Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4700 - 4719)

  4700. Mr Elvin: Mr Tilley, it is not a point that is raised in your Petition, is it?
  (Mr Tilley) Sorry, could you ask the question again please?

  4701. Yes. Mr Jones raised a point concerning failure to comply with the requirements of the environmental assessment in the context of noise. I have looked at the noise sections of your Petition and indeed the whole of your Petition and noise starts at paragraph 19, but it does not seem to us that EMI has raised this issue in its Petition. I just wanted your confirmation that that is so.
  (Mr Tilley) We raised the issue about noise during the construction of the proposed work, as you quite rightly say, in section 19. The whole process that we have committed to with regards to the Petition is ongoing from our point of view and it is a subject which has come to light since then—

  4702. So the answer to my question is that yes, it is not in your Petition?
  (Mr Tilley) Well, if I could just finish, the actual concerns we have raised on noise are in there and the fact that it has actually been expanded upon just adds to our concerns basically.

  4703. I am sorry, Mr Tilley, but it is a very simple question and I know you are anxious not to answer it, but it is not in your Petition, is it?
  (Mr Tilley) Not specifically, no.

  4704. Mr Jones: I will address the Committee on this; it is a legal submission.

  4705. Mr Elvin: Can I go to the question of the relocation, and the bits of the operation which are being displaced from Goslett Yard, to 127 Charing Cross Road. Are you aware that costs spent prior to compulsory purchase, but which are fairly attributable to compulsory purchase are in principle recoverable, providing you can demonstrate they arise from the compulsory purchase once the land has actually been taken, in other words, costs prior to vesting, if they are properly flowing from the consideration of compulsory purchase, can be recoverable? Were you aware of that?

  4706. Mr Jones: It is a matter of law. My learned friend is making a submission as a matter of law.

  4707. Mr Binley: Let us let Mr Elvin finish and then you will have a total opportunity to come in, Mr Jones.

  4708. Mr Elvin: Mr Tilley?
  (Mr Tilley) Are you referring to the £41,000 we have already spent?

  4709. Mr Tilley, the concern, as I understand it, is that there is money that you have wasted and there is the money that you would have to spend putting 127 into order so that you can decant the operations that are currently at Goslett Yard into 127. Is that right?
  (Mr Tilley) That is correct.

  4710. Because, as I understood your complaint from your evidence, it is that you are worried that you will not get the money which you have to expend before we take possession?
  (Mr Tilley) That is correct. We are seeking comfort to ensure that not only can we be compensated for the abortive costs which we have already spent, but also for the costs that we will have to incur to accommodate our staff within 127 Charing Cross Road.

  4711. And those are costs which will arise directly from the fact that in due course the land at Goslett Yard will be acquired? Is that right?
  (Mr Tilley) Yes.

  4712. So it is purely the costs of going from Goslett Yard into 127 and the refitting of 127 so that you can accommodate the staff and activities that have been moved from the one to the other?
  (Mr Tilley) Correct.

  4713. I will just ask you again: are you under the impression, because if you are I will make submissions to the Committee in due course, that those costs are not compensatable?
  (Mr Tilley) I am not under the impression that the costs are not compensatable. The problem, as Mr Jones pointed out, is the fact that we require compensation for these costs, but also that we are given time to carry out the necessary refurbishment. If we carry out the refurbishment in advance of Crossrail, then we are in danger of not being able to receive compensation for those costs and if we wait for Crossrail to receive Royal Assent, then the current standard is that we will be given three months' notice which would be impossible to carry out the refurbishment requirement for 127 Charing Cross Road to accommodate the staff within the building.

  4714. Well, you are aware presumably on the notice question that Crossrail has said to date that it can definitely give three months' notice, that it cannot commit to a longer period at the moment, but it will strive to give more notice than the three months.
  (Mr Tilley) Striving to give more notice does not really give us comfort because, as our barrister has pointed out, we have estimated between 12 and 18 months to actually carry out the works required to accommodate the staff within 127 Charing Cross Road.

  4715. You will not get the compensation until after the property vests in the Secretary of State. That is the way the Compensation Code works. You are going to have to start the work in advance of getting the compensation in any event.
  (Mr Tilley) We were actually led to believe from our meetings with Crossrail that if we started the works in advance we would be in danger of not being able to be compensated for those works.

  4716. If, for some reason, Royal Assent were not granted or the scheme did not go ahead, then, like everyone else, you take a risk, so if you decide to act in advance, you may do so at your own risk, but if the scheme goes ahead, then works which are fairly attributable to the fact that we are taking your property, as far as I am aware, are properly recoverable as compensation in law, as per our information papers.
  (Mr Tilley) That is something that has not actually been communicated very well to us during our meetings and we were actually advised during our meetings that if we started the works beforehand, then they would be deemed as improvement works to EMI and not attributable to the Compensation Code.

  4717. Well, I think in that case, there is a misunderstanding as to the legal position and I do not think I need to pursue that any further. If it helps the Committee, I will explain my understanding of the legal position.

  4718. Mr Binley: Mr Elvin, if there is a legal misunderstanding, you might be able to help the Committee because it seems to me that there are two issues here. The first concerns the £41,000 expended on design work for the £½ million of work which did not go ahead because of Crossrail, and the second seems to be with regard to the time-frame to be given to allow EMI to do what seems to me to be a bit of a technical job anyway because of the equipment and so forth they have. Are you now saying that the £41,000 is perfectly compensatable, but at a later time?

  4719. Mr Elvin: I am not sure that the £41,000 is compensatable under the National Compensation Code. If it affects the value of the land, and I suspect it probably does not if no works were actually carried out to the property, then it would not be compensatable under the National Compensation Code in any event. It is the sort of risk that Parliament has always said that landowners should bear in the case of such projects. With regards to works carried out for sorting out the move, fitting out the new parts of the premises to accommodate, that compensation will be payable if, as a matter of fact, they can show at the time it is properly attributable to the compulsory purchase, even though the works might have started before the property vests in the Secretary of State, and if the Committee wants it, I can give you the legal references.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007