertical alignment. Those are important points to bear in mind. 21464. If we turn to Exhibit 007, please, just to see a photograph of what you have just seen on the plan. This is the AMP building (indicating) and, as I mentioned, this is the element of the AMP building at 16 Gunnery Terrace which just comes slightly to the south of the main building line and roughly the area that is required to be demolished for the purposes of digging the station box includes this building (indicating) and the portion of the main building to about this point here (indicating). In physical terms, that is what is required to enable the box to be constructed. What we propose then is the compulsory acquisition of AMP's land at 16 Gunnery Terrace. The demolition of the building is for the purposes of constructing the station box and the integral ventilation and escape shafts, the use of the balance of the Petitioner's land, that is to say, the remainder of the building which will be demolished as part of a larger worksite to serve the construction of the Woolwich Station. 21465. If you could put up 004, please. Here you see in yellow (indicating) the station box. Here is broadly the footprint of the Petitioner's building and as you can see a larger worksite extending to the north is proposed including, amongst other things, the provision of a batching plant and fabrication yard. We have shown the worksite as extending around the whole of the box work area with indicative arrangements for activities and so forth. I shall not take further time to describe the various elements, but that information is before you. AMP occupy their building as their headquarters for their mail distribution and storage business and it is plain that our proposals will require them to relocate to alternative premises. We recognise three matters in relation to that requirement: firstly, that they should be given as much advanced notice as is reasonably possible to enable them to plan relocation. We have already committed to them that we will give them 12 months' advanced notice of entry on to their premises. 21466. The second point is we recognise that they should have assistance with relocation and we have already explained to you in earlier hearings that we have a policy to set up an agency in relation to that to assist commercial occupiers who are displaced as a result of the Crossrail proposals, and we have in this case already sought information from AMP on their requirements for relocation. There has been correspondence in relation to that. 21467. Thirdly, they will be entitled land compensation which will embrace both the full market value of their leasehold premises but also the reimbursement of their reasonable costs incurred in relocating their business to another location which will be recoverable as disturbance compensation. Not all of the Petitioner's land is likely to be required for Crossrail on a permanent basis and the surplus land, which will essentially be a part of the balance of their site which is required for a worksite, surplus land at 16 Gunnery Terrace, will be dealt with following the completion of the construction phase in accordance with the Secretary of State's adopted Land Disposal Policy. In due course, I will ask Mr Smith to give evidence to explain to you how that would work in a little more detail so far as is necessary to enable you to complete your hearing of this Petition. 21468. Finally, the Petitioner's land had been within the safeguarding for Crossrail Woolwich since 2005. Under the Hybrid Bill scheme it was proposed that there should be a vent shaft at the south-eastern end of the Arsenal Way car park. If we could put up plan SE51, please. This shows the arrangements under the now superseded Hybrid Bill. Here is AMP's building again, (indicating) here is Arsenal Way. Under the Hybrid Bill there was a proposal for a vent shaft at this location (indicating) and that would have affected AMP's land by virtue of not only the location of the shaft but also the worksite arrangements associated with it. Under Additional Provisions 3 the shaft was proposed to be moved to the east, this location shown by the red dot (indicating) and the worksite shifted at the same time so that it fell within the car parking and open space associated with this block here, which is the IO Centre. You may recall Ferrotec, they are the occupiers of that centre. Essentially, the purpose of that change under AP3 was to enable AMP to remain in their premises throughout the then current proposals for Crossrail at Woolwich. That arrangement was the subject of an agreement in principal with the Petitioners through their agents in May of last year, that is to say, well in advance of this Committee's interim decisions in July which led ultimately to the Secretary of State promoting the Woolwich Station arrangements which we now see before you. It follows that it is essentially the promotion of the proposed station at Woolwich under AP4 in response to your Committee's interim decisions which leads to the position we are now in whereby, as we have explained, we require AMP's building to displace from their current premises in order to enable Crossrail in its current form to proceed. The reason I mention that in opening and just set out the factual position is because I anticipate that one of the points which Mr Jones, who is acting for AMP, will raise before you in a moment is a question as to costs and I want to set out the basic history, the chronology in relation to the proceedings. 21469. CHAIRMAN: Essentially you are saying it is our fault! 21470. MR MOULD: I am not saying it is your fault. I am not seeking to attribute blame; I am simply explaining the chronology. Both yourself and the Secretary of State, as is well known, have reached a sensible meeting of minds in relation to Woolwich and today's proceedings very much reflect that. That is all I propose to say by way of opening. I shall pass over to Mr Jones. 21471. MR JONES: Mr Mould has given me the pointer, but I cannot guarantee to the Committee that I am going to be as au fait as Ms Lieven and Mr Mould! 21472. CHAIRMAN: I always find it slightly amazing that you are all on very good salaries but you never can afford more than one pointer! 21473. MR MOULD: We have to account for our own expenses and keep the taxman happy! 21474. MR JONES: We are trying to be sustainable in recycling! Could I say, I am not going to open at all in length, other than just to headline the issues, partly foreshadowed by Mr Mould and then for Mr Danny Charlesworth to give evidence. Could I say that so far as my clients are concerned, we are not in the business of attributing blame to either the Secretary of State or to this Committee, that is for others to decide. One thing I think we can agree is we are not to blame for the circumstances in which my client finds himself. As Mr Mould rightly foreshadowed in correspondence, my client has been co-operative as a Petitioner to the AP3 scheme. Right from pretty much the start it indicated to the Promoters that it was not necessary to put a shaft in the middle of our service area so that we were forced to relocate our headquarters. We employed legal, engineering and other consultants and we were successful in discussions with the Promoter in persuading the Promoter, if you like, of the error of their ways. The Promoter agreed that the matter could be dealt with by way of an undertaking and that would have been it. The position is we now face relocation. My client does not oppose the scheme, my client sees the benefits for the area where most of our employers come from, it does not oppose the scheme, but we do say that those costs have been incurred and the question for this Committee is where fairly should their fall? Should it fall on my client, someone who is losing their land, having to be relocated and then rubbing salt in the wound, we have got to pay costs by being co-operative, doing everything that this Committee and the Secretary of State would like us to do and the costs fall with us. We say, and there can be no dispute about this, in my submission, that that would be unfair. 21475. It is also right to note, as Ms Lieven indicated in opening, the reason why we lose our site, quite justified from the point of view of the Promoter, is that it is going to save costs to the Promoter, do a cut and fill job for the station. Another alignment for a deeper station would have avoided the need for taking our site. We are not suggesting that is an alternative which should be taken, no doubt the costs benefit justify that, but given that that is a saving of a considerable degree to the Secretary of State, we are suffering the burden of having to move our business as a result of that cost. We then have the position of who should then bear the costs throw away on AP3 and we say that should also be the Promoter's cost since in any event, as it so happens, by following this scheme and taking our land, it is actually saving a considerable amount of money. That is one point that we will be raising for the Committee's consideration. 21476. The second point really flows and can be sub-divided, and that is this: we do ask that the land, which, as Mr Mould indicated, is not required permanently, be retained within our ownership or that we be given a freestanding option to repurchase it back it at market value. My client is prepared to enter into any appropriate lease or licence arrangement so as to allow the Promoters full access to that land to do with as they wish for site construction. 21477. The Promoter says there is no agreement with Berkley Homes for the land to the east of Arsenal Way. We may explore that a little bit further to see what stage that has reached. There is no suggestion by the Promoter that the development of the remainder of our land is necessary to fund the Woolwich Station. That is not part of the case. 21478. In closing, I will deal with the principles of compulsory purchase, which I think are trite law, but one should not use a Draconian power to compulsorily purchase more than is absolutely necessary for the public purpose. That means not just geographically but the type of interest you are acquiring: freehold rather than leasehold. Then we would say, first of all, that we are prepared to offer a leasehold or a licence, and if the business case was being promoted that that land was needed for some ulterior purpose then that should be transparently put before the Committee, and it has not been. In the alternative, we would also ask that we be given an option to purchase back and not in accordance with the land disposal policy of the Secretary of State, which you have probably had cause to look at before - I do not know - but which does not provide the guarantee of an option to purchase back at market value. 21479. Can I say the second sub-point very briefly? The reason we have such concern for the retention of our land, and an interest in that - either by way of option or licence - is, to be quite frank, we are very unsure how committed the Promoters are to seeing through the Woolwich scheme and the Woolwich station. We are reinforced in that view by today, which is the first time we have been privy to the undertaking that has just been produced today; we have not seen any sign of that, which is rather surprising. I see it is dated 10 July. That undertaking, again, reflects the uncertainty which one finds in the Environmental Statement as to the commitment by the Promoters to do anything else than, via Berkley Homes (that well-known station builder) to provide a shell of a station. We believe there is a very real risk, as envisaged in the Environmental Statement as envisaged by the undertaking, and also the agreement which I will be making some submissions on (Ms Lieven referred to the heads of terms agreement signed in March which expresses that it was due to be completed by May and is still not completed) that there can be certainty that the scheme will go ahead. 21480. If that is right, as a protection to my client, we will be submitting to the Committee that it is only right that we be allowed to retain the interest in the remaining land. What we do not want to see is a position where we lose the site, we are relocated, the station does not go ahead, and others get to develop the site. 21481. Unless I can assist further, I thought it would be helpful just so that you know, sir, where we are coming from. I would like to call, please, if I can, Mr Danny Charlesworth.
MR DANIEL CHARLESWORTH, sworn Examined by MR JONES 21482. MR JONES: Mr Charlesworth, could you just explain to the Committee, please, who you are and your relationship with the company? (Mr Charlesworth) I am Danny Charlesworth; I am the owner of the actual site and I am Chairman of Alternative Mail Parcels/ City Parcels. We are a mailing company delivering parcels, mail, all sorts of catalogues and different things throughout the UK. 21483. We have a bundle of exhibits. Can we put up the first one. That shows the site there. The Committee will be familiar with that. That shows Plumstead High Street and then running to the side is Arsenal Way. 21484. CHAIRMAN: Could I just say this is A247? 21485. MR JONES: If we turn on to the next picture there should be an aerial shot showing Gunnery Terrace almost in the middle of the site. It is not very clear there. (Mr Charlesworth) Yes. 21486. I think we can see on there the surfacing area. Could you just explain, first of all, the number of staff that are employed at the headquarters and what they do, just so the Committee have a feeling of the turnover, also, of the business and how the business has been developing? (Mr Charlesworth) There are approximately 200 staff: about 40 in the offices, which is the front part of the building, which has to be demolished, as you can see. That is where the offices are located. Behind that is the warehouse where we have approximately about 150 people at any one time packing books, yellow pages and all sorts of different magazines, directories ---- 21487. Dogs (?) as well was one of your ---- (Mr Charlesworth) Was it? I am not au fait with every single magazine that goes out of there, but most certainly there is lots and lots of material that goes out of there 24 hours a day. 21488. Just to give a feel for it, because I thought it would be largely machine packing, how is the nature of the business, which is client-specific, dealt with? Is it just on a big conveyer belt? Or how is it dealt with? (Mr Charlesworth) No, it is dealt with by hand, really. It is very time-sensitive magazines. We deal with ones you will be familiar with: Law Society Gazette, Lawyer, and money magazines - financial magazines - and we have to distribute within six hours of receipt - of them actually coming into our building. They have to be on the client's desk within sort of six hours, so the actual location of the property - again, through the Blackwall tunnel and into central London as quickly as possible - is very important. 21489. You are prepared for having to move away, but just to be clear about this: do you see that the relocation is going to be an easy task? It is something you are prepared to do but is it an easy task, do you envisage? (Mr Charlesworth) No. I mean, to actually set this business up and to do what we did in getting this particular unit up and running took us over a year; it took us approximately 18 months. Therefore, when I was speaking to Crossrail I actually told them about that and I said I would need a minimum of a year to actually move this business out and relocate it and staff it again - to which they agreed and they said "Fine". So there is not a problem with that. I understand the need for the actual railway station. A lot of the people who I employ are local residents and come from that area, so I think probably their need is greater than mine, but in the same respect I do understand that they do need the station there. 21490. You are looking at about 60 square foot of space, are you not, of property there? (Mr Charlesworth) It would not be 60; I think it would be about 60,000 actually. 60,000 square feet of space, probably. About 35,000 of actual warehouse space and 25,000 and so on for car park. 21491. Just so you can see how the business operates, just on that photograph probably, I think we can see some HGVs there. How does it work with the HGVs? Presumably, you have got them coming in, delivering stuff. Explain to me who you have got coming in. (Mr Charlesworth) We have articulated vehicles coming from all printers from all over the country, depending on what they are bringing. We then sort and get ready for delivery anything we can via our own network. Anything that we cannot deliver via our network - which are, virtually, small vans, transit-size vans - we broker out to bigger networks, like DHL, and even back to Royal Mail as well. So we actually give back to the Royal Mail for the final delivery in the areas where we cannot complete - like the Scotlands, the Outer Hebrides, and Channel Islands, and such. So we broker lots and lots of the work out - probably about 60 per cent goes back into different networks. So at different times we can have up to 30 trailers in the yard. That was the reason that the site was so important, because of the big car park that we had. 21492. If you could just go to the very last plan. Mr Mould very helpfully set the scene so that we can save some time for the Committee as to the position, as it was in AP3, of the shafts and the initial Promoter's proposal and how you dealt with that, please, Mr Charlesworth. (Mr Charlesworth) The initial Promoter's proposal was to actually put the shaft - I think you can see the green one located there - which fell into the centre of the car park, or to the sort of right-hand side of the car park. Not only did they want that, they said for the actual works unit they wanted to take the whole car park. I had no option but to object at the time because it would have really stopped the business functioning. Obviously, I took legal advice on that and went to see Bircham Dyson Bell, who advised me that they would get engineers to look and see if we could actually promote Crossrail into moving the shaft slightly and putting it somewhere else so we could still operate and actually have a road going inside of it, if you like, inside of the shaft. Quite happily, we had Crossrail down in the region of six or seven times, with 30 people drinking untold coffee and eating, probably, about £3,000 of Rich Tea biscuits. 21493. We are not claiming for those! (Mr Charlesworth) Not claming for those. We had untold meetings with them to try and actually resolve it so that we could still operate from the site and it would mean I would not have to get rid of anybody or make anybody redundant or move the site away. That was what we did. Obviously, after countless meetings and probably six, nine months of me employing engineers and Bircham Dyson Bell and other barristers to look at it, they said to me at our final meeting: "That has all sort of gone by the wayside; don't worry about that because there's going to be a station on the property anyway". I felt slightly aggrieved, to say the least. 21494. You reached the stage of, as I understand it, agreeing in principle on a draft undertaking having been agreed ---- (Mr Charlesworth) Yes. 21495. For the movement of the shaft. (Mr Charlesworth) Yes, absolutely, I agreed. 21496. That was agreed with the Promoters, in principle. (Mr Charlesworth) Yes. 21497. Was it ever suggested to you by the Promoters that you did not need to have employed these engineers and that this was something that you had just done on your own? Has that ever been suggested to you - that, somehow, you were frivolous? (Mr Charlesworth) The original idea for Crossrail was to take the whole car park, and it would have meant them digging a hole and the vehicles turning round and falling into this hole. So I did not really have any option but to do that. 21498. Unless there is anything you want to ask on that history, you have heard Mr Mould indicating quite rightly that not all of the site is actually required by Crossrail on a permanent basis. The Committee can see from the plans that the lid, or the front, of the building comes off where the station is to be located but the rest of the site is to be used for construction sites, not on a permanent basis. Would you have any objection to any arrangement by way of lease, licence or whatever, should the Promoters wish that, in order that they could have full access to the remainder of your site for construction or any other purposes related to the building of the Crossrail project? (Mr Charlesworth) No. You know, in your summing-up, what you said was that there is no guarantee that this is going to actually happen. If it does not happen I would like to stay where I am, and carry on employing the people I have got there, and carry on the business as it is. It is a growing business; we are in the mail market, the mail market has been de-regularised; we have just won a £7 million contract from one of the biggest banks in the country to give us work. This is going to cause us all sorts of untold problems. The banks want their material delivered into central London and into the Docklands within an hour of receipt. So I am going to need to find something very close to where I am, if not in central London, to carry on this business in the proper way. 21499. Mr Charlesworth, if it does go ahead, and if it gets so far as to the shell being erected, would you still be prepared to grant a lease or licence in respect of the remainder of the land to be used as a construction site, so that you could retain it for whatever you wanted to do? (Mr Charlesworth) Yes, I would. 21500. Failing that, if I am right, you heard me say that you would want an option, not subject to conditions and caveats and the code that is suggested by the Secretary of State, to purchase back if you cannot have that by way of lease the remainder of the land at the appropriate market value? (Mr Charlesworth) If at all possible, I would, yes. 21501. Is there anything you would like to add at this stage, Mr Charlesworth? (Mr Charlesworth) No, only to say that I have co-operated in every possible way that I can with Crossrail. I was only in the building, probably, nine months or a year when all of a sudden this sort of came on top as such, and they came in with this petition and said what they were going to do - I have just spent something in the order of £1 million developing this building and getting it to exactly how we wanted it. Obviously, the building itself - it is a lovely building; it is where they used to make the armaments in the War and it is a bit if history attached to it, and I particularly liked the building at the time and wanted to retain it. So to say I was put out and a bit peeved was a complete and utter understatement. As I said, we co-operated, and I understand the need for the station. We need to move it forward with congestions and whatever, so I do understand. My son, actually, has a house just behind the actual unit, which we bought, and it is a Berkley Homes house. But I just feel slightly aggrieved at the way it has been done and how I have been treated and, really, I went into all of this with solicitors and barristers and all the different people, and spent God knows how much - there must be in excess of £100,000 in legal bills - and I think them probably knowing at the time there was probably going to be this station anyway. I would have liked some sort of warning or some sort of forethought on it - you know, from anybody. 21502. Obviously, if you were to be awarded by the Committee (and I will deal with that in submissions), there are taxation provisions, but you are indicating a global sum of around £100,000. You say "legal fees" but that includes also, as I understand it, the engineering costs. (Mr Charlesworth) The engineering costs as well. 21503. It is a global figure. That does not include my fees! Unless there is anything we can assist further with for the Committee, thank you.
Cross-examined by MR MOULD
21504. MR MOULD: Just one or two questions, Mr Charlesworth, if I may. Just so the Committee is clear on the land ownership position: your company has a long under-lease of the premises at 16 Gunnery Terrace, does it not? (Mr Charlesworth) It is 1,000 years. 21505. Nine-nine-nine. Near enough. Your landlords are C&P, are they not? (Mr Charlesworth) They are, yes. 21506. You understand they are head lessees and the freeholder is the London Development Agency. (Mr Charlesworth) Yes. 21507. So the site is in multiple ownership in that sense. That is right, is it not? (Mr Charlesworth) Mmm. 21508. You lease the premises - your company - as your place of business. (Mr Charlesworth) I do, yes. 21509. That is its principle virtue to you, that it provides you with an appropriate place in which to conduct your business. Is that fair? (Mr Charlesworth) Yes. 21510. You have acknowledged that in order for the Crossrail proposals for Woolwich Station to proceed you accept that it is necessary for the building within which you conduct your business to be demolished. (Mr Charlesworth) I do not concede that. I have not seen every engineer's report possible. I was not going to sort of go down another road of employing more engineers, but when they first actually did this development, I see that you raised the way the tunnel comes up - originally they were going to put it a lot lower when it suited them and bring it up until it was not quite vertical and it was not a funicular railway but most certainly it was going to come up at a lot steeper angle than is now the case. 21511. Ms Lieven dealt with that in opening. I do not think you challenge, do you, that, from an engineering point of view, it is necessary to proceed with the proposal for the station in the way that we have described to the Committee? (Mr Charlesworth) I would not challenge it but I do not know that there is not another option. 21512. On the assumption that those proposals go forward and your building is then demolished, clearly so far as your principal interest in the site is concerned it has gone away; you need to find somewhere else from which to do your business. That is right, is it not? (Mr Charlesworth) Yes. 21513. I do not know if you are aware of this, but the works to construct the station box are expected to last about three years and seven months. Have you seen that in the statement? (Mr Charlesworth) I have not read every detail but I did read something about three years, and I would probably anticipate about five. 21514. You have mentioned that you would be looking for some sort of commitment from the Promoter that if he does acquire your building he acquires it to enable the station box fitting-out works at Woolwich to be carried out. You accept that. (Mr Charlesworth) Yes. 21515. Can we put up page 5011 from the Petitioner's document, just so the Committee can see what we have committed to. Just glance down, if you will please. This is from our Petition Response Document. I expect you have seen it before. (Mr Charlesworth) Mm. 21516. Paragraph 17. Do you see there: "The Promoter has already provided the Petitioner with commitments regarding the circumstances in which the powers of acquisition of its land will be exercised ..." (and it refers to earlier correspondence). It quotes two passages. Firstly: "The Promoter will not exercise its powers of compulsory acquisition over your clients' property before there is a commitment on the funding of the rest of the Crossrail scheme (i.e. other than provision of a station box and other station works at Woolwich)" and, secondly: "it will not exercise its powers of compulsory acquisition over your clients' property before there is a commitment on the funding of the rest of the south-eastern spur (other than provision of a station box and other station works at Woolwich) and that the land will be acquired for the purposes of Crossrail." You have seen that before. Would you accept that you do have there a firm commitment from the Promoter that, at least, so far as your land is concerned, it will not be taken from you for the purposes of Crossrail unless and until the Secretary of State is committed to the funding of the rest of the scheme as a whole, and indeed the rest of the south-eastern section? The gives you the comfort you need, does it not, in relation to the theoretical uncertainties that Mr Jones mentioned when he opened the case, as to whether and when and how far the scheme for Woolwich Station will be proceeded with. Is that right? (Mr Charlesworth) Yes, definitely. There is no problem there. 21517. Thank you very much. Finally, just in relation to compensation, you have agreed that your principal interest in the building is as a place of business. It has been explained to you, has it, that on being displaced from the building so that it can be demolished for Crossrail purposes, you will be entitled to receive compensation which reflects the open market value of your long lease? That has been explained to you, has it? (Mr Charlesworth) Yes, it has. 21518. You will also be entitled to claim back the costs which are incurred in relocating your business to other premises. (Mr Charlesworth) Yes. 21519. We have also committed, have we not, to giving you 12 months' notice of entry into your premises for the purposes of Crossrail works? We have given you that commitment already. (Mr Charlesworth) Yes, I agree with that. May I just say something? Obviously, you have committed to all of this and you are telling me to read this paragraph 17. In it you say you might not take the land and if you do not take the land that is fine, but then what compensation do I get for being messed around for the last 18 months? I have not taken management time into this - into my costs. I have not even included management time and the amount of meetings with Bircham Dyson Bell and your people. 21520. I understand you have a point about costs that you have incurred so far. I am not going to ask about that, I am going to deal with that in submissions in a few moments' time. The advance notice point is reflected at the top of the page on the screen. Do you see that? I think you have accepted that that is a valuable commitment to your business on our part. (Mr Charlesworth) As I said when I opened, I do not oppose the Crossrail scheme at all; I do not oppose it; I think it is necessary; I think Woolwich needs it. It is unfortunate that it has fallen on my shoulders, and I am the one that has actually had to bear the brunt. I am going to be the one bearing the brunt of probably making 60 or 70 local people redundant if I cannot find something within the distance I need to do. Otherwise I shall probably have to move the business somewhere else. 21521. In that respect (this is my final question to you) clearly, the more you can be assisted by action taken by the Promoter in arranging relocation for your business, the more likely it is that you will be able to keep to a minimum the disruption in terms of redundancies and so on that you have just mentioned. Is that fair? (Mr Charlesworth) I would like to think we could keep it as a minimum, yes. I would think if the building is available afterwards I would also like to re-employ people from the local area, if I can actually take that land, even if I used it as office space. 21522. Again, we have written to you on a number of occasions in recent months indicating that we would be very keen to hear from you at the earliest possible stage details of your relocation requirements with a view to assisting you in relation to that process. (Mr Charlesworth) I am not too sure I have actually received any of that correspondence. 21523. You will see it is referred to in the second paragraph in the page before you - letters between Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of the Promoter and your agents, Messrs Bircham Dyson Bell. You are aware of that correspondence? (Mr Charlesworth) I am aware of some of the correspondence, but I would not say it was "many times". You may have written on one occasion. I honestly cannot remember that. Even so, that is still time, money, people, looking at these places, going out and evaluating what we want, seeing what we want - before we know anything is absolutely concrete. This is not something I have developed or I have gone out and looked for; this is something that has been put upon me. I am a local person; I live in Sidcup, I operate a business in central London; we had six or seven units in central London, and this particular unit I liked; it was the proper unit, it allowed me to employ 200 people from within the local people - all good people, all salt of the earth people - and I just think the way you have come along and disrupted it is not great - is not good. You did not do your homework. When the first people from Crossrail came round to see me, they showed me pictures of an empty unit and they said: "Ah, but this was empty when we looked at it". Of course it was because I had not taken possession then; they took the pictures two years before and decided that was where their venture was going to be. 21524. Mr Charlesworth, the only point I am seeking to establish is the modest one that, as I understand it, you would welcome the opportunity to share your detailed relocation requirements with the Promoter to enable him, as far as he is able to do so, through agencies that he proposes to set up, to assist you in relocating your business. (Mr Charlesworth) All the help I could get I would be glad of, yes. 21525. MR MOULD: Thank you very much.
Re-examined by MR JONES
21526. MR JONES: Just looking at context here: we had this letter from Winckworth. I will make submissions - it is a matter of legal submissions - as to the undertaking that is now offered, and through the Chair I seek confirmation from the Promoters that the undertaking referred to by Mr Mould at paragraph 7 (I will make submissions on it later) is, nonetheless, going to be offered as an undertaking to this House. 21527. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Is it paragraph 7 or 17? 21528. MR JONES: Seventeen, referred to by Mr Mould in cross-examination. I will make legal submissions as to what it actually provides. That is a matter for me rather than Mr Charlesworth. I would seek confirmation through the Committee and ventilated here for the Promoters to acknowledge that this has been offered as an undertaking to this House and not simply a correspondence from Messrs Winckworth. Hitherto, it has not been offered as an undertaking to the House; I would ask, particularly since Mr Mould has sought to cross-examine reliant on it before this House, he gives it to this House. I am sure that should not be too difficult. He nods. I will make submissions as to what it actually provides as a matter of legal submissions rather than Mr Charlesworth. I just want to ask Mr Charlesworth: you were asked about a letter from Messrs Winckworth Sherwood about you relocating. Is your company looking to relocate if Crossrail does not go ahead? (Mr Charlesworth) No. 21529. Would you want to relocate ---- (Mr Charlesworth) No, not at all. 21530. ---- at any time if Crossrail did not go ahead? (Mr Charlesworth) Not at all. 21531. We know that this Bill has still got to go to the other place. Can I have a look at paragraph 17 and the position that we are in, so far as this aspect of the commitment that is given? I do not want to ask you about the commitment itself but can you help me with this: look at paragraph 17 of the undertakings given. Is there any time limit on that commitment - that the funding will be in place within two years, five years, ten years, 20 years or 200 years, so far as you are aware? (Mr Charlesworth) No. 21532. MR JONES: Thank you very much. No further questions.
Examined by THE COMMITTEE
21533. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: You said something about letters; you said you had not had much communication from the Promoters. Is that the case? (Mr Charlesworth) I think they have kept us up-to-speed on everything but it was the way he actually said that I had received lots and lots of letters. I may have received one or two. I think we have received them and I have definitely seen this particular letter, but I cannot remember seeing letters saying: "You will get all the help and what you need to actually look at other units". I have actually had my own people out looking anyway in the local vicinities. 21534. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jones, do you have any more witnesses? 21535. MR JONES: I do not have any more witnesses. All I have, in due course, are my submissions.
The witness withdrew
21536. MR MOULD: Sir, I am going to call two witnesses: first of all, Mr Berryman, very briefly indeed, just to deal with two specific points. While Mr Berryman is taking the seat, can I just be clear in the light of what was said by Mr Liddell-Grainger? The paragraph you have in front of you refers to a series of letters. The position is that those letters were exchanged as correspondence between Messrs Winckworth Sherwood and Messrs Bircham Dyson Bell acting on behalf of the Petitioner. How those matters were dealt with internally, within the Petitioner's team, I cannot say, but that is an accurate record of the position as regards correspondence from us to the Petitioner. I hope that clarifies that.
MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled Examined by MR MOULD
21537. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, just two points, if I may. Fist of all, perhaps I should just ask you this: Ms Lieven in opening, and I, to a degree, in opening in relation to the AMB Petition outlined the basic logic of the current proposals for the station at Woolwich, and in particular the engineering logic which underlies the current proposals before the House. Do you want to say anything more about that or are you content that what has been said is an accurate account? (Mr Berryman) I thought Ms Lieven gave a marvellous exposition of the thinking behind the selection of the alignment. 21538. Thank you very much. I am not going to ask you repeat it for a second or, even, a third time. That is all I want on that. Just two points. If one was promoting a deep station for Woolwich as opposed to the actual proposals before the Committee, what do you say about the need, in that alternative hypothetical scenario, for the Promoter to take powers to acquire AMP's land? (Mr Berryman) I think there are two things to say. The first is that Members will realise from other station designs that we have put up that every station needs escape stairs at both ends of the station and also needs ventilation structures at each of the stations. So whatever the depth of the station there would need to be some structures at each end of it. You will recall that even central London, where we have had to demolish very substantial buildings in order to acquire those for the purposes of making those escape stairs and ventilation shafts, the same would apply here, and the area of Mr Charlesworth's premises would certainly be significantly disturbed by these structures to the extent that they become unusable. I had been thinking for a few moments before I came in, because I knew Mr Mould was going to ask me this question, and I cannot actually see a way of avoiding that if there is to be a station at all. 21539. Just so I am clear, on the second scenario, if the position was no station at all at Woolwich - that alternative scenario he put forward for the sake of argument - what about the situation then? Would you still need the AMP site in those circumstances? (Mr Berryman) Again, Members will remember last year we talked about the issue of Ferrotec and AMP, and the alternative sites for a ventilation shaft at that stage were either to take the Ferrotec site or to take AMP. In the event, at that point, before there was going to be a station, we decided to take Ferrotec and Ferrotec appeared before you for us to explain why that was. With the changed alignment that we have now adopted which allows for the construction of the station, it would no longer be practical to put the shaft on the Ferrotec site. So we would be back to square one with Mr Charlesworth's point when we originally spoke to him and said: "This is where we have to have the shaft." So, in any event, there would be an intervention of a ventilation shaft in that area. 21540. KELVIN HOPKINS: Just a technical point. The station box is obviously very close to the surface - almost on the surface. I appreciate that it is difficult but would it be technically feasible just to leave the building there and, somehow, to construct underneath it and have accesses at some side at the eastern end, or is it absolutely imperative that it comes down? Setting aside the arguments on cost, and I understand those as well, would it be technically possible to support that building, build underneath it and have the accesses on the southern side so it did not interfere with the building? (Mr Berryman) It would be very, very difficult. It would be hideously complicated. You said that the station is very close to the surface, and indeed, compared to the other stations on the route, it is, but it is about 14 metres deep. If you think that this room is 6.7 metres tall, it is twice the height of this below the ground. 21541. The upper ceiling, if you like, of the station is quite close to the surface. (Mr Berryman) The ceiling of the station will be at the surface. If one were to do that, supposing it was an ancient monument or something of that sort, one would, in this situation, probably dismantle it and re-erect it stone by stone. I do not think there is an easy way of doing it. A very, very cost-ineffective decision, as you have just said. 21542. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, just so we are clear, we know that there are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the Woolwich station site, and Ms Lieven has pointed those out. Is number 16 Gunnery Terrace a listed building? (Mr Berryman) No, it is not. 21543. MR MOULD: Thank you very much. There may be some questions from Mr Jones.
Cross-examined by MR JONES
21544. MR JONES: So far as engineering maters are concerned, you are the witness I should ask, as I understand it. Could you just go through it in stages, please? I think we can agree from your answers to the Committee, setting aside costs, that it would be technically feasible to provide the station on this alignment without the removal of 16 Gunnery Terrace, or you say it would be taken down and rebuilt. That is technically feasible, from an engineering point of view. (Mr Berryman) It is technically feasible to take it down and rebuild it. However, there would be surface structures as well in this area here. It would not be an economical thing to do, by any stretch of the imagination. 21545. Put costs out of your mind for one moment. You are giving engineering evidence. (Mr Berryman) Indeed. 21546. Bear in mind you do not have to worry; we are not running a case, as Mr Charlesworth made clear, objecting to the station. One of our points, as you will appreciate, is very much who bears the burden of cost. By pursuing this scheme for good cost reasons, it would be technically feasible to have constructed the station with the ultimate retention of 16 Gunnery Terrace - from a technical point of view. (Mr Berryman) It would not be possible to retain the exact building. One of the things which the Committee Members will have heard me say many, many times is anything is possible in engineering if you chuck enough money at it. These decisions are actually all about money. What is technically possible and what is economical to do are two different things. 21547. Mr Berryman, I am just asking you about technical matters. Please just leave to one side economics. I think we can agree if I say that it is accepted by you that technically (but, of course, it costs and it may cost a disproportionate amount of money) it is feasible to construct the station and, ultimately, retain 16 Gunnery Terrace pretty much as you see it today. (Mr Berryman) Or re-erect a facsimile pretty much as you see it today. 21548. It is right, is it not, that by not doing that but going on the proposal that is before us there are considerable cost savings to the Promoters? (Mr Berryman) There are considerable cost savings to the Promoters by not doing that, but the main point is that for the station itself we require to own the freehold - we intend to own the freehold on all the stations on the route - and we need to have access to the station structures so that when the time comes to maintain it and repair it we can get at it. There are a number of arguments as to why we would not want to reinstate that building. Second thing: your client would not be there for a period of five years: three-and-a-half/four years to construct the station and then another year to reconstruct a facsimile ---- 21549. That is a matter for my client, not for you, though, is it not? (Mr Berryman) Indeed, yes. 21550. So far as you raising the spectre of shafts and stairwells, it is right for the Committee to know that although you are giving this evidence (and I do not mean this disrespectfully) this is pretty much oral, on-the-hoof evidence; we do not see before this Committee any worked-out alternative that shows that any detailed consideration has been given to this alternative. (Mr Berryman) There are worked-out alternatives. I have not got them with me but we did work out alternative deep level station proposals, probably 12 months ago, when the matter was first raised by the Committee. 21551. On this alignment? (Mr Berryman) No, on a slightly ---- 21552. I will come to the other alignment in a moment. (Mr Berryman) --- an alignment slightly to the south of this. 21553. Do not worry, Mr Berryman, we will come on to the other alignment in a moment. So far as this is concerned - and this is no disrespect - the answers you give are doing the best you can to assist the Committee are not the result of a considered study of the type you did for the other alignment to the south of the site. (Mr Berryman) No. On the contrary, although it is some time ago a considered study was done on this ---- 21554. On this alignment? (Mr Berryman) No, not on this alignment; on the Hybrid Bill alignment. The study was done for a deep level station. 21555. I am saying unlike that study on a different alignment, the same detailed study has not been carried out of a deep cut for this alignment. (Mr Berryman) You could not do a deep alignment here because you would collide - the reason we have got this alignment is because at this point here we go over the top of the DLR tunnels and the DLR is sloping quite steeply from here down in this direction. On the old alignments you cannot get over the top of the DLR tunnels because there is not enough cover and, therefore, you have got to go underneath them. That is why it is deep, and that is why this one is shallow. 21556. The option we are exploring, prompted I think by the Committee, was not for a deep cut here but looking at the feasibility of the existing shallow cut-and-fill as seen on this alignment and then with 16 Gunnery Terrace remaining in place. That is what we were exploring. I think I got the answer I need: you have not carried out any detail - I am not criticising you - on that basis. Can I ask: you raised the spectre as well of shafts and accesses. It is right, is it not, that when you initially came to the site - I say you, I do not know if you were involved - you were proposing in AP3 a shaft saying that it had to go in a location which we have seen, which would have meant the relocation of my client's business. Was it not? That was the position of the Promoters then. (Mr Berryman) Not in AP3, no. 21557. Prior to AP3. The original proposal which led to AP3? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. The reason we raised AP3, as I think you know, is so that we could keep your client's business in play. As a result of that we had to take the other business - these three businesses here. 21558. What that does indicate - and it is right, is it not - is that the Promoters benefited from the work and the discussions carried out by my client and those advising him in formulating AP3? (Mr Berryman) Certainly it was as a result of discussions with your client and their advisers, yes. 21559. The work done by my client's advisers was helpful, was it not, to the Promoters in coming forward with AP3? (Mr Berryman) I would not put it quite as strongly as that. It was certainly helpful to your client in that it allowed for the removal of his business to be lifted and given to somebody else instead. 21560. Could I put it this way, if you do not want to say it was helpful: if it had not been for that evidence and that professional evidence it is unlikely that you would have agreed to that removal? (Mr Berryman) I think the situation was as your client described in his evidence. When we first did our recognisance of this area the building was empty, and that was the original decision taken to locate the shaft there - when it was felt, at that time, that it would be of any particular inconvenience to anyone. Of course, as things transpired, your client took a tenancy in the building and we then became aware of it. He made us aware of the fact that --- 21561. He already had the tenancy at the time. (Mr Berryman) Apparently so. 21562. You had not checked. That is the point. Not you personally, but Crossrail had not bothered to check. (Mr Berryman) No, I do not think that is right. Certainly nothing had come up in the original investigation. I think you have got to bear in mind that this project has gone on for a very long time. We are talking about quite some time ago. Certainly, when we became aware that he was there we did start to look at the possibility of moving, and it was helpful ---- 21563. It was helpful. (Mr Berryman) Yes, of course. Most of our Petitioners are helpful. 21564. I am happy with that: that the evidence provided was helpful to you. Obviously you made your own judgment that it was helpful. Can I then move on, if I may, please? Other alignments were envisaged, and I think, as Ms Lieven indicated in opening, the southern alignment, with a deeper cut, was rejected not least because it was much more expensive than the alignment that is currently pursued. (Mr Berryman) That is exactly right. It is very much more expensive to construct a station. 21565. Just give the Committee a feel - they may already have a feel but I do not - of the difference of the cost saving of not going with the southern route for the station - the southern, deeper alignment - and going with this route. The southern alignment would not have affected my client's property, would it? (Mr Berryman) If there had been a station there it would, yes. 21566. If there was a station there but there need not be a station there. If you go with the southern alignment, the deeper cut, that could have been accommodated, could it not? (Mr Berryman) What could have been accommodated? 21567. My client's operations at 16 Gunnery Terrace. (Mr Berryman) Indeed it could, as you know, because AP3 contemplated that situation. 21568. We are looking at AP3 in terms of going with the current alignment with a cut-and-fill as opposed to the other alternative that Ms Lieven indicated, which was for a deeper station to the south, what is roughly the cost saving? Roughly. (Mr Berryman) Several tens of millions; it would be in the range of 60 million or so. 21569. MR JONES: Thank you very much. 21570. CHAIRMAN: What I am going to do, Mr Jones, rather than re-examine now I am going to break. We will be back here at 11.45.
After a short break
Re-examined by MR MOULD
21571. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould? 21572. MR MOULD: Thank you. Mr Berryman, just a couple of points. First of all, there was a bit of debate about the extent to which it might be possible, ignoring cost considerations, to carry out the proposed station works at Woolwich which you see on the screen and, if necessary, to demolish and then reinstate a facsimile of AMP's building on the footprint we see. Just so we are clear, can you comment on that as regards the proposal to provide a ventilation and escape shaft at the eastern end of the station box, please? (Mr Berryman) Clearly the difficulty would be that you have got to provide structure over the top of the station box to allow the fans and vents to discharge into the air and to allow the staircases to discharge into a place of safety. Obviously there will be extreme practical difficulties in reinstating a similar building to that which is there now. In any event, there would be something immediately outside the building which would mitigate against its effective use. 21573. I am not going to ask you to bring costs into account, I think we understand the position in relation to your evidence if that is done. The second point is Ms Lieven in opening drew the Committee's attention to the fact that in the Environmental Statement we have analysed a series of alternative scenarios, including fit-out of the station itself being delayed by up to five years and so on, do you remember that? (Mr Berryman) I do remember that. 21574. I think the least invasive at surface of those scenarios, if you will, was that which contemplated a shaft only. (Mr Berryman) That is right. 21575. If you can remember, Mr Berryman, as regards AMP's premises at 16 Gunnery Terrace and the requirement to acquire it for demolition, did the position change in relation to any of those scenarios or not? (Mr Berryman) No, not really. If there was no station there and it was just a shaft which was providing emergency intervention and ventilation the works would be marginally smaller than they would be for those works which would be associated with the end of the station but they would only be slightly smaller. We normally have three fans at the end of a station and we have three fans in each of our ventilation shafts. The main difference would be that the staircases which in the station are designed to evacuate all of the passengers on the station would only be designed for intervention by the Fire Brigade and other emergency services, so we would still have the staircase but it would be slightly narrower and we would still have the lift to allow the evacuation of MIP passengers if that was needed and we would still have the fans which are about the same size. In summary, there is not very much difference in the scale of the works. 21576. Under any of those scenarios would it be feasible for the AMP building to remain and for AMP to continue to occupy it? (Mr Berryman) No, it would not. In any of those scenarios the workspace we would need would completely submerge the AMP building. 21577. Thank you. Finally, there was a debate between you and Mr Jones about the assistance the Promoter had derived from work undertaken by the Petitioner in the context of the Hybrid Bill, do you remember that? (Mr Berryman) I do. 21578. Just help me with this: were the AP3 proposals for the relocation of the Arsenal Way shaft informed by an engineering report? (Mr Berryman) Yes, they were. 21579. Who was the author of that engineering report? (Mr Berryman) Mott MacDonald, from memory. 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 undertaken 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. 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. 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. 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 filled 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. 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 to all 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 head-lease 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. (Mr Smith) Can I just say that these exceptions are all included in the Government's advice on disposal of surplus land in the Critchell 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. 21631. CHAIRMAN: It is numbered 248. 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. 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. (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. (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 --- 21660. CHAIRMAN: That is agreeable. 21661. MR MOULD: And if I need to respond I may have to ask for leave to do so. Thank you.
21662. Ms Lieven reminds me, if I need reminding, that I have to pray the Committee's patience when we have completed this Petition formally to identify four matters by way of overall closing, which I hope will not take very long at all, but I will leave that, if I may, until after Mr Jones has had his say. 21663. Sir, just summing up our position in relation to this Petition, it is, I think, now essentially accepted that the practical reality is that we need to acquire the Petitioner's property and to demolish the building to clear the site to enable the proposed Woolwich Station works to proceed. We have explained that to you and Mr Berryman has confirmed that in his evidence. 21664. We have made a commitment, repeated before this Committee today, as to the circumstances in which we would exercise powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the Bill for that purpose, and Mr Charlesworth has very fairly accepted that that gives him a measure of comfort as regards the uncertainty which he identified as to the progress of the scheme. 21665. We have also indicated, and he has equally accepted, that this is a valuable commitment, that we would give advance notice of entry by way of 12 months' advance notice of entry in order to enable him to plan for the inevitable relocation of his business from the site. The Committee knows that the reality is that the business would have to relocate because the building would be demolished and the works would endure for a period of some five years whilst the construction of the Woolwich Station was carried out. The Petitioners would be entitled in the ordinary way, as with others who are in a similar position through the scheme, to receive land compensation on the open market for their leasehold interest and the cost of being disturbed and displaced from their business to alternative premises, and we have indicated that we would assist in that process through the services of the proposed relocation agency. 21666. That is the background against which the issues raised by the Petitioners need to be considered. The first of the matters raised is the possibility of the Secretary of State foregoing acquisition of at least a part of the Petitioner's land and entering into some sort of licence or lease arrangement. Mr Smith has explained that he thinks there are particular practical difficulties with that given the multiple nature of ownership in relation to this land and the difficulties of dealing with the compensation position. The fact that Mr Smith, with all the experience that he has in relation to these matters, was finding it very difficult to see how that arrangement might possibly be made to work, you may feel speaks volumes as to the impracticality of that and, for that reason, the policy that we have for and acquisition in relation to sites where demolition is to take place for works, sites in multiple ownership, has been established, it is a tried and trusted approach which on balance is fair to all concerned. 21667. The other issue raised is as to the arrangements, assuming acquisition takes place, for disposal in due course of any surplus land that might be available following the completion of the Crossrail works. We have explained our policy in relation to that. In principle, as the only qualifying interest, the Petitioners are able to seek to bring themselves within the approach of their policy. Mr Smith in re‑examination explained some of the considerations that were to be taken into account, but the over‑riding consideration is this: the Secretary of State and the Promoter are very keen that land which is surplus and available for re-development following the completion of the works should be disposed of and dealt with in a way that accords most fully with the public interest. In this case the public interest clearly demands that at the earliest possible stage appropriate redevelopment take place in order to satisfy the requirements of the conservation area and to ensure that the scenario Mr Smith painted of a uncertain period of fallowness, as it were, is not realised. That is why the land disposal policy is drawn as it is and that is how it ties in with our commitments to over-site development following the completion of the Crossrail works. It is the public interest in those matters that must, we would submit, be paramount. 21668. Finally, I come to a matter that has been touched on in questioning, but I think will probably inform the subject matter in some submissions by Mr Jones in a moment or two and that is the question of costs. I think there is to be an application that the Committee should require the Promoter to pay the Petitioner's costs incurred in these proceedings in relation to its premises. We would respectfully suggest that would not be an appropriate decision for the Committee to make. Mr Jones put the matter in this way: firstly, he said costs had been incurred and the question is where should they fall. He said that this is a case of a landowner whose land will be acquired compulsorily, he will be displaced and have to relocate his business. That will entail costs and construction. He said that he has incurred costs in seeking as far as he can to co‑operate with the Promoter in relation to the scheme so far as it affects his property and his interests. He said that he has incurred costs, in particular, in responding to changes brought forward during the course of the development of the Bill scheme and proceedings before this House, changes which, of course, as the Committee well knows, have been brought forward in response to recommendations and decisions made by your Committee and which, therefore, sir, you will take no difficulty in being dissuaded, very much reflect the public interest. Those are essentially the factors that Mr Jones places before you and which he says justify a requirement that we shall pay his client's costs. That is a set of circumstances which is by no means unique to these Petitioners. There will be many instances where during the course of negotiations between the Petitioners and those who sit behind me the question of Petitioners' costs being raised in just those circumstances and the Petitioners have ultimately accepted that is not a justifiable basis upon which to require the Promoter to pay Petitioners' costs. If this Committee were to depart from that approach in relation to this Petitioner, it would set a very radical precedent and one which, we would submit, does not find any justification in the factors to which Mr Jones has and, I understand, will refer. Sir, that alone, we would submit, should make the Committee, with respect, think long and hard before acceding to Mr Jones's request. 21669. Finally, if I could set that briefly in the context of practice and precedent, it is the long‑standing practice of this House that in relation to hybrid bill proceedings, the Promoters and Petitioners should bear their own costs. That is confirmed by the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 which is a consolidated statute and which made no provision for awards of costs for unreasonable, vexatious circumstances in hybrid bill proceedings. It was confined to a position in relation to private bills, so it is submitted this Committee should be slow to depart from a position that has been so recently established in consolidating legislation by Parliament. In any event, if the Act were to make provision for costs in proceedings such as this, it is clear from Section 10 of the statute that two prerequisites must be established in order to raise consideration whether costs should be awarded. One is whether the provisions of the Bill have been altered so as to include protective provisions in favour of the Petitioner and here, as we stand today, no such provisions, I understand it, are being sought in relation to the Woolwich scheme. Secondly, and more importantly, the requirement is that the Petitioner has been unreasonably and vexatiously exposed to costs and that must logically entail the Petitioner demonstrating that the Promoter has been guilty of some unreasonable or vexatious conduct as regards the Petitioner and his interests in order to justify, if you will, an award of costs thrown away by that conduct. No such evidence is available here and I support that by this: under the hybrid bill scheme the Petitioner stood to be affected, as you have heard, by virtue of the need to construct a shaft to the south-east of the Arsenal Way car park. The AP3 amendments supported by Mott MacDonald's engineering report, which Mr Berryman referred to, enable the Promoter to revise the scheme in favour of AMP so as to enable an agreement to be reached in principle in May of last year with AMP and their agents that arrangements could be secured so as to enable AMP to remain. That was, as I made clear in evidence, an agreement in principle reached before any decision of this Committee as to the need to promote a station at Woolwich which, as you recall, was taken in July of last year, a year ago. That position only changed when the apparent proposals for Woolwich were decided upon and accepted by the Secretary of State and then promoted by virtue of the additional provisions which you have before you today. There can be no question of the changes of circumstances which affected AMP during the course of the summer of last year being due to any prevarication or lack of clarity on behalf of the Secretary of State. It was a situation that arose as a result of a considered decision by this Committee and an equally considered reaction to it by the Secretary of State, ultimately resulting in this AP being brought forward. As I emphasised, that was one which was based upon both this Committee and, indeed, the Secretary of State weighing up where the public interest lay in relation to what should happen to Woolwich and a meeting of minds in relation to that question. That has, unfortunately, caused AMP from their perspective to incur substantial costs in reacting to that change of circumstances. We sympathise with them in that respect and understand why they feel frustrated that should have happened, but that fact alone does not, in my submission, justify any award of costs being made in their favour in relation to their appearance before this Committee. I am sorry I have gone for a little length, but it is an important point to substantiate. For those reasons I would invite the Committee not to accede those points which I know Mr Jones is going to make in a moment or two. 21670. MR JONES: I have got some notes in writing which means I hopefully can be a little bit more speedy with the Committee and I am conscious of lunch coming up. If my agents can pass them around (Same handed). There are two notes, one on this Committee's ability to award costs and a second note on the lease, licence, grant of option. Could I deal with the costs point ‑‑‑‑ 21671. CHAIRMAN: These documents should be listed as A249 and 250. 21672. MR JONES: Sir, the position of the Petitioner in this case is quite unique. Mr Mould painted the picture that there were plenty of petitioners who may have negotiated, reached some arrangements, withdrawn their petitions and not received their costs, so be it, but we are not in that position. We are in a position where we have incurred what Mr Mould concedes are substantial costs but not for any benefit, not for the avoidance of our relocation and, although Mr Mould ‑ I may respectfully suggest ‑ paints the picture of the pleader in difficulties, whenever in difficulties, you always paint the difficulty that this will open the floodgates. I will come back to that in a moment. The position here is quite unique and I note the Promoters have not drawn the Committee's attention to any other Petitioner before this Committee who has been in the same position. This Committee's decision in respect of Woolwich arises out of quite unique circumstances. I have set out in paragraph one ‑ I do not need to repeat - the history of why we are obliged to employ professional assistance. Even the Promoter's witness at the end, though he did not want to say it, admitted that had been helpful in re‑examination and that is why I could not cross‑examine him, although the report was done by Mott MacDonald, that was - and I think this is a submission if there is any issue of it - with the input and direction of those engineers employed by my clients. That was raised in re‑examination so I could not deal with it, but there has been no doubt or suggestion by the Promoters that it was not necessary for us to incur those costs. 21673. I turn to paragraph two, again I can take that mostly as read. I take to the point that the Chairman of this Committee raised by touching on the issue of fault at the beginning of this hearing. The question is, as Mr Mould must concede, who should bear the costs thrown away? These are not costs improperly incurred, unreasonably incurred, these are costs properly incurred, who should bear the costs of up to £100,000? On any view, it should not be the Petitioner. Nobody is suggesting, and Mr Mould quite properly does not suggest, that the Petitioner unreasonably incurred those costs. The question, therefore, should be whether it is fair and proper for the Petitioner to bear those costs and it is important it is the Promoter who wants the scheme - it may be in the public interest, we sympathise with that, we support it - but as part of the promotion of a scheme it is the Promoter who must bear the vicissitudes and risks of promoting its scheme. 21674. Paragraph three, if I go to the legal point. There seems to have been a bit of change, if may say so, from the position of the Promoters to that which they gave in closing submissions and also the implication that was given in correspondence to us. It appeared to be asserted by the Promoter before this House previously that costs may only be made under the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006, that was my impression in reading the closing submissions given to this House, and I have given the reference on Day 81 by the Promoter. It does appear now from Mr Mould that he accepts the Committee does have the power to award costs. Mr Mould is right in saying so in respect of hybrid bills and, indeed as I point out in paragraph four, it would be highly anomalous and unfair if a person petitioning against a hybrid bill, where the Promoter is the Secretary of State would be in a worse position that a private bill. In paragraph five the Committee has an inherent discretion to award costs. That discretion is not fettered or governed, as Mr Mould seems to suggest, by Sections 10a and b of the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 because ‑ and I agree with the Promoter ‑ those provisions apply only to private bills. What that Bill has done in its re-enacted form is to limit the discretion that this Committee would otherwise have in respect of private bills but it does not ‑ and this is paragraph six ‑ purport to restrict the discretion this Committee has to award costs in respect of a hybrid bill. We are not, therefore, governed by Sections 10 a and b. If there were any doubt over the ability to award costs, that comfort is found in Section 15 of the Parliamentary Costs Act which provides for the taxation mechanism in dispute of costs, once you have got the awards, so whether the Promoter accepts the £100,000 or not, the taxation provision under the Act is expressly applied to hybrid bills and you see that in Section 15. I have also given the reference and quotation from the Law Commission's report that supports that. 21675. Paragraph eight, again we have given it, I hope, in to the Committee. I have given the reference in any event, the Committee has a power by way of a clause to insert into the bill either for a particular Petitioner or in general a provision for costs and I give the reference to that. In short, this Committee has to decide whether an innocent person who is having his land removed from him should also have to bear the costs of £100,000 or whether the Secretary of State should bear those costs. In my respectful submission, this Committee found the view that the Secretary of State should have been promoting the station of Woolwich ‑ I am not going to enter into that debate ‑ the Secretary of State fought tooth and nail not to do it, it is not the Petitioner's fault that the Secretary of State did not come up with a scheme which found favour with this Committee at first blush and the cost should be borne by the Secretary of State. They are modest in comparison to the cost savings that we have also seen by running the route on the alignment of my client's land. That is all I wish to say on the costs. 21676. If I move to the issue of the option, I have got a short note on that. The first three paragraphs set out the authorities for the propositions that I opened with, I do not believe they are in any dispute. You should only take what is necessary in the public interest. In this case, the freehold may be necessary for the subterranean station box; it is not necessary for the surface. Surplus land, the approach of the Promoters is simply to apply their policy and not even to consider the prospect of a lease or licence. Sir, I do say that when you come to examine this point, whether the Promoter should be supported in simply applying his ordinary policy, it is relevant to take into account the peculiar circumstances that my client finds himself in as a result of the losses incurred and the disturbance of the change from AP3 to AP4, it does place this Petitioner in a different position to others. The point is that whatever policy the Secretary of State makes, it cannot be a magic wand for behaving other than in a reasonable way, and in a reasonable way the Secretary of State must justify in the public interest why he requires the freehold. That has not been done and it was noticeable that for the first time in vague terms pushed by Mr Mould to suggest certain planning issues as to conservation areas and such like, we heard the first scintilla of a case being made that there was any public interest in my client not having an option to purchase or a lease or licence. No proper case has been put forward and certainly in respect of the option to buy back at market value, that has been with the Promoters for some considerable time. We do say that no compelling case has been put forward by the Promoters to justify the acquisition of the freehold of all the remaining land. This is my final point, Mr Mould sought in re‑examination to draw some comfort from the code that contemplates a re-sale to previous owners who form a collective together. That is very different to what we are seeking, we do not want the land to be acquired freehold, first of all, and, secondly, that option is still subject to the other caveats in the code that the Secretary of State could, for example, sell the land and decide that Berkeley Homes, for example, one of the largest landowners, it would be more convenient for them to be given all the land east of Arsenal Way. I ask rhetorically when, if ever, this Committee is going to see the final agreements between Berkeley Homes and the Secretary of State as to the true funding arrangements by which the station is to be developed and on what basis the land east of Station Road will be promised, something that, I suspect, will be kept from this Committee for some time. Unless I can assist any further, those are the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner. 21677. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Jones. We now come to the end of the cases before this Committee. Before we ask Ms Lieven to do a closing statement, sorry, Mr Mould, you want to reply? 21678. MR MOULD: Yes. 21679. CHAIRMAN: For how long? 21680. MR MOULD: If I start now, I suspect I will go perhaps just five minutes beyond one o'clock, so if you want to get it over with. 21681. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, you are not coming back at all? 21682. MS LIEVEN: No, I have finished, sir. The division was that I did the opening and the other Petitioner, and Mr Mould did the closing on AMP. The other Petitioner withdrew so, I am afraid, I get off lightly. 21683. CHAIRMAN: Over to you with a request for haste. 21684. MR MOULD: Absolutely. Sir, there is just four matters to deal with. They are these: firstly, we need to make a supplementary undertaking to Parliament in relation to the environmental minimum requirements, I will deal with that in a moment; we need to make an undertaking to Parliament in relation to certain works that we no longer propose to carry out in the event the Committee decides to approve certain additional provisions; I need to give you a brief update on the Access Option; and then I just need to deal with one or two points briefly in relation to the filled bill provisions. 21685. Firstly, the Environmental Minimum Requirements: on the first day of the proceedings before your Committee we gave an undertaking to Parliament concerning the enforcement of the Environmental Minimum Requirements. That undertaking addressed compliance by a person appointed as nominated undertaker under the Bill or a person such as the Greater London Authority or Transport for London or both of them, to whom the powers of the Bill are devolved under Clause 53. On 8 January last year amendments to the Bill were deposited which would allow statutory undertakers to implement development for or in connection with the Crossrail project under their own committee development rights insofar as their development had been assessed in the Crossrail Bill, Environmental Statement or any subsequent supplementary or additional provisions of Environmental Statements. Such development could therefore be carried out by a person who was not the nominated undertaker or a person to whom Bill powers are devolved under Clause 53 of the Bill and the original undertaking as to enforcement of the Environmental Minimum Requirements would not apply. 21686. The Secretary of State, the Promoter, has accordingly decided to give a supplementary undertaking to address this and the undertaking is as follows: this undertaking applies in any case where a statutory undertaker is carrying out development for or in connection with the Crossrail project in reliance on the planning permission enjoyed in consequence of the provision of the Bill, of which the marginal note is extension of Committee development rights. The Secretary of State undertakes to take such steps as he considers are reasonable and necessary to secure compliance with such of the Environmental Minimum Requirements as he considers relate to that development and are not directly enforceable against that undertaking. That is the first matter. 21687. The second matter relates to certain provisions of the Hybrid Bill scheme providing powers which the Promoter would undertake not to exercise in the event that the Committee decides to approve and to report amendments of provision that have been placed before you during the course of the proceedings. That undertaking is in the following terms: "In submitting the various Amendments of Provisions to the Committee with the request that they be included in the Bill reported by your Committee, it is right that we should offer an undertaking not to carry out certain works that the Amendments of Provisions are intended to replace. On behalf of the Promoter, I can therefore offer the following assurance. Subject to the Amendments of Provisions being accepted into the Bill, the Promoter will not use the powers in the Bill firstly to construct a depot at Romford; secondly to construct sidings at West Drayton; thirdly to construct temporary facilities for the removal of excavated tunnel material from Hanbury Street shaft, including the Pedley Street, adit and conveyors; fourthly to use Bow Midland Yard East Olympic land north of Pudding Mill Lane. Finally, you will recall that in addition to providing Over Head Line Electrification on the Great Western Main Line railway the Promoter intends to retain four bridges as set out in chapter ten of Supplementary Environmental Statement 3, with reference to the Brunel Bridge, as you will recall from earlier proceedings. 21688. That being the case, that is the intention to retain the four bridges, the Promoter will therefore not construct the temporary bridges originally adjacent to three of these bridges, that is to say Leigh Road Bridge, Wexham Road Bridge and St Mary's Road Bridge. This undertaking, relating to those five matters, will be added to the register in the usual manner. That is the second matter. 21689. The third matter is to provide the Committee, as we undertook that we would do, with an update on the progress with negotiations on the Crossrail Access Option. You will recall that Mr Elvin last touched on this when he closed in March of this year. The Committee asked to be kept in touch with progress on that case between the Promoter and Network Rail on the Access Option on Crossrail services on the main network. You will recall that the Access Option, subject to the approval of the Office of Rail Regulation, would grant access rights for an extended period for a defined level of Crossrail services on the main network. I can report that negotiations are complete on the legal drafting of the Access Option, and what is being resolved this week are some remaining side letter issues. The final stage will be formal approval by ministers and Network Rail's board. The Access Option will then be submitted to the Office of Rail Regulation who will then publish it and launch a consultation process. In the expectation that this is imminent, the Railway's Minister, Mr Harris, has called a meeting of the Crossrail rail industry stakeholders forum for 25 of this month to discuss the Access Option and next steps. Supporting the Access Option is a great deal of modern work to demonstrate that Crossrail trains can be timetabled and operated satisfactorily alongside other passenger and freight services. The rail industry has participated throughout the Crossrail Timetabling Reference Group, which has met monthly under the chairmanship of Network Rail. Both strands of work, the negotiation of the Access Option and the supporting time-tabling modelling work, have taken longer than Network Rail and the Promoter anticipated. General industry policy on Access Options was relatively undeveloped until Crossrail and a couple of other projects came along. This has meant that Network Rail and the Promoter have had to tackle a number of issues on which there was no existing model to use or adapt which has taken time. The Promoter's intention remains that if the ORR approves suitable access rights for Crossrail in an Access Option, it will bring forward proposals to cut back the railway's powers in the Bill. Assuming no major delays, this would be in time for the Lord's Select Committee stage. That is the update on that issue. 21690. Finally I think you have had distributed to you a document, paper of amendments submitted to the Commons Select Committee dated 4 July, and also I believe a speaking note relating to that which may have been handed to you. 21691. CHAIRMAN: List this as Exhibit A251. 21692. MR MOULD: Sir, I am told that it is a requirement that I read this into the record, so if you just bear with me while I do that. 21693. The Committee should have a set of page and line amendments to the Bill comprising: Filled Bill amendments submitted on day one; each of the four additional provisions; and further Filled Bill amendments. 21694. A number of amendments previously submitted have been superseded or altered by later additional provisions or by decisions made by the Committee or by the Promoter, such as the decision not to proceed with a crossover either in the position shown in the Bill as deposited or as later proposed in AP2. Where such alterations or deletions have been made, these are shown as track changes in the bundle. 21695. While we have addressed the Committee on the charges to the works provisions contained in each of the four sets of additional provision amendments, the additional provisions also contain other amendments which we should draw to the Committee's attention as we do now. Your clerk has a copy of the Filled Bill showing the proposed amendments in manuscript. Filled Bill amendments submitted on day one, these consist of minor drafting amendments and the insertion of a new clause required to deal with disposal of Crown land. The purpose of the clause is to enable Crown land to be leased and used for Crossrail, notwithstanding restrictions in section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 and section 3(1) and (2) of the Crown Estate Act 1961. 21696. Additional provision amendments: extension of permitted development under the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in relation to development, which is the subject of environmental assessment in connection with the Bill. Pages 10 and 45 of the consolidated paper of amendments. 21697. As a consequence of Crossrail construction, utility companies will have to divert pipes, cables and other apparatus. Utility companies normally have a general power to undertake such works, in which case their powers are known as "permitted development rights". However, if the works form part of a larger project, then their environmental impact must be assessed and a specific planning application made. Under the Crossrail Bill the assessment of the utility company's work will form just a part of the general environmental assessment of Crossrail which will be considered by Parliament as part of its general scrutiny of the project. The amendments comprising a new clause and new schedule avoids the duplication of planning authorities having to individually assess and approve diversions which have already been considered within the Bill process. 21698. Provisions relating to the abstraction of water, new paragraph 15A in schedule 12 on page 22 of the consolidated paper of amendments and new clause after Clause 50 on page 21. Under recent general legislation, a person who abstracts water from the ground in connection with construction work must obtain statutory permission from the Environment Agency and the Agency must uphold other parties' rights to abstract water. However, the Bill already provides a special regime for the Environment Agency to consent to water abstraction and the Parliamentary process enables those with rights to abstract water to petition against the project. A parallel regulatory regime would therefore be an unnecessary duplication of the Bill's existing safeguards. We are therefore intending to disapply elements of the general regime in favour of Crossrail's own provisions and arrangements as regards water abstraction. 21699. Alterations to the provision in the Bill regarding planning permission for development authorised by the Bill which consists of a work other than a scheduled work, pages 12 and 45 of the consolidated paper of amendments. The Bill gives deemed planning permission to developments which were assessed in the Environmental Statement of February 2005, which accompanied the introduction of the Bill. Clause 10 of the Bill is amended to take account of the new works included in the additional provisions and Supplementary Environmental Impact Assessments so that it gives deemed planning permission for work assessed either in February 2005 or in a Supplementary Environmental Statement produced since then. 21700. Alterations to the provision in the Bill regarding the application of provisions of the Bill to things authorised by an order under Section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, page 12 of the consolidated paper of amendments. Clause 51 of the Bill enables an order under Section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 to apply provisions of the Bill to extensions of Crossrail. It is intended to amend the clause so as to permit such an order also to apply provisions of the Bill in relation to additional railway facilities that are provided in connection with Crossrail, but which may not technically be an extension of it. 21701. Alterations to the provision in the Bill regarding approval in relation to highway accesses, page 13 of the consolidated paper of amendments. Plans to provide new or improved means of access to a highway must be approved by the local highway authority. If that authority does not respond within 28 days, then the Bill provides that they are deemed to have approved our plans. In a similar context, the local highway authority must be asked to approve plans to improve or create access to a road. The Bill does not currently provide a timeframe in which the authority must raise any objections. We want to amend schedule 2 to the Bill to provides a timeframe of 28 days in which any objections the authority may have must be made. 21702. Alterations to the provision in the Bill regarding the creation and acquisition of easement or other rights over land, page 14 of the consolidated paper of amendments. Paragraph 13 of schedule 6 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to nominate, in a statutory instrument, third parties who can compulsorily acquire rights of way over land within the Bill limits. However, these rights currently could only relate to the relocation of apparatus on private land. They were drafted with the utility companies in mind. We propose to expand the power to enable designated third parties to acquire any form of rights over land. For example, we might confer on Network Rail the power to acquire rights to access work sites from private land which abuts rail tracks. This would avoid the expense of acquiring land which would only be needed for use intermittently. 21703. Power to reinstate facilities whose operation is discontinued, page 4 of the consolidated paper of amendments. Negotiations with Petitioners identified some circumstances where Petitioner's businesses can be relocated as part of the project (a central London concrete batching plant is the largest example). In response to local authority concerns it is proposed to take a power to impose conditions on the use of reinstated works. 21704. Agreements about the temporary possession and use of land, page 40 of the consolidated paper of amendments. A new clause is proposed allowing for consensual agreements with landowners to be enforced should ownership of the land in question be subsequently transferred. 21705. Entry into agreements imposing restrictions on the use of land, page 40 of the consolidated paper of amendments. The use of land can usually only be permanently restricted by agreements between the owners of neighbouring properties. The proposed new clause would allow the entry into consensual agreements with landowners to stop works being undertaken which are inconsistent with the project, but without acquiring a neighbouring interest in land. 21706. Finally, a paper of further amendments: this contains uncontentious drafting amendments and amendments to address concerns of Petitioners, such as amendments to the protective provisions in the Bill for utility undertakers. There is nothing that we think needs to be specifically mentioned to the Committee, but for assistance we have inserted in the paper short explanatory notes of the reason for each set of amendments. No doubt that will be bedtime reading for the Committee in the days to come. Thank you very much. 21707. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The Committee now stands adjourned until Thursday 12 July at 10:00.
|