Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8640
- 8659)
8640. That is really the main issue. There is
a side issue that we also have a problem from the point of view
of not strictly monetary compensation in relation to that but
the potential physical issue of compensation in relation to potential
damages, whether that be from the point of view of subsidence
of the building or if it be something from the point of view of
denial of access to the site. By "denial of access"
what I mean is if, at the end of the Mile End Road or the roads
adjoining there were to be—and I know it is an unlikely
scenario but it has happened on most major projects—suddenly
a collapse in the road, my understanding of the compensation acts
that relate to Crossrail is that it does not deal directly with
consequential losses, it only deals directly with actual losses.
In a sense, if a wall comes down it will rebuild the wall but
if we have to relocate there would be no compensation for that
fact. The same as if there was no access to our buildings, for
reasons not directly related to our property, there would not
be compensation provided unless the Government were prepared to
actually underwrite some sort of denial of access cover.
8641. I have spoken to our insurers on this
point and they say that this is something that the insurance market
would not, in the normal sense, underwrite. Again, this is something
that represents, on an ongoing basis, quite a considerable risk,
albeit a small one—but it is out there. Those are, really,
the main issues that we have on this project. We support the project
over the long-term—very much so—but, clearly, as this
is an industrial area it presents real problems from the point
of view that, basically, it sticks us in a situation where we
cannot really get out. That is why we say, from the compensation
side, your response is not clear in terms of where compensation
actually will come from, and in terms of what you consider to
be reasonable compensation grounds.
8642. Chairman: Thank you.
8643. Mr Elvin: Sir, I have got no questions.
We are going to rely on the Petition Response Document in all
these cases. I am sure we will have submissions to make. Would
you like to hear them now?
8644. Chairman: Yes, please.
8645. Mr Elvin: As the PRD makes clear,
in the case of these particular Petitioners, to the extent that
subsoil is being taken from them, of course, there will be compensation.
So far as the concerns relating to access, IP (Information Paper)
C7 sets out the position with regard to maintaining access to
properties throughout the works.[103]
Although access may be modified from time to time and adjusted,
nonetheless, the guiding principle is that (this is paragraph
2.2) "a reasonable level of access to all property and land
will be maintained throughout the construction period". So
that is the guiding principle. We respectfully say that is not
a concern.
8646. So far as compensation is concerned, I
have already made submissions to the Committee about the Compensation
Code and they are set out in Information Papers C2 and C3.[104]
It remains the case that if something disastrous happens, as Mr
Waterman suggests, if there is negligence in the exercise of statutory
powers, as the PRD says then there would be a claim available
in negligence against those who discharged the statutory powers
so carelessly.
8647. Finally, on the redevelopment point: it
remains always an issue in planning, as I am sure at least some
of the Members of the Select Committee will be familiar from dealings
with planning matters in other contexts, that the development
always has to take account of constraints which are created by
other matters in the public interest in the vicinity of the development.
You cannot just redevelop according to your wishes; you are always
constrained by other factors. They might be historic buildings,
it might be the residential amenity of neighbouring premises,
it might be that you are putting too much traffic on to the highway.
In this case, Parliament, of course, has taken the view in giving
the Bill its second reading that there is a significant public
interest in Crossrail proceeding and it is simply one of the constraints
which will exist in reality when planning permission comes to
be considered, if it is applied for in the near future, which
the planning authority will have to take into account. Sir, those
are my submissions.
8648. Chairman: Mr Waterman, is there
anything you wish to add?
8649. Mr Waterman: Yes. The only comment
I would add is on the point about reasonable access. That is a
very, very open term. In terms of a business that has to operate
on a daily basis, the issue of reasonable access is not something
that can be optional. If you are not able to operate on a daily
basis in terms of the commerciality of the real world, that will
have huge implications for any functioning business that has to
work. We are major suppliers to the food industry and we cannot
just suddenly cut these people off and say, "I am really
sorry but the roads will be shut for the next two weeks",
or if you do at what point does something kick in and say we have
to deal with the situation. There was a recent fire in East London
in a major art storage area and all the local businesses were
shut down for virtually two weeks. These things do happen. You
do not want to wish these things but they do happen. The reality
is I want to know how does the compensation arise in that situation.
I understand reasonable access is the ideal and the objective,
but the question is what if?
8650. Mr Elvin: I have just checked with
Mr Berryman and all that is happening in respect of the construction
work so far as these premises are concerned is that the tunnel
boring machine will go under the property, there are no surface
works planned. The only issue as to any impact on the property
arises from sub-surface works so there should not be any interference
with access.
8651. Mr Waterman: I was raising local
issues because literally just around the corner is where the main
station is being built and denial of access is not necessarily
immediate denial of access but local denial of access. The roads
are quite small in this particular area and, as you will have
seen today if any of you have come from East London, the whole
area has virtually been at gridlock. If you have a major issue
where you have got a land structure that collapses or something
significant occurs it becomes a major problem. That is the basis
of my concern.
8652. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
Mr Waterman. Mr Elvin, I wonder if it would be possible for Mr
Berryman at some point to give us a note on the particular difficulties
that Mr Waterman has elaborated?
8653. Mr Elvin: Would you like to hear
from him very briefly now?
8654. Chairman: I do not think that is
necessary. I think Mr Berryman might give us a note on it. We
have Mr Waterman's own words on the issue in his petition.
8655. Mr Elvin: All I would say is, in
fact, the PRD gives you our response which Mr Berryman would speak
to. There are four or five paragraphs in each of the PRDs in the
same form. Mr Berryman is quite happy to speak for two minutes
and explain why there is not an access issue.
8656. Chairman: You do realise if Mr
Berryman does speak then Mr Waterman has the opportunity to cross-examine.
8657. Mr Elvin: I am in your hands, sir.
8658. Chairman: Okay.
8659. Mr Elvin: You are happy to hear
him?
103 Crossrail Information Paper C7-Access to Residential
and Commercial Property During Construction http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-IPC7-001). Back
104
Crossrail Information Paper C2 Operation of the National Compensation
Code http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-IPC2-001). Back
| 
