Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6580
- 6599)
6580. Let us move away from principle to practice
here. As we made clear, we expect those matters to take place
relatively speedily once the parliamentary process has been completed
but, equally, we cannot give any commitments to that at this stage
because to do so would be a highly dangerous step to take in relation
to so large a project as we have here. As I have said, all things
being well, this property is programmed to be acquired in June
2009 and the commitments that are on the page in front of you
are built around that programme date.
6581. My Lord, those are my submissions in response
to Mr Hicks' position. However one looks at it, it is ultimately
an appeal for compensation for blight and we say that would be
a very significant extension of the established legal limits of
blight compensation. There is no case here to justify extending
the blight provisions and advanced compensation to cover this
Petitioner's circumstances and that to do so would be an undesirable
and dangerous precedent as one could really envisage in relation
to this aspect of the scheme. Unless there are any questions from
your Lordship?
6582. CHAIRMAN: No, I think we have a
question for Mr Hicks, though. What do you want us to do about
it, Mr Hicks, certainly in advance of Royal Assent? We cannot
do anything after Royal Assent but preparatory to Royal Assent.
6583. MR HICKS: My Lord, I do not ask
you to ask the Promoters to make a commitment to do something
before Royal Assent. What I do ask is the most obvious way of
dealing with this, to ask them to make a commitment to purchase
relatively soon after Royal Assent. My Lords, if I might just
say very few things. What we want is some commitment that has
teeth. At the moment 4 and 5 do not have any teeth as far as we
are concerned.
6584. CHAIRMAN: We cannot put teeth in
it, can we?
6585. MR HICKS: My Lords, yes, you can
because if they say funding is in place and they plan to take
this in June 2009, they should be required to give an undertaking
that they will either take it or make the decision to take it
or say, "We don't want it" by June 2009. That means
we know in our negotiations if they do not agree satisfactory
terms then nothing bites at the moment, then at least there is
a backdate to keep to their commitment, that would mean there
is real teeth in the negotiations. My Lords, there are special
circumstances here because it is not just ordinary blight, in
other words delay to redevelopment, they are also effectively
taking out the current value while we are waiting which would
have enabled us to hold the position.
6586. There is a further point. In an ordinary
situation like this, if it was a market problem, for instance,
you would have the option of saying, "Right, we will delay
redevelopment, we'll refurbish and keep it for another five to
ten years", we do not have that option either. There is no
evidence, I believe, of other petitioners in a like position to
this. My Lords, the one example of the same solution, though for
different reasons, if your Lordships have the first special report
of the House of Commons on the Bill to hand, is the way in which
EMI Ltd were dealt with at pages 15 and 16. It may not be necessary
to turn to it.
6587. CHAIRMAN: Which page?
6588. MR HICKS: Pages 15 and 16, my Lord.
6589. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
6590. MR HICKS: It is at paragraph 42
it starts. Would you wish me to read it, my Lord? I will pause
while you glance through it.
6591. CHAIRMAN: It ended up with an undertaking?
6592. MR HICKS: Yes, as I understand
it. "We insisted that the Petitioner should be subject to
a compulsory purchase order as soon as practicable and the Promoter
agreed to offer an undertaking to purchase their building at the
time of EMI's choosing from the date of Royal Assent". That
is the most obvious mechanism, my Lord.
6593. The final point is this, that this is
not the same as an ordinary CPO, in other words not in the Bill.
In an ordinary CPO there is a risk to the Promoter of not being
allowed their CPO. Where there is an obvious and serious detriment
of the sort we are now facing, you would find the Promoter very
eager to find a solution or an agreement with that objector.
6594. CHAIRMAN: That does not arise because
it is not in the Bill.
6595. MR HICKS: Exactly and my point,
my Lord, is this Committee is there to provide that process which
is not there because it is a Bill and they cannot lose their Bill.
That is the equivalent. That is why this would not happen like
this if there was a risk of them losing their powers. Unless there
is anything else, my Lords.
6596. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, the document
you have given, am I right in thinking, is as near an undertaking
as may be at this stage?
6597. MR MOULD: Yes, I use the phrase
"commitments" but these are effectively undertakings,
that the Promoter has indicated its willingness to enter into
correspondence with the Petitioner. The correspondence is in the
pack. It is the letters which are identified at the top of the
page. Yes, they are not strictly undertakings in the sense they
have not been given contractual force yet, but if the Petitioners
would like a contract with us which give effect to these undertakings,
they can have them.
6598. CHAIRMAN: What is the difference
between what you have said here and what the House of Commons
Select Committee said about EMI?
6599. MR MOULD: The difference is that
EMI were in occupation of their premises and were going to suffer
very severe disturbance and impact from the Crossrail works which
were being undertaken in, around and underneath their premises.
The view was taken that in order to enable them to continue with
their business, which they presently carried out within those
premises, they ought to be relocated. That, of course, is completely
different from the present case where I have been at pains to
stress that we are dealing with an investment owner of premises.
These premises are not occupied but there is no suggestion whatsoever
that the Petitioners have any interest in themselves going into
occupation. They are a property investment and development company,
as I understand it.
| 
