6820. BARONESS FOOKES: Supplementary to that, is it a requirement then that all the former owners should have an interest or is it open to such former owners who are interested in this to put forward a scheme?

  6821. MR MOULD: It is the latter, such former owners as are interested. If there are 20 interests in the site which the Secretary of State identifies to offer up to the market following construction of the station works, it is not necessary that all 20 should participate in the consortium.

  6822. BARONESS FOOKES: I think that is important because I got the impression from Mr Pritchett that he thought that was the case but it is not.

  6823. MR MOULD: Yes.

  6824. BARONESS FOOKES: Therefore how would he then set about keeping in touch with Crossrail? Is it up to him and the former owners to keep in touch with Crossrail about further developments? Is there any mechanism by which you inform him or them?

  6825. MR MOULD: No, I think it would be up to him essentially, but Mr Smith has been working, in relation to a number of sites to which this policy will apply, with landowners who have aspirations to do what Mr Pritchett has sought the opportunity to do and those negotiations are in various stages of progress with a view to reaching agreement in due course. I think Mr Smith referred you to Appendix 1 to the land disposal policy document, paragraph 1, "Where an address of the former owner of a Qualifying Interest in the whole or part of the site is known a letter will be sent by or on behalf of the Secretary of State". I do not need to read it all out but it is set out there.

  6826. BARONESS FOOKES: Thank you very much.

  6827. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, there is a little bit of history here, I think. The Crichel Down Rules originated with a parcel of land in Wiltshire requisitioned, if I remember rightly, from the Addington family.

  6828. MR MOULD: In wartime.

  6829. CHAIRMAN: And when it was not wanted by the Ministry of Defence any more, or whoever it was at that time—it was not the Ministry of Defence—it was not offered back to the Addingtons.

  6830. MR MOULD: That is right.

  6831. CHAIRMAN: There was a row about this, and since then the Crichel Down Rules were that there was a pre-emption for the original owners if it had not been changed in character, because it was still open land.

  6832. MR MOULD: That is right, yes.

  6833. CHAIRMAN: That does not work in central London and therefore there has had to be a modification and, as Lady Fookes has just been exploring with you, somebody may have a pre-emptive right, but then they may have to get together with other people because somebody has got to put in a planning application for what is going to be built over the top of the ticket hall. If it is a collection of the people who were previous owners of the land they will get a favourable position so far as concerns the right to acquire it. Is that right?

  6834. MR MOULD: That is right, exactly. I think I used the word "pre-emption" earlier and the more colloquial way of putting it is "right of first refusal". It is important to bear in mind that because with relation to sites of this kind there may very well be a multiplicity of existing interests. There should be some mechanism to control the timescales within which development may come forward because what we do not want to have here is a process which creates delay and thus causes sensitive sites, such as Mr Pritchett described here, a site within a conservation area, a very characterful part of the West End of London, lying fallow whilst negotiations continue month on month, year on year trying to get former owners to agree with each. There has to be some discipline and that is what Mr Smith has explained to you. That is one of the reasons why, for example, the Secretary of State is not attracted by the idea of trying to play off competing bids between former owners, but that is why he says, "Well, if I get a situation where"—to pick up on Baroness Fookes' point—"I have a bid from a consortium of 18 of 24 brokers but then I have the other two putting in their own rival bid", I don't set up some sort of lotting system, I say, "Right, I will put it out into the market, they can both bid but let's draw it to a close, let's bring things to a head and let the market take its course", because effectively there is a market in those circumstances. There is a competitive situation. That is the safest and most sensible way of getting things moving and securing the public interest in the site being brought forward for redevelopment brought back into an appropriate state as regards oversite development following completion of the works.

  6835. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: I am looking at the options for Mr Pritchett here. He can go round his fellow residents and say, "We need to get together in a consortium with a property developer in order to put in a bid and make sure we are the only bid", but this is a valuable site in the West End of London and I can imagine a situation arising where other property developers say, "No, we want a piece of this. We will approach one of the people who is not signed up to Mr Pritchett's consortium who is a former resident, give them some inducement or whatever in order to put in a rival bid", and then we are in the situation that you talk about, it has to go on to the open market. From what you have explained, it is in Mr Pritchett's and the other residents' interest to make sure they are in a consortium of some sort because they will have a benefit when the next development goes ahead on here: if it is flats, for instance, they might get the option of buying an offplan flat at a lower price than what it will be when it is built.

  6836. MR MOULD: That would be a matter for them if they can find agreement between themselves and secure an appropriately qualified lead developer who would impress the Secretary of State sufficiently to cause her to apply her policy or to operate her policy in their favour, that must be right, but I can do no more than speculate on that. Of course your Lordship is right, sites of this kind will no doubt be attractive to developers but again that is a matter which is for existing proprietors to manage for themselves and to take whatever action or negotiation as they see fit to secure their own best interests. I do not know whether Mr Pritchett is alone in his desire to participate ultimately in the redevelopment of this site, or whether there are others within the block of property who share his aspirations in that respect but again that is a matter for him and him to discover essentially.

  6837. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: I am right in thinking that the planning process for the next development on here can start almost immediately after Royal Assent, or even before Royal Assent?

  6838. MR MOULD: Yes. The planning process in the sense of promulgation of detailed policy to guide the sensitive and appropriate redevelopment of the site is already underway. That is illustrated by the fact that Westminster has promulgated, as you know, the development brief which sets out very detailed aspirations as to the kind of development, both in terms of mixed, physical characteristics and so forth, which, as a planning authority, they wish to see coming forward. That is something which takes place outside the scope of this Bill, as we made clear. That is a matter over which Westminster will quite properly have regulatory control.

  6839. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I am just trying to think through some of the complications which could arise and how they would be dealt with. Let us suppose for the present moment that there is a wish by the tenants, one of which is going to be Mr Pritchett, who comes with an offer at the appropriate time, they are still going to need an appropriate vehicle to back it because this is a big professional project when it happens, it is not one for a small trader to undertake on his own account. Supposing by that time Mr Pritchett, for argument's sake, has become the finance director of a significant property company and wishes to get them to front the deal for him as such. Does that put him in an advantage or disadvantage vis-a"-vis the entire approach or does he become excluded because he is no longer doing it in his own name?