Q91 Mr Walker: We certainly have not taken account of any profit from a casino in our figures- in fact, we have not made any provision for a casino. But if there was one-and obviously it is subject to planning, and I suppose legislation initially-then if that increased the profits within the Dome itself we would share in that.
Q92 Chairman: The economics of casinos can often be a fairly complex if not murky world. Do you have the expertise to ensure that the taxpayer will take his due share in profits from a casino?
Mr Walker: If there was a casino in there it would be by agreement with the Anschutz Entertainment Group, and we are not party to any negotiations between them. If there was one and Anschutz obtained profit from that we would share in that.
Q93 Mr Williams: Can I just ask you-and it is small beer in relation to the whole thing-I would assume that a site that was to be used for a casino or land on which a casino was to be built would be worth significantly more than that same site being used for housing. That is almost certainly the case, is it not?
Mr Walker: It would depend. But when we actually did the deal and the deal became conditional in 2002 there was no mention of a casino at that time at all, and therefore what the deal was predicated upon was profit shares of whatever type of use that would be in the Dome. After the operator had made a prior return we would then share in any surplus funds.
Q94 Mr Williams: So you would get a share out of the ongoing profits but you would not get any recoupment of the lost capital that you would have had if that land had been sold as land for a casino?
Dame Mavis McDonald: I honestly do not think we know the answer to your question, that the value of the land with a casino on would necessarily be a better return than the value of the land with the housing on it. It might depend on what the anticipated profits were from the housing at the time you rolled out the housing land. As Mr Walker said, as with the general leisure use of the Dome it was not something that we looked at at all, we just secured the right to draw down some profit from it.
Q95 Mr Williams: It beggars belief that, say, three acres of land to build a building that is in effect building a mint would be the same value or lower value than that same land just used for housing? It just does not bear consideration, does it?
Dame Mavis McDonald: It is my understanding that any proposals that Anschutz have in mind are within the Dome, is in fact a casino within the Dome.
Q96 Jon Trickett: I have not found some of the answers totally plausible on this £30 million that you mentioned being the cost benefit to the public purse of keeping the Dome there. You seem to be saying that it is £30 million to our benefit to keep the Dome there and it is something to do with transport. The reason why I do not find it plausible is this, that the land which the Dome sits upon and which is within the curtilege of the site of the Dome is 70 acres, so that is £70 million roughly for the land value, which we would achieve if the Dome was gone, given the fact that the cost of demolition is already on both sides of the equation, so you cannot take £19 million demolition into account. But then you are saying that it is £30 million to our benefit, so therefore I add £30 million to £70 million, the cost of the land, but to derive the slightly preposterous suggestion that the additional infrastructure for 70 acres of housing is £100 million for public transport, the figures do not stack up, do they?
Dame Mavis McDonald: I am sorry, I just do not think we did the calculation like that. What our advisers did was look at the various factors that added value to the peninsula from the Dome. As the Report itself says, the whole issue around an iconic building that adds value, which is what Greenwich Borough believe, and some of the current land value is there, was not costed into the deal because it is very difficult to pin down and it is very debatable. The other factors that were taken into account, like the capacity of the Peninsula or the density of development, given the current transport systems till 2018, limited the total amount available and within the deal that we have got both our advisers and Greenwich's advisers were satisfied that this was the best total use of the land, including the Dome, and that is what led to the conclusions in the Report.
Q97 Jon Trickett: I think we do need a note to see how you got this £30 million additional benefit. Somebody must have done a calculation as to the number of passenger movements per day which would be generated by a casino or all the other activities inside the Dome as opposed to 70 acres of housing. Seventy acres of housing will generate so many passenger movements per day but, more importantly, it will be segmented according to the fact that people travel more frequently to housing back from work and so on measured at different times of the day. You are predicating the argument that people using the Dome will not be moving at the same time as those people who live there and that is the reason why you need more infrastructure. How many houses would you get on 70 acres? Have you worked out the passenger load which would be generated since much of your response even now isbased on the fact that the density of population would generate demands for infrastructure which could not be currently sustained. Has that work actually been done?
Mr Walker: In deciding how much development could be put on the site the capacity for the current transport infrastructure was obviously the deciding factor. If in 2018 there is a third crossing, that is going to change the picture entirely but as things stand at the moment obviously what we are trying to do is get a sustainable use for the Dome together with the rest of the land.
Q98 Jon Trickett: What I am trying to establish is what is the value of the land that the Dome sits on. What you are doing is saying that the land has a value but if it was turned into housing it would produce £30 million on top of the land value to produce the traffic infrastructure, so I am asking you a very simple question because I am trying to get to the bottom of the land value which the Dome is sitting on to decide whether it is financially beneficial to keep the Dome there or demolish it. I am asking you a very simple question: has someone done the passenger numbers and, if they have, can you provide us with the analysis that was done so that we can see it ourselves because it does not stack up? £100 million worth of traffic infrastructure is incredible.
Dame Mavis McDonald: We can certainly provide the analysis that was done2. I am sorry; we are obviously not explaining this very clearly. Basically what we are saying is that if the Dome land had been there for developing there would not have been any more development in total on this section of the peninsula because the view of the planning authority as well as the professional advice we took was that the traffic capacity could not take any more than we would have in the current plan, so you would not necessarily have added value from the land; you would have a less dense development across the peninsula. We will try and explain it more clearly in the note.
Jon Trickett: I think we fully understand exactly what you are saying.
Q99 Chairman: How much discussion was there with Anschutz about the casino? How important was it in the discussions in terms of their interest in the site?
Mr Walker: At the time of the original proposals there was no discussion on casinos. Casinos had never been part of the discussions with Anschutz. It was not until 2003 when we first were made aware that they were interested in possibly having a casino within the Dome.
Q100 Mr Williams: If you had known that at the outset would you have regarded it as a plus or a minus?
Mr Walker: It would depend what the proposal was.
Dame Mavis McDonald: To the extent that casinos are licensed for operation in this country and there is a framework within which gambling takes place we would have been neutral.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2 Ev 12