Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2000
- 2019)
2000. CHAIRMAN: So we are having no witnesses?
2001. MR MOULD: No witnesses, no. Let
me, then, first of all, just explain briefly the position we have
reached as regards to the gypsy and caravan site at Eleanor Street.
In short, the position is this: the borough council own and operate
a gypsy caravan site within what is known as the Bow Triangle
site at Bow, and here, outlined in red on the photograph, you
can see the travellers' site itself in its existing location.
2002. The Promoter proposes to construct emergency
escape and ventilation shafts within the Bow Triangle, and we
have marked on the photograph the location of the proposed shaft.
As your Lordships can see, this location is within part of the
existing area of the travellers' site. What we have agreed with
the London Borough is that the travellers' site should be relocated
and reinstated within another part of the triangle site, and the
Hybrid Bill, as amended by an additional provision which passed
through the Committee in another place, makes provision for that.
2003. If we can put up, please, 003, this shows
the proposed arrangements following the construction and completion
of the Crossrail works.[1]
You can see that this area here, which has got a sort of pale
green colouring, is the area which will be permanently required
for the Crossrail emergency access shaft, and the access for that
facility. The running tunnels you can see outlined here and here,
running in a south-westerly/north-easterly direction. The travellers'
site will be permanently reinstated in the brown area here, and
the purple area is an area of surplus land that will be dealt
with in accordance with our land disposal arrangements. That,
I think, does not give rise to any concerns today.
2004. In relation to this, the Promoter has
given an undertaking to the London Borough (it is number 196 in
our register) which, essentially, has two elements to it: the
first is that the Promoter will relocate the existing traveller
and gypsy site to a new site within the Bow Triangle (so that
is this area here) in such a way as enables the residents to be
transferred in a single permanent move. The second aspect of the
undertaking is that the Promoter will develop, in consultation
with the London Borough, a project plan setting out the principal
requirements and processes for the relocation of the gypsy and
travellers' site.
2005. If I can have page 005 put up, please.[2]
This document is the first page of the project plan to which I
have just referred in its current draft, which was dated, I think,
26 February of this year. Until this morning, there was, I think,
one outstanding point of debate between ourselves and the London
Borough in relation to this document. In order to explain that
I just need to turn to the next page, page 6, and to ask your
Lordships just to look at paragraph 2.3 on that page.[3]
What that paragraph does (in particular 2.3.3) is to indicate
that in relation to the reinstatement of the travellers' site,
the Promoter will exercise powers which are to be conferred under
Schedule 16 to the Crossrail Bill, which relates to the reinstatement
of displaced facilities, and exercise those powers for certain
purposes: in particular, that the Promoter is minded to impose
planning conditions, under that Schedule, requiring the submission
of three matters. You can see those at (i), (ii) and (iii):
2006. "(i) a detailed scheme for the
layout and design of the reinstated site; (ii) a detailed plan
for the relocation of the residents from the existing site to
the reinstated site; and (iii) a strategy for community support
during the relocation process".
2007. Each of those matters shall be submitted
for subsequent approval by the local planning authority (that
is to say, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) and those conditions
will make provision for the time limits for submission of the
detailed design, relocation plan and community support strategy
for approval.
2008. CHAIRMAN: When you talk about the
strategy for community support, there was going to be some sort
of working group, was there not?
2009. MR MOULD: Yes.
2010. CHAIRMAN: Has that been set up?
2011. MR MOULD: I am not sure that it
has yet been set up, but what is intended is that that part of
the process should be taken forward between the borough and—
2012. CHAIRMAN: There do not seem to
be any problems about that?
2013. MR MOULD: I do not think there
are, no. Of course, one thing we also should remind your Lordships,
as an aside, is that this project plan provides for consultation
with the residents themselves, as part of the process.
2014. The issue that arose was in relation to
what is said here; that is to say, that the Promoter was minded
to impose those conditions. The London Borough had asked us if
we could be somewhat firmer in relation to the Promoter's intentions.
We explained to the London Borough that the reason why we expressed
the point in that form was because we were dealing with the exercise
of powers to be conferred under the Bill for that purpose, and
that that was an appropriate way of expressing the position.
2015. After discussions this morning between
myself and Mr Drabble, we have been able to take the matter a
little further, and I can tell the Committee that the Promoter's
position is as follows: the Promoter's judgment is that there
is a compelling case for the Secretary of State to exercise her
powers under paragraph 2 of Schedule 16 to the Bill to impose
the three conditions stated in paragraph 2.3 of the project plan
dated 26 February, 2008—that is to say, the three conditions
to which I have just referred the Committee.
2016. The Promoter, therefore, expects that
the Secretary of State will exercise her powers under paragraph
2 of Schedule 16 to the Bill to impose those three conditions
in relation to the reinstatement of the gypsy and travellers'
site. The Secretary of State is not, however, yet empowered to
make that decision and must do so in the light of all material
considerations at the relevant time. The Promoter is not aware
of any material consideration which might justify the Secretary
of State deciding at the relevant time not to exercise her powers
so as to impose the three conditions stated in paragraph 2.3 of
the project plan, which is dated 26 February 2008.
2017. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, I can see that
(i) and (ii) are suitable planning conditions. I am not sure how
you enforce (iii).
2018. MR MOULD: The requirement is for
the submission of a strategy for community support, and that that
should be subsequently approved by the London Borough. I think
the enforcement of that condition would simply be that if there
was a failure to submit such a strategy then that would be something
that the Council could seek to secure compliance on.
2019. I should say, also, that under the terms
of the schedule itself (Schedule 16 to the Bill), there is provision
for an appeal to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government, exercising, effectively, her planning appeal powers,
in the event of any dispute as to these conditions.
1 Crossrail Ref: P19, Proposed traveller's site post
construction of Eleanor Street Shaft (TOWHLB-86_04-003) Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P19, Crossrail Project Plan-Eleanor Street Gypsy
& Travellers Site Relocation (TOWHLB-86_04-005) Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P19, Crossrail Project Plan-Eleanor Street Gypsy
& Travellers Site Relocation, Principles (TOWHLB-86_04-006) Back
| 
