S Evans & Sons Limited (SE/0/1WR)

Transcription

1 HBC/19/7R THE MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT (MERSEY GATEWAY BRIDGE) Land Acquisition &Assembly S Evans & Sons Limited (SE/0/1WR) Rebuttal by; Alan W Scarisbrick Dip (Est Man) FRICS

2 MERSEY GATEWAY LAND ASSEMBLY & ACQUISITION CONTENTS Section Heading Page 1.00 Introduction Rebuttal Summary Conclusion 8 2

3 1.00 INTRODUCTION 1.01 Set out in this document is my rebuttal of the Written Statement prepared by Mr Glyn Bridge of McDyre & Co (Ref; PW30) on behalf of S Evans & Sons Limited (Evans) in respect of land and premises at Viking House, Ditton Road, Widnes. My rebuttal relates to land assembly and the need for powers of compulsory acquisition Rebuttal The Business of S Evans & Sons Ltd 2.01 I note from paragraph 3 of Mr Bridge s Written Statement points out that within Appendix 1 (HBC/19/2A) of my Proof of Evidence (HBC/19/1P) I have mistakenly described Evans business with two employees. I acknowledge this as being incorrect and confirm it should have read 29 employees Financial evidence provided by Evans to the Council s advisors, GVA Grimley, (Draft Accounts to 31 May 2009) show that the average number of staff employed during the year is 26, a reduction of three from the previous year (Para 5 of the Notes to the Financial Statements page 11). The accounts state that the principal activities of the company during the year were Demolition contractors and scrap metal dealers (Director s Report page 2). The Turnover and profit before tax are attributable to the one principal activity (Para 2 of the Notes to the Financial Statements page 10). This implies that the other activities listed in their Written Statement are undertaken as a consequence of the main activity, are of a minor nature of and do not contribute significantly to the company s turnover, some as ancillary matters The Council is aware that Evans has another site and premises in Widnes and a further site in South Liverpool. The 40 full time staff referred to by Mr Bridge at his paragraph 4 may not be solely employed at the Ditton Road (east) site but across 3

4 a number of sites Whilst it is appreciated that Evans may offer a wider range of services than just demolition and metal recycling, again, these consequential activities to the main business may not necessarily be all carried out from the subject site and premises at Ditton Road (east). Mr Bridge confirms at his paragraph 7 The 1.6 ha. Scrap metal site at Ditton Road is complimented by a second 1.3ha. site at the timber yard on the western section of Ditton Road, which is used is used as an architectural salvage facility. Although the access to the Ditton Road (west) site falls within the Limits of Deviation (TWA Parcels 27 & 28) no land is being acquired for the construction and operation of the Mersey Gateway Project at that location I note that Mr Bridge s objection letter dated 17 th July 2008 is also to be regarded as his client s Statement of Case. These points of objection have previously been addressed in my Proof of Evidence (HBC/19/1P) within Appendix 5, General Objections and Response to Objections (HBC/19/2A) and should also be read in conjunction with this Rebuttal. Matters Arising from the Statement of Case Failure to identify any drawbacks in the scheme Mr Bridge at his paragraph 10 states We are still struggling to identify any significant drawbacks that are acknowledged by the Council. For example, Mr Parr (document HBC/1/1P) praises the benefits of the Mersey Gateway Bridge (MGB), but fails to acknowledge real concerns, especially for local residents and businesses, such as the cost of tolls, the potential loss of the 118 businesses affected and around 1200 associated jobs. This matter has been addressed in the proofs of evidence of Mr Russell (HBC/9/1P) and Dr Twigger-Ross (HBC/10/1P). However, reference has been to the 118 businesses affecting 1,200 associated jobs and I should like to clarify the figure of 118 businesses has been derived as follows; businesses are landowners/investors with no operational activity or 4

5 staff affected by the Mersey Gateway proposals businesses relate to access issues, during or following construction but are able to continue business from their sites businesses are able to continue operations on their sites without being relocated as only a small proportion of their land/property is being acquired. The remainder of their land / property is not considered less useful or less valuable in any significant degree as to cause them to relocate businesses have either moved away or ceased trading businesses are required to be relocated and advanced agreement has already been reached with two businesses. Negotiations and legal formalities are nearing completion with a number of others in accordance with the Mersey Gateway Relocation Strategy (CD 128) At paragraph 19 of Mr Bridge s Written Statement One friend of the Managing Director of the objector company has estimated that tolls will cost him around 50k a year out of a turnover of around 400k a year. Costs on this scale could clearly make his business unviable. Such issues are still glossed over by all the Council s witnesses and we see no evidence that anyone has fully understood the actual day to day impact of the tolls on Halton s businesses and residents. Whilst a response is provided fully in Dr Twigger-Ross s Rebuttal I should point out that this statement does not relate in any way to Evans Mr Bridge states at his paragraph 21 Since the New Year, several meetings have been held between the Council and S Evans & Sons Ltd, as explained in the evidence of Mr Scarisbrick (document HBC/19/1P). We now acknowledge that the Council is, at long last, becoming more fully aware of the wide-ranging nature and regional and national importance of the business of S Evans & Sons Ltd. As may be noted from the attached Mersey Gateway Contact and Communication Record in 5

6 respect of Evans Halton Council made attempts to meet with the company since November Despite these attempts the first meeting was held on 18 th August 2008, at which Mr Bridge was in attendance, and not since the New Year as stated At paragraph 29 Mr Bridge sates As already stated, the Council are now, at last, in meaningful negotiations with the Objector company. As previously stated above Halton Council made all reasonable attempts to enter into negotiations since 2007, with a meeting scheduled in June 2008 but cancelled by the company, who did not try to re-arrange as then promised. Extensive delays on Evans behalf, despite requests from GVA Grimley, the Council s advisors, meant that the first meeting only took place in August Due to further delays from Evans side the second meeting did not take place until 23 rd December 2008, some four months later. The Council continues to experience delays in meetings being arranged with Evans. Little effort has been made to negotiate an agreement with S Evans & Sons Ltd Mr Bridge at his paragraph 30 Serious negotiations are, at last, now ongoing. Agreement in principle has been reached on the relocation of S Evans & Sons Ltd to land at Johnson s Lane, although there is a significant unresolved issue relating to the length of the period during which the company would occupy the land on lease, before they are granted a full freehold. Although there is only one outstanding issue in relation to reaching an agreement for relocation I do not consider it to be significant as Mr Bridge states The one outstanding issue relates purely to the basis on which the Council is prepared to dispose of the relocation site at Johnson s Lane, Widnes to Evans and I comment as follows; 2.12 It is considered good commercial practice where a development site is being disposed of or developed out on a piecemeal basis for the land owner/developer to dispose of the land by way of a development agreement followed by either a long leasehold (ground lease) or freehold of the individual plots to the proposed 6

7 occupier/business The granting of a long leasehold, in the case of Johnson s Lane, 250 years, following practical completion under a development agreement is considered to be the most appropriate method of disposal, particularly where the overall development includes infrastructure such as roads, sewers, drainage and the provision of utility services Provision is to be made within the ground lease for transfer of the freehold interest once all the land/plots are developed out or at least on formal adoption of the roads, footways and sewers are adopted. The transfer of the freehold may occur if the land owner/developer is satisfied that it would not compromise his position in relation to any retained land or interests As in the case of a potential disposal of land at Johnson s Lane to Evans, or any other relocation for that matter, there is to be provision made within the ground lease for a back-stop date by which if the Council or successor in title has not called upon the lessee to take a transfer of the freehold then the lessee can serve notice on the freeholder/landlord to transfer the freehold title Where local authorities and similar bodies are disposing of development land to end users/occupiers it is considered wholly appropriate to implement this staged/phased approach to the ultimate disposal of its freehold interest. It affords protection and certainty to both the authority and the individual plot purchasers that the overall development will be completed satisfactorily and in accordance with approved plans and consents. It also ensures that no individual party is left with any outstanding and ongoing future liability in respect of highways, footways, verges and common landscaped areas which may prove onerous The accepted back-stop period for which the freehold is to be transferred is 21 years from the commencement date of the ground lease. Whilst the Council has made a significant concession to Evens in offering to reduce the back-stop period to 10 years. I consider that any further reduction may prejudice the Council s position. To date Evans and their advisors have failed to see the merits of a 7

8 transaction on this basis It is noted from paragraph 33 of Mr Bridge s submission, within his Conclusion, that The objectors do not deny that there will be benefits from the MGB, most notably the reduction of congestion on the SJB At Paragraph 36 Mr Bridge states Finally, although they are now making an effort to find out, the Council still have ne real idea of the value of businesses affected by the MBG, such as S Evans & Sons Ltd. In addition to the information on companies available from Companies House, the Council has recently received from Evans have supplied financial accounts (draft 31 st May 2008) for the purposes of assessing value which is currently ongoing Summary 3.01 In summary I consider that the Council and its advisors have acted in a reasonable and responsible manner in its discussions and negotiations with S Evans & Sons Limited and its advisors in an attempt to reach an agreement for advanced purchase and relocation in accordance the Mersey Gateway Relocation Strategy I am of the opinion that Mr Bridge s Written Representation on behalf of S Evans & Sons Limited is an attempt to negotiate away the last remaining issue in relation to reaching an agreement for relocation I can confirm that the Council and its advisors will continue to conduct negotiations for private treatment agreements with S Evans & Sons Limited and its advisors throughout the Public Inquiry and beyond to secure a mutually beneficial resolution in accordance with the approach recommended at paragraphs 24 and 25 of Circular 06/2004 (CD 75) Conclusion 4.01 In conclusion, I respectfully consider that S Evans & Sons Limited s objections to the Mersey Gateway Project are unfounded and that the Orders should be 8

9 confirmed. 9