CPO 2004 Enquiry - Documents Submitted by Bath & North East Somerset Council

1     Introduction

1.1  This evidence addresses points raised in the evidence submitted by Peter Goodhart on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited and Mark Dix on behalf of First Great Western. 

1.2    Both parties have stated their willingness to withdraw their objections if an appropriate undertaking is given. 

2       Proofs of evidence of Peter Goodhart and Mark Dix

2.1     At paragraph 31 of his evidence, Mr Goodhart states that it is his understanding that an objection to the acquisition of operational land has been lodged by Network Rail under Section 16 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.  I am advised by Messrs Ashurst that this is incorrect and that no Section 16 representations were made within the objection period to the Order.  I am also advised that an objection to the Order does not, impliedly or otherwise, also constitute representations to the relevant Secretary of State under Section 16.

2.2      Network Rail have been closely involved in the design of the Scheme as it affects Bath Spa Station over many years and supported the application for the Main Scheme Planning Permission.  Consistent with this, Network Rail has made an application for a minor closure determination under section 41 of the Railways Act 1993 in respect of Bath Spa Station.

2.3      Recent discussions with Network Rail have made substantial progress and I am confident that the outstanding issues between my clients and Network Rail will be resolved.  None of these issues relates to the need for the CPO in order to ensure that those elements of the Scheme that are to be carried out on Network Rail’s land can be achieved.  Nor do the outstanding issues relate to the detailed design of the Scheme, rather they concern commercial matters and the need for Network Rail to be satisfied that the Scheme will not adversely affect the safe and satisfactory operation of the Station.  My clients fully accept that proper safeguards will need to be in place to protect the operation of the railway during the carrying out of the works and that replacement car parking arrangements will need to be provided.

2.4       All of the agreements to which Mr Goodhart refers in paragraph 59 of his evidence are in course of discussion between Network Rail and my clients and, as I have said, I have no reason to think that these are unlikely to be concluded to the satisfaction of all parties within a reasonable timeframe.  It is, however, very important that my client’s commercial interests are not prejudiced whilst those negotiations are still going on.  An undertaking, as sought by Network Rail and First Great Western, not to implement the CPO until the Agreement for works and lease has been concluded, would in my view plainly be prejudicial to those interests and could effectively defeat the purpose of the CPO.  I believe, however, that the undertaking that my clients are proposing to give is sufficient to satisfy the Secretary of State that Network Rail's and First Great Western’s interests are properly protected.