Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6620
- 6639)
6620. MR MOULD: Indeed so, and that has
been the policy of the law in relation to schemes of this kind
for as long as schemes of this kind have been promoted. The law
provides a limited remedy in the case, as I have said, of business
occupiers to those who are in occupation of their commercial premises
and who are properly to be described as small businesses whose
property lies below a relatively modest rateable value.
6621. BARONESS FOOKES: But no quarter
is to be given to investment companies?
6622. MR MOULD: We have given some quarter
and it is on the screen in front of you. We have frankly gone
beyond what we would ordinarily do in cases of this kind, but
what we cannot do is to drive a coach and horses through the blight
legislation.
6623. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: So
they are expected then to pay £5 million a year in interest
charges until such time as purchase takes place?
6624. MR MOULD: That is the position,
and that is always the case in relation to proprietorship of this
character in schemes of this kind. It is the policy of the law
in the knowledge that, in accordance with the answer I have given
to my Lady, the expectation is that they will recover the cost
as disturbance compensation at the time when their property is
acquired for the purposes of the scheme. That will form a part
of their compensation claim. I am being handed some notes. I wonder
if you would just allow me to read them (pause for reading). We
can add a little further comfort because I am being reminded that
at this location on the scheme there is no likelihood of change
in relation to the works and the position that you have in front
of you at this time, so I think that gives you a little more comfort.
6625. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
was just looking at paragraph 44 where there is a difference there.
You have agreed to offer them an undertaking to purchase their
building at a time of EMI's choosing from the date of Royal Assent.
6626. MR MOULD: Yes.
6627. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
will use my words to describe your reason and if I have got it
wrong you can correct me. As I understand what you said, you said
the reason that you were prepared to go that extra mile, if you
like, was that EMI was still in occupation.
6628. MR MOULD: That is right.
6629. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: That
is the distinguishing element in your view, that here is an investment
situation with Souzel; with EMI there was a business actually
functioning in the premises?
6630. MR MOULD: Yes. In this scheme and
in other schemes that have gone before there will have been cases
where it is accepted that businesses in occupation of premises
may exceptionally be given commitments to advance purchase, albeit
that the premises in question lie outside the blight notice limits
that I have mentioned a moment ago, because, for example, of the
exceptional difficulties of finding alternative premises on a
timescale that would enable those businesses to continue to function.
We are not in the business of causing existing businesses in occupation
of premises to have to cease to operate as a result of the impact
of the Crossrail scheme. We have an example of this which I can
use to illustrate that point, a waste handling company in the
area of Pudding Mill Lane which we have been negotiating with
because of the difficulties that they will obviously face in relocating
a business of that kind to an alternative site. You can understand
that readily in terms of planning and environmental controls,
but that is a completely different category of case from the case
we are dealing with here, and the key point on your Lordship's
question is displacing existing occupiers from their existing
premises. It is occupation that is the key point. That was the
key in relation to EMI.
6631. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Just
one further point for my clarification. What you are saying is
that if there is, as Mr Hicks has said, a loss of rental income
that will be dealt with in compensation terms when there is need?
6632. MR MOULD: Yes, see paragraph 3.
6633. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Could
I ask a hypothetical question, because I suspect it is not going
to take place? If we look at EMI and if there is a precedent,
if Souzel should decide to refurbish totally to a level where
they could let would that not be a factor which might encourage
you to purchase more quickly because presumably then the building
would have been enhanced by the refurbishment in the same way
as the EMI one?
6634. MR MOULD: It would not affect our
willingness to purchase in advance. It might affect the negotiations
over the level of compensation because if they were to undertake
expensive refurbishment works in the knowledge that, as they themselves
put it, it is highly unlikely that they will be able to secure
any valuable letting in this case in advance of that position
by Crossrail, we might very well say that they had spent money
that they ought not to have spent. That is called mitigating your
loss. I do stress that none of this is unusual in the handling
of schemes of this kind. You have not heard anybody else raise
this in this Committee hitherto and I do not anticipate that you
will hear any other Petitioners who have the characteristics of
Mr Hicks's clients raise it, and I suspect the reason for that
is that they may not like it and no doubt they do not like it
but they generally accept that this, to use the colloquialism,
is the way the cookie crumbles in relation to schemes of this
kind.
6635. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, let me go back
for a moment. Given that Royal Assent happens, given that the
funding is still in place at that time, did you say that you are
prepared now to make this document that we have been given into
an undertaking?
6636. MR MOULD: If that is the wish of
the Petitioner, that assurances that have been given in correspondence
hitherto, that is to say these assurances that you have in front
of you, should be translated into a binding contract between ourselves
and the Petitioner, we will certainly be willing to do that. It
will not affect the substance of the commitments that we have
made one iota, but what it will do is give them a contract with
us which will require us as a matter of contract to do what we
will have said we will do.
6637. CHAIRMAN: Mr Hicks, do you want
a contract?
6638. MR HICKS: My Lord, we want something
that actually says they will take it. They say it will go ahead.
They say, "You can be assured it will go ahead and it will
go ahead promptly", but there is nothing in any of these
offers of undertakings that ensures that they will actually take
it, and it may not go ahead. We cannot go to a bank and say, "Look:
it is all right; they have given us an undertaking". It may
not go ahead. If it does not there is no compensation at all.
It is only if the land is taken that we get the compensation.
That is the underlying risk, and we believe that in the extreme
circumstances of this case that residual risk—they say there
is not much; it is very tiny --- they should take that risk, not
us.
6639. CHAIRMAN: So do you or do you not
want a contract?
| 
