6380. MR KNOWLES: You are very kind, thank you very much.

  6381. CHAIRMAN: Very well, Mr Knowles, thank you very much. Mr Mould?

  6382. MR MOULD: My Lord, all I would wish to say in addition to that is this: firstly, as an indication that we are making good progress, the report on survey that my learned friend mentioned a few moments ago was received yesterday and it has been shared between the parties, and that is an indication that we are making good progress, and I very much hope that that good progress will continue speedily. Both parties are keen to proceed in that way and it would certainly be the Promoters' desire, if at all possible, that any report back that we make to your Lordships' Committee will only need to be made in writing, but, as your Lordship has said and as we agree, if it is necessary for the matter to be reported back orally, then time will no doubt be made available for that.

  6383. I should also just say this, lest there be any doubt: that we have been willing to agree to the deferral of this Petition with your Lordships' leave on the basis that this is a case where we think exceptionally, given the state of negotiations between the parties and the sensitivity that both parties attach to the future of this vessel, that it was merited. I say that because your Lordships are very well aware that we share your Lordships' desire that proceedings before this Committee should be dealt with expeditiously and matters should not be delayed, unless there is very good reason to do so. I hope that that message is clear and it reflects the position that we and your Lordships have taken throughout these proceedings to date.

  6384. CHAIRMAN: That sounds very satisfactory. I saw in the background papers to this that SS Robin is one, I think, of three really historic ships in London, one of the others of which was Cutty Sark.

  6385. MR KNOWLES: Correct, my Lord.

  6386. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, the disaster that happened to Cutty Sark places further emphasis on resolving this problem.

  6387. MR KNOWLES: I respectfully agree, my Lord.

  6388. CHAIRMAN: Then you make an arrangement, will you, with our Clerk to tell us what has happened in about three weeks' time. You may get mixed up with rail freight, but never mind!

  6389. MR KNOWLES: I will take my chances. Thank you, my Lord.

The following Petition against the Bill was read:

The Petition of the Association of West India Dock Commercial Ship Owners.

MR JULIAN CARTWRIGHT, appeared as Agent.

  6390. CHAIRMAN: We have also seen these ships, and one of my colleagues has been on board one of them.

  6391. MR MOULD: In the usual way, just before Mr Cartwright makes his Petition to your Lordships, if I may, I will just briefly outline the position, again very much having regard to the fact that your Lordships are familiar with the position here. This is a different photograph of the West India Dock and here we are focusing upon the vessels which are presently moored in this location, in the western part of the dock (indicating).[15] As your Lordships will recall, Mr Cartwright's Association represents four vessels: the Leven is Strijd, which is a vessel which, I think, operates as a fully licensed restaurant and a private function venue, owned by Mr and Mrs Cartwright, trading as Floating Assets; then the floating church, St Peter's Church Barge, which, as your Lordships, I think, are aware, is the only floating church in London and is owned by the St Peter's Canary Wharf Trust; then the barge known as The Prins and that operates as a commercial art gallery known as the Prenelle Gallery; and then, finally, The Barge Dana, and that vessel is also owned by Mr and Mrs Cartwright and operates as the offices of their firm and is their family home. Those are the four vessels.

  6392. Just very briefly to set the scene, at the time of the Select Committee proceedings in another place, under the then proposed construction arrangements for the Isle of Dogs Station, it was anticipated that it would be necessary to relocate these vessels during the currency of the works, which was a source of concern to the Petitioners. I am happy to say that under the current construction arrangements, which I showed your Lordships briefly on the plan in relation to the SS Robin Petition, that is no longer needed and I think it is a matter of welcome to Mr Cartwright and those he represents that we are now able to accommodate each of the vessels within their current location within the West India Dock throughout the period of the works, albeit of course that they will be locked in while those works are going on, so, for the period of four or five years of construction of the station, the vessels will not be able to leave the dock because the dam, which I showed you which is broadly across this location here (indicating), will be in situ throughout that period of time.[16]

  6393. The position is at the moment that Mr Cartwright's concern, as I am sure he will explain to you in a moment, is to obtain clarity and satisfaction as to the compensation arrangements that are in place to cover disturbance costs and other expenditure which arise from, flow from, the loss of the right of private navigation in and out of the dock for the duration of that period. Your Lordships will well imagine that there are likely to be increased costs which arise as a result of increased insurance, maintenance and other matters.

  6394. CHAIRMAN: It is an insurance point really?

  6395. MR MOULD: That sort of thing, yes. There is under the Bill, and I will not take your Lordships to it unless it is necessary to do so, but there is under the Bill, it is in Schedule 2, paragraph 10, particularly sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), a specific, bespoke right to compensation which any person who suffers loss as a result of any interference with a private right of navigation is entitled to claim under. The compensation under that right of compensation is determined and quantified in accordance with the ordinary principles of land compensation and, as my Lord, Lord Chairman, will appreciate, in particular the rules relating to disturbance compensation are particularly relevant to circumstances such as this.

  6396. CHAIRMAN: Just give me the reference again, will you.

  6397. MR MOULD: It is in the printed version of the Bill, page 69. It is Schedule 2, paragraph 10, under the heading "Temporary interference with waterways", and it is sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), the two particular references. Perhaps I ought just to point out to remind your Lordships that, where a right of compensation vests in a proprietor or, in this case, a boat-owner, any dispute in relation to any claim for compensation is ordinarily referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination, and that applies here just as it does in any other case of that kind.

  6398. I suppose the only other point to make at this stage is that, as your Lordships would expect, we and the boat-owners have been in discussion and negotiation for some time now and we have included, just to give your Lordships a flavour of the up-to-date position, I think what is the most recent letter that we have written to Mr Cartwright in the course of those negotiations, a letter of 14 March 2008, which your Lordships have in hard copy in the pack and which sets out a number of points in relation to specific heads of compensation and costs that we would expect, subject to the necessary evidence to fall within the embrace of this compensation right, and no doubt Mr Cartwright may want to say something about that when he comes to make his Petition in a very few moments' time.[17]

  6399. CHAIRMAN: It will not be possible to get these ships out, will it?

16   Committee Ref: A30, Proposed development of North Quay site (TOWHLB-48_05-002) Back

17   Crossrail Ref: P43, Correspondence from CLRL to the Association of West India Dock Commercial Shipowners, 14 March 2008 (TOWHLB-XR6-018 and -019) Back