§ Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the master building agreement for the Canary wharf development is to be signed;
(2) what postponements there have been to the signing of the master building agreement on Canary wharf; and to what extent these postponements are due to failure to attract sufficient tenants to the development.
§ Mr. John PattenThe negotiations are at an advanced stage but the detailed terms are subject to commercial confidentiality.
§ Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much phase 1 of the Canary wharf development will cost; and how much floorspace is involved in this phase;
(2) how much phase 2 of the Canary wharf development will cost; and how much floorspace is involved in this phase;
53W(3) which companies, apart from members of the Canary wharf consortium, have made a commitment to take space in Canary wharf;
(4) how much floorspace is required to make phase 1 of the Canary wharf project viable;
(5) whether funding or phase 1 of the Canary wharf project has been obtained.
§ Mr. John PattenThe funding, size and viability of any future construction on Canary wharf and any commitments to occupy these buildings are matters for the prospective developers. These issues are also under consideration in their current negotiations with the London Docklands Development Corporation which are subject to commercial confidentiality.
§ Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of scaling down and redesign of Canary wharf was proposed by Olympia and Yorke when considering taking over the development; what level of floorspace and height of building was proposed by Olympia and Yorke; and whether this redesign and scaling down was acceptable to the London Docklands Development Corporation.
§ Mr. John PattenNo firm proposals emerged from Olympia and Yorke's interest in the Canary wharf development.
§ Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) who is paying for the site works now in progress on Canary wharf;
(2) how much money has been paid by the London Docklands Development Corporation, and how much further money has been allocated by it, for site works on Canary wharf.
§ Mr. John PattenThe site works currently in progress on Canary wharf are the responsibility of the Canary wharf development company. The London Docklands Development Corporation has made no contribution towards the cost of these works and has no plans to allocate future resources for this purpose.
§ Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total value of enterprise zone subsidies and allowances that will arise out of the Canary wharf development.
§ Mr. John PattenThis will depend upon the quantity and value of development actually carried out before the expiry of enterprise zone benefits.
§ Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of new roads and road improvements and related land acquisition arising out of the Canary wharf development; and what are the total contributions to be made, respectively, by the Government and the London Docklands Development Corporation.
§ Mr. John PattenThe road schemes and related land acquisition associated with the proposed Canary wharf development, and how these are to be funded, are among the issues covered by the negotiations currently in progress. These are still commercially sensitive.