Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5740
- 5755)
5740. Can we then move on to the process for
the hardship policy, because Mr Welfare, on behalf of a number
of the local residents, made the point strongly that there should
be some kind of independent process for assessing whether people
were eligible and it should not all be simply at the Secretary
of State's behest. Can you explain how applications for hardship
are processed?
(Mr Smith) Yes, I can. Very briefly, the Secretary
of State has established a Crossrail Discretionary Purchases Panel
which includes upon it an independent lay member sitting on that
panel. Each case is going to be considered on its merits, but
there is an independent person sitting on that panel who will
independently report to the Secretary of State on each hardship
application. So that is point number one. Point number two: the
valuations are not undertaken by Crossrail or the nominated undertaker.
There is a process. In fact, Crossrail procure the services of
a number of independent surveying firms and, in assessing the
value, that again is undertaken independently. We have two independent
valuations and the average price of the two valuations is taken
as to the market price of the property. I just want to make it
clear that as far as is possible there is an independent process
to consider this and it is not all in the hands of one person
acting as judge and jury.
5741. Assume that the panel recommends that
the person is eligible for the hardship policy and the Secretary
of State determines that that is so, and therefore we get to the
stage where their property is to be acquired. How much is actually
paid for the property?
(Mr Smith) The price paid for the property
would be the market value ignoring the blighting effect, if there
is any. If there is a blighting effect, obviously, it ignores
the blighting effect of Crossrail, so it would be as if Crossrail
were not there.
5742. Finally on the hardship policy, is it
possible for people to apply and, indeed, for the policy to be
met now?
(Mr Smith) Yes, the policy was introduced last
year and it is applying now, and people can apply now. The policy
runs up until 12 months after the line is open to the public.
5743. I have two other questions on compensation
which arise directly from Petitioners. First of all, I think it
was Mr and Mrs Dunsdon, who back on to the platform, who were
concerned about physical damage to their house from the works—for
instance, by vibration from the construction. I think Mr Rupert
Taylor will give evidence that actually there is no predicted
vibration impact here, but presume that was wrong for a moment
and there was physical damage to the house. Is that something
that is compensatable under the Compensation Code?
(Mr Smith) If it is physical damage to the
property, yes, that would have to be rectified, and the cost of
that would be payable from the Compensation Code. Physical damage.
5744. In some ways this is a similar point:
some Petitioners have been concerned about the impact from the
operation of Crossrail. Mr Taylor will give evidence that there
will be no material increase in noise from Crossrail. Again, assume
that is wrong and there was materially increased noise from the
operation of Crossrail. Is that something that is compensatable?
(Mr Smith) Yes, it is. There are provisions
under the law, the Land Compensation Act, that enable an owner
to apply for depreciation arising from the operation of the new
public works, insofar as they are physical factors such as dust,
noise, fumes or artificial light. The extent to which in this
case any intensification of that use—obviously it is already
a railway but Crossrail may intensify the use of that railway,
so the extent to which any of that changes through that intensification
of use and depreciates the value of the premises is something
that the owners are eligible to claim for.
5745. Ms Lieven: Those are all my questions
to you, Mr Smith. Can I just say, sir, obviously there have been
a lot of issues raised today by individual Petitioners and I do
not want to spend the Committee's time going through all of them
with Mr Smith, but I do want to make public the offer to those
Petitioners who have spoken today or who are here now, or perhaps
have been represented by Mr Welfare and have not spoken, that
members of the Crossrail team are more than happy to talk to them.
They may not be able to do it this afternoon but if they want
to approach us and make appointments, Mr Anderson is quite happy
to meet people to discuss their concerns. Obviously, we are concerned
if people are not understanding the true position. So rather than
do that through Mr Smith at great length now, I want to make that
offer public and on the record so that people feel they can approach
us to discuss their concerns. Those are all the questions I have
for Mr Smith.
5746. Sir Peter Soulsby: I understand
the offer you are making, Ms Lieven. I suppose, from the Petitioners'
point of view, it is probably one they welcome the opportunity
to hear, but obviously from the Committee's perspective we do
need to hear evidence in front of us on the issues.
5747. Ms Lieven: Sir, this is a very
difficult situation, from everybody's point of view, I suspect.
I can go through each Petitioner and ask for Mr Smith to comment
on their position. My suggestion would be that the Committee has
sufficient material in the information papers and the very extensive
Petitioner Response Documents that we have put in on every Petitioner
and the evidence that Mr Smith has now given on the hardship policy
to satisfy the concerns—remembering, of course, that this
Committee is not a Lands Tribunal and cannot actually determine
compensation in any event. However, equally so, I am here to represent
the Promoters and if the Committee is not satisfied it has heard
sufficient evidence then I must call further evidence, out of
fairness both to the Petitioners and the Promoters.
5748. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think what
we need to be sure of as a Committee is that all of those themes
that have come through from the Petitioners are adequately addressed
in front of the Committee so that we are aware of the general
situation. I think we can note the offer that you have made on
behalf of the Crossrail team to have discussions with further
clarification with individual Petitioners in addition to that,
so long as we do not, as a Committee, fail to hear the general
themes being addressed appropriately.
5749. Ms Lieven: There is one other point
I should make clear at this stage, sir, which may or may not put
the Committee's mind at rest. As we have made absolutely clear
on earlier Petitions, it is our position that this Committee should
not vary the National Compensation Code. So as far as the hardship
policy is concerned, it is obviously appropriate for the Committee
to hear evidence to consider how it is applied. As far as the
National Compensation Code is concerned, we say that that is a
national scheme which should be applied fairly across the country,
and it would be quite wrong in principle to start varying it at
different locations. So there are a good deal of the points raised
by Petitioners which go to the National Compensation Code and
which, therefore, it is not necessary, in my submission, for the
Committee to consider in any further detail.
5750. Sir Peter Soulsby: We have heard
you say that. Of course, as a Committee we have not yet taken
a view on that, but we understand the arguments. We are running
towards the end of our time for today. I would suggest, unless
Mr Welfare can be incredibly brief—I am sure you would undoubtedly
but whether four minutes is enough. Mr Welfare, do you actually
believe that you can get your cross-examination in in the time
remaining to us?
5751. Mr Welfare: We seem to have lost
a little time. In view of your scepticism I will withdraw.
5752. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think it would
probably be sensible now to have all the cross-examination of
Mr Smith in one go. Of course, it is not just you who has the
right to cross-examine, it is the other Petitioners as well. I
think it would be sensible to take that in one go tomorrow. I
intend, in that case, to adjourn the Committee in a few moments.
However, just to reinforce that point, Mr Welfare, will, of course,
have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in front of us,
as do other Petitioners. So that does mean that if other Petitioners
do want to be present tomorrow to cross-examine Mr Smith or, indeed,
any of the other witnesses that are called they are obviously
very welcome to do so.
5753. Ms Lieven: Sir, can I just raise
what happens tomorrow in practice, very briefly? Mr Smith returns,
and then we will call Mr Rupert Thorney-Taylor. There is then
an issue as to whether we then go directly on to call Mr Anderson
and Mr Berryman so that they are dealt with for Shenfield as a
whole (I cannot imagine the Committee is going to want to hear
them twice in the space of the same day on closely related topics)
or we can reserve their evidence until we have heard the evidence
of Brentwood Council and then they give evidence on that.
5754. Sir Peter Soulsby: As we understand
it, Brentwood are going to be covering some of the same issues.
It would, in those circumstances, be sensible to hear from your
two other witnesses after we have heard from Brentwood.
5755. Ms Lieven: Certainly, sir. That
is very helpful. Thank you very much.
|
