Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5720
- 5739)
5720. Effectively, our choice to move has been
taken away. The National Compensation Code and the hardship policy
have been mentioned and we seek clarity, comfort and assurances
in terms of compensation and further detail on that aspect. Thank
you for your attention.
5721. Mr Hodgkiss: I am Gregory Hodgkiss.
I am representing myself and my wife, Clare. Our Petition is 132.
We live at 20 Herrington Grove which is one of the houses that
backs on to the railway close to the end of where the platforms
are at present and where the new platform will be.
5722. We have been told that we will be allowed
temporary housing if necessary and noise insulation. What I would
like to clarify is whether there is going to be some form of compensation
or insulation offered to prevent the house being dirtied on the
outside and suffering from damage from dust and, secondly, from
vibration. The area where we live is built on Essex clay and it
is only about three or four feet below the surface. As the trains
go past on the embankment at the moment, they make parts of the
house vibrate and I am concerned that when heavy machinery starts,
pile driving and so on on the other side of the railway, there
could be some resultant damage from that.
5723. There does not seem to be any mention
of protection against vibration in the response we have received
from the Promoters. We would also request that the Promoter cleans
up the area afterwards, not only the exterior of the house but
the garden and so on. We will be losing the amenity of the garden
during the works. We would like assurance that there is going
to be no work at weekends or between the hours of six in the evening
and eight in the morning. At the moment we have two boys who are
engaged in the next three years in public exams, A levels and
GCSEs. It looks as though thankfully the works will not commence
before they leave home so we are not particularly concerned about
them but I work in London. I have to get up rather early in the
morning and come back late at night, like many of the people working
in our area. I want to be sure that we are going to have a decent
night's sleep during the whole of the works.
5724. The final thing about the state of our
house is that there are screens of trees on both sides of the
railway and we are concerned by the possibility that these mature
trees will be cut down and possibly replaced with saplings which
will take a number of years to recover the current situation.
5725. Moving on to the blight that a number
of petitioners have talked about, in the course of my job I will
be called to work in various parts of the world and around London.
I think in the next three or four years I will have to sell my
house to move somewhere else. At present, there is at least one
house in Herrington Grove which has been empty for a number of
months now because the vendors are unable to sell. It seems to
me that blight is a real thing which is already happening and,
although the promoters did respond that there would be compensation
for physical effects of the works, I am not sure that compensation
for a loss in potential selling price is covered by that particular
response.
5726. I believe the promoters should be clearer
on what compensation will be given where people are forced into
moving and therefore have to accept lower prices than would otherwise
be the case.
5727. Finally, there is the matter of why Shenfield
should be the terminus. The current Metro service, although regular,
is not very well used as I see it. It seems to be used quite extensively
by commuters coming from London who take advantage of the fast
service to Shenfield and hop back on the Metro to go back towards
London two or three stops because it is quicker to do that than
it is to catch the current slow, stopping service out of London.
5728. As Crossrail is going to be using the
same line and seems to be using the same service frequency and
the same number of stations, I do not see what advantage this
service will be providing to us. There will be no gain in time
as far as I am concerned and I believe that this project represents
a vast loss of opportunity. When I first heard of the Crossrail
project, I envisaged trains from Southend going straight through
to Reading or trains from Chelmsford and Colchester going through
to Heathrow. Without having a terminus at Shenfield, these trains
would run straight through and provide a great service for people
living further outside London to get across London or go to London
Airport. This does not seem to be the case. All we seem to be
getting is a glorified tube service which does not provide any
advantages to people who live so far out.
5729. At Shenfield at the moment, there are
two platforms which are used by the Metro service. There are five
sidings there, three of which do not seem to be used at all and
the other two are used to stable a train overnight. I do not understand
why such an extent of works is required at Shenfield Station,
in effect to leave us with what we have at the moment and another
platform, for which I do not see the use. We are not going to
be using Shenfield as a terminus or, if the existing platforms
could be used, Crossrail has to be clear as to why they see the
need to terminate the trains where they are and why they need
the additional capacity in terms of platforms. Additionally, Stratford
currently has a platform which is not used, as far as I can make
out, by any of the train services coming down this line, platform
10A, which is used by the occasional freight train as a means
of moving when it leaves the mainline at Stratford to head north.
Why could not that platform be used as a terminus at Stratford
if Stratford is the best place for the terminus? Thank you, ladies
and gentlemen. That concludes my remarks.
5730. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much. Ms Lieven.
5731. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am mindful of
the time. What I would suggest doing is calling Mr Smith briefly
to explain the hardship policy and deal with some of the specific
points raised. Then we will try to call Mr Thorney-Taylor, if
we have time, on noise. Mr Berryman and Mr Anderson are both going
to be called tomorrow in any event, so if we call them once tomorrow
and pick up any specific points from today but also to cover any
Brentwood Council points, the only question that is then left
is how to close on these Petitioners. I am obviously not going
to be able to do it this afternoon. I will leave it to the Committee
to say whether you want me to close.
5732. Mr Liddell-Grainger: We will finish
tomorrow. I am sure you will return tomorrow. You are due to be
here tomorrow?
5733. Mr Welfare: Sir I was not expecting
to do so. Indeed, I was just seeking instructions as to whether,
from our point of view, that causes any difficulties. We had had
an indication that there was a change in the expectation that
we would hear from Mr Berryman today. However, in the absence
of any firm indication I do not think I have any point in response.
5734. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much.
5735. Ms Lieven: I will proceed directly
to call Mr Smith.
Mr Colin Smith, recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
5736. Ms Lieven: Mr Smith, the Committee
has already heard evidence from you so I do not need to introduce
you. What I would like to try to focus on as much as possible
is specific points raised by Petitioners. The Committee has some
familiarity with the Compensation Code by now but a number of
Petitioners have raised issues in relation to blight where they
say their property is currently blighted and they want to know
what can be done about it. Perhaps, before you start to explain,
I could refer the Committee to information paper C8 which sets
out our hardship policy.[21]
Perhaps, Mr Smith, you could just explain briefly how the hardship
policy works and what the relevant criteria are, and then we will
look at a couple of specific examples.
(Mr Smith) Yes. Very briefly,
if people have their properties acquired for the purposes of the
works then there are provisions under the Compensation Code for
them to require the acquiring authority to purchase in advance
in certain circumstances. It is set down in the law. That situation
does not apply in cases such as we have seen here, in Brentwood,
where the Promoters proposed to undertake works on land which
is not owned by any of the various people that have been here.
Indeed, it is going to be on other land. Taking that into account,
the Promoters have introduced a hardship policy which tries to
replicate the blight provisions, to some extent, in saying that
where hardship would arise to somebody as a result of the proposals,
then subject to certain requirements they would be able to require
the Promoter to purchase their property in advance.
5737. I was going to say, can you just run us
through the criteria that need to be met?
(Mr Smith) Yes. There are six broad requirements,
and I will try and keep it quite simple. Firstly, they have to
have what is called a qualifying interest, so that, basically,
they are residential occupiers—in this case, they own their
own homes. They should not be required for Crossrail works. So,
if any land is required for the Crossrail works they go into the
blight provisions. Thirdly, enjoyment must be seriously affected
as a result of the Crossrail works over a sustained period. Fourthly,
there must be a compelling reason for the applicant to sell. Examples
may be a change of job requiring somebody to go to another part
of the country or somebody taking their own firm and, therefore,
needing to move. Those are just two examples—there has to
be a compelling need. Fifthly, that there should have been no
foreknowledge of the Crossrail proposal. Obviously, if someone
buys in the full knowledge of Crossrail then this policy will
not apply because they have come into it with their eyes open.
Lastly, the applicant should have made reasonable endeavours to
sell and have been unable to do so except at a price that is at
least 15 per cent lower than that level that would have been expected
had it not been for Crossrail. So, in other words, there must
be a depreciation in value of around 15 per cent.
5738. Before we come on to the process of the
hardship policy, I just want to use two of the Petitioners who
have appeared today. Obviously, you cannot give any commitment
as to whether or not they meet the policy criteria—that
is a matter for the process that will be explained—but I
would like to use them as an example. Mr and Mrs Wood, who live
in Friars Avenue. We have heard that Mrs Wood is a music teacher
and she teaches from home. Now, assume the situation is that there
is going to be a significant noise impact on their property for
a period of a year and the evidence shows that that will make
it very difficult for her to teach music at home. Now, I am not
saying that is the evidence but if that was the situation, that
type of situation in principle, how would that be approached under
the hardship policy?
(Mr Smith) My own feeling would be, having
heard that, that if Mrs Wood is going to be impacted as a result
of the construction of the works for that sort of period and,
therefore, could not teach at home and therefore had to move,
I think, on that criteria, she would pass.
5739. Another example from this morning are
Mr and Mrs White, who also live in Friars Avenue. Mrs White suffers,
we are told, from severe asthma and chest problems and is quite
elderly, as I recall. If there was evidence that the works were
going to have a significant impact on that property in terms of
noise and that was likely to have an effect on her already poor
health, is that a matter that the hardship policy takes into account?
(Mr Smith) Yes, it is. It is exactly that sort
of thing that it was trying to catch.
21 Crossrail Information Paper C8-Purchase of Property
in cases of hardship (LINEWD-IPC8-001). Back
|
