D V Walker Esq
Derek Walker Chartered Surveyors
6 Gay Street
Bath
BA1 2PH
6 Grosvenor
Street
London
Our ref
JMSBlBL W1K 4RI
Tel 020 7896
8000
Fax 020 7896 8001
www.driversjonas.com
Subject to Contract
4 May 2005
Dear Derek
The Bath and North East Somerset
Council (Southgate Redevelopment,
Bath) Compulsory Purchase Order 2004
Objection by Avon Valley Cyclery
(AVC)
It was good to meet you and your clients, Gary Cooper and
Richard Grigsby last week. I hope that we were able to explain to
you the reasons as to why the scheme has been designed as it has
and that we were also able to provide your clients with the
assurances they require.
As agreed, I am writing to confirm the matters discussed and to
set out the form of undertaking which can be given to your client
in exchange for the withdrawal of their objection to the Compulsory
Purchase Order (CPO).
For the sake of clarity I confirm that I am the compulsory
purchase adviser to CGNU Life Assurance Limited (CGNU) who are
funding the proposed development and are the joint venture
development partners to Bath and North East Somerset Council (the
Council) who are promoting the CPO. 1 have authority from the
Council to negotiate directly with objectors to the CPO. I was
accompanied by David Pelter of Buro Four, CGNU's project managers
and Malcolm Grainger from the Council's property department.
Please accept our apologies for the length of time it has taken
to explain the principles of the scheme to you. As David explained,
we have been in detailed discussions with Network Rail for some
time and had previously been under Instruction not to approach
their tenants direct. With the impending Public Inquiry this has
now changed hence the meeting; however it needs to be understood
that ultimately any new accommodation will be governed by a new
lease between yourselves and Network Rail and the developers will
not have control of this process.
CGNU have considered the points made in your client's objection
and endeavoured to make minor alterations to their development
scheme and the construction timetable to address the concerns
raised. Whilst it has not been possible to address every single
matter raised in the objection, we believe we have provided a
solution which will be to your clients' satisfaction.
I comment on your client's specific points of objection and how
these have been addressed as follows:
1. Concern has been expressed that AVC will be relocated from
the east to the west of the station building. The reason for this
is to create a pedestrian friendly environment on the western side
of the station building which will form a link between the railway
station and the bus passenger interchange. The car rental facility
is to be moved to the east of the station where vehicular access
will be maintained in order that vehicular traffic is kept separate
from pedestrians.
The proposal is to remove the existing ramp leading up to the
station car park to open up the vaults beneath which will be
converted into retail units fronting on to a public open area which
will become known as Vault Square. This will create a vibrant
pedestrian friendly public retail area. The two arches identified
for AVC (43 and 44) will be adjacent to Vault Square, one of which
will be accessed from Vault Square. These arches will be adjacent
to the pedestrian thoroughfare running from the front to the rear
of the station.
2. AVC are concerned that the current proposed phasing programme
would leave them having to trade from one arch for a period of
time. I confirm that the phasing programme will be revised to
enable your client to continue to trade from their existing
premises until both arches 43 and 44 are ready for occupation.
3. AVC would like the recessed areas at the southern end of the
two arches to be included within their demise. I have referred this
matter to my client's architects. They inform me that the proposed
frontage has been designed in that way to align with the
loadbearing stone (Le. immovable) central pier within each vault.
The shopfront could be brought forward to be flush with the facade
if this is preferred. This would of course be subject to Network
Rail's approval as landowner and the requisite statutory
consents.
4. AVC would like some connectivity between the two arches at
the northern end. Since our meeting my clients engineers have
re-inspected the property and are looking into this. It will take
time to consider the various stages of approval that would be
required for this work and I am not able to provide you with any
assurance on this matter in advance of the public inquiry. As
discussed at our meeting, any works to the building would require
listed building consent and also the cooperation of Network Rail.
My client will provide an undertaking to fully investigate this but
cannot provide a guarantee that this can be delivered.
5. AVC have expressed concern that customers will not be able to
find them. I trust that now that the proposals have been explained
to your client in greater detail they are content that the proposed
location will be more prominent than their existing one. There
appears to be adequate space for appropriate signage albeit that
this will need to be In keeping with the overall design of the
scheme for the broader development and, of course, require the
requisite statutory consents.
6. Your client had expressed concern over security. The very
nature of the overall works will create a vibrant square and this,
together with the enhanced lighting, will significantly improve
security. However, any residual concerns can be considered at the
detailed design stage. We are confident that appropriate security
will be achieved to a sufficient level to alleviate your client's
concerns.
7. AVC have queried the ability to receive deliveries.
Deliveries to the new premises will be achieved via the vehicular
access to the east of the station. As stated by telephone following
the meeting a height restriction of 2.7m will be imposed on traffic
passing through the tunnel. This is a requirement of the planning
consent and is dealt with in greater detail in the proof of
evidence of David Hunter Yeats, which your client will have been
provided a copy. The relevant sections are at section 7.4 and
drawing 12 of David's evidence, copies of which are attached for
your ease of reference.
8. Your client has expressed an interest in expanding their
current space into the disused parcels office as an interim measure
in advance of the station improvement works. This is a matter which
is not within the control of CGNU or the Council and they will need
to take this up with their current landlord, Network Rail.
Your client also enquired as to the proposed specification of
the arches. Again, this is a matter for the detailed design which
has not yet been addressed. At this stage I am able to confirm that
the arches will provide a dry and secure environment and will be
fully serviced. No further detail is available at this stage and I
propose that you are consulted at the appropriate time.
My client is prepared to provide an undertaking based on the
above in exchange for the withdrawal of your client's objection. It
should also be noted that nothing within this letter alters your
clients' statutory rights to compensation for the reasonable costs
they incur as a result of relocating from their existing
premises.
I hope you appreciate that my client takes AVC's concerns
seriously and has made considerable efforts to address the points
raised in the objection. The proposal set out in this letter is the
best that we are able to offer and we are not in a position to make
any further concession.
I trust this covers all the points we discussed and provides
your client with the assurances they require to remove their
objection. I should be grateful if you would confirm this in order
and seek your clients' instructions to remove the objection.
Should you require any further information please do not
hesitate to contact me. In the meantime I look forward to hearing
from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Bodley
DRIVERS JONAS
matthewbodley@driversjonas.com
Tel:02078968125 Team Fax:02078967913
cc David Pelter - Buro Four
Malcolm Grainger - Bath and North East Somerset Council
Peter Goodhart Network Rail
Steve Laffan Network Rail
7. Objections
7.1.1 In this chapter I shall deal with the individual statutory
and non-statutory objections that still remain at the time of the
evidence being submitted to the Inquiry. I will show how either
their concerns have been adequately dealt with or are not
sufficient to outweigh the benefits arising from the Scheme.
7.1.2 Very few of the objections refer to transport issues but
it is these that I comment on.
7.2 Network Rail
7.2.1 Network Rail have objected to a significant number of plot
numbers of property forming part of the railway station with the
grounds of their objection being that the land to be acquired is
operational and required for Network Rail's statutory undertakings.
This transport related objection is mainly to do with the property
rather than transport issues and is therefore being commented on by
other witnesses.
7.3 First Great Western Limited
7.3.1 First Great Western Limited are objecting to the same plot
numbers as Network Rail regarding their interest in the railway
station but have put forward no grounds of objections.
7.4 Avon Valley Cyclery (AVC)
7.4.1 AVC have objected regarding the property they rent at the
rear of The railway station. They list seven grounds for objections
of which three relate to transport issues namely:
- "Customers vehicular access be hindered which will disrupt the
business".
- "Limited goods delivery to the store"
- "Loss of passing traffic leads to a security risk"
7.4.2 In response to the first objection stated above, access by
the shops customers will not be hindered as the car park to the'
rear of the station remains as will access to the front of the
shop. The removal of the Brunel ramp and the creation of a public
square necessitates the access arrangements being modified such
that cars to the eastern car park will both enter and leave through
the same arch to the east of the station.
7.4.3 Currently this arch is used for exit only but also
contains a line of parked cars and therefore by simply removing the
cars that are parked within the arch it will be possible to operate
two-way running.
7.4.4 With regard to the second objection the two-way arch is
capable of accommodating "hi-top" transit vans which I would expect
to be adequate for a cycle shop. This is only slightly smaller than
the size of vehicle that could operate through the middle of the
arch when operating as a one way system.
7.4.5 With regard to the third objection above of a security
risk, there is no change to the rear car park and neither to the
pedestrian route from south of the river across the footbridge and
through the eastern arches. Therefore I see no change or worsening
in the security surrounding the shop due to any reduction of
passing traffic.
7.4.6 In summary I do not consider their concerns to be well
founded.
7.5 First Group Plc
7.5.1 First Group are the main operators of buses in Bath and
surrounding area and are the operator of the existing bus station.
One of their objections relates to "the design of the replacement
bus station including Health & Safety and other operational
matters".
7.5.2 As I have already mentioned the design of the proposed bus
station has been designed after considerable consultation with
First Bus and their subsidiary Badger Line and was accepted by them
at the time of the application being granted consent by the
Council.
