Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16460
- 16479)
16460. The context for our response is this:
we have a policy which, for those who have read it or wish to
know it, is set out in information paper C8 which deals with the
purchase of property in cases of hardship and we have it as GEN18-001
and we will put it on to the screen.[1]
16461. The upshot is that that policy has been
clarified since the hearing of Ms Ferguson's Petition on Day 40
and it embraces, as indeed was always intended, a willingness
on the part of the Promoter to purchase residential owner-occupiers'
property where the impact of Crossrail's works does, or is predicted
to, following Royal Assent and the completion of the detailed
design of the scheme, result in living conditions within the property
concerned being disturbed to such an extent that the home becomes
not being capable of occupation for a period of at least three
months.
16462. That judgment as to whether those circumstances
are in place is to be made no earlier than nine months before
the start of works in the vicinity of the site in question. The
reason for that is to enable, obviously, Royal Assent to take
place and the scheme to proceed in earnest, but in particular
detailed designs to be completed so that a predictive judgment
can be made in the full knowledge of the expected impact of the
scheme in the light of the predictions that are made following
detailed design.
16463. As things stand, allowing for efforts
that will be made in that context to minimise the impact of the
Hanbury Street worksite on these and other local householders,
we acknowledge the likelihood that that criterion which I have
just outlined under the hardship policy will embrace these Petitioners,
and if they maintain their application for the Promoter to buy
out their properties on account of that predicted impact of Crossrail
works at Hanbury Street worksite on the enjoyment of their homes,
within that policy process, the case for the purchase of those
properties on that ground of hardship is likely to be made out.[2]
16464. However, our position is that we are
not prepared to make an unequivocal commitment to buy the properties
of the Petitioners now before Royal Assent and before that detailed
design has taken place, and nor otherwise than in accordance with
the policy that we have carefully prepared and clarified in the
way that I have explained. We do not believe that that would be
a justified use of public money at this stage, and we believe
that the process and policy that I have outlined gives sufficient
and reasonable comfort to the Petitioners that at an appropriate
stage in advance of the works taking place in the vicinity of
their homes they will have the opportunity under the aegis of
that policy to approach the Secretary of State and to place their
concerns before him and to ask him then to operate his policy
in their favour.
16465. There is, of course, nothing to stop
the Petitioners applying in advance of that time—that is
to say, in advance of nine months before the works are expected
to begin in the vicinity of the Hanbury Street worksite—and
such an application would be open to them in accordance with the
terms of the hardship policy generally, but it would not be open
to them to make that application simply on the grounds of the
expected disturbance and impact of the worksite upon their homes
per se—that is to say, without showing some other compelling
reason to sell, through a medical condition or something of that
kind, as set out in the policy—in advance of that date some
nine months before the scheme.
16466. That has been explained to the Petitioners
in some details in letters which have been sent out to each of
them on 10 July. Those letters are being ingested and are in the
bundle that the Committee has before them at GEN18-017 and following,
and I believe that hard copies of those letters were passed to
Miss James a few days ago. That is our position and we have sought
to draw what we hope is a sensible and a reasonable balance between
seeking to give a level of comfort through the clarification of
our hardship policy to the Petitioners, recognising their concerns,
but at the same time a recognition of the wider public interest
in the need to judge carefully what level of commitment is appropriate
and justified at this stage, and, of course, the Committee will
clearly understand, very much with an eye on the effect that any
commitments that we make may have on other residential and commercial
occupiers and owners elsewhere along the route. We have sought
to draw the balance in that way, and that is the position that
I commend to the Committee.
16467. The position we had reached last time
was, effectively, Ms Ferguson had made her case. Obviously I am
very happy, if that is the Committee's will, that she should have
an opportunity to say some more now or, alternatively, if the
Committee would like to hear from Mr Smith on some more of the
detail of how the policy would operate I can call him to the stand,
but the Committee may feel that what I have said sets out our
position and it is appropriate at this stage to hear Ms Ferguson.
16468. Chairman: I think you are right.
Ms Ferguson, you have the right to present your argument.
16469. Ms Ferguson: I would like to make
a few points. My situation is exactly the same as at the earlier
hearing, in that I am the owner of a second-floor flat, as Mr
Mould pointed out. Caroline, sitting behind me, is the owner of
a ground-floor flat and Mr Collins is the owner of a top-floor
flat. In his opening address Mr Mould highlighted something of
my position. It is partially correct; my husband and I spend some
time working abroad—he is working in Siberia at the moment—and
we are flitting backwards and forwards trying to make the best
of what we can out of it, and when we are not here our position
is that we try to rent out the flat. So that is what our position
is. We are not sure as and when we will be returning to the UK
but it will, I suspect, be in the not-too-distant future, but
at the moment the property is rented out, but that is likely to
change.
16470. What I would say is that Mr Mould has
talked about this change in the policy, and frankly, neither Caroline,
Gerry nor myself can really see any difference from what was there
beforehand. What they have done is made a couple of cosmetic changes
to the actual wording so that instead of making us actually suffer
the hardship for three months, or whatever it is, what they are
saying is: "If we predict that the hardship is there then
we will consider the hardship policy". What they are also
saying is that: "We will not actually make you go out and
go through the charade of trying to sell the property", and
all of us know that it would simply be an impossibility to try
and sell the properties.
16471. I am going to come back in a second to
the various grounds under the hardship policy but I would like
to take one step back, if I may. I bought the property that we
have in 2001 and Caroline and Gerry bought their properties a
little bit before I did, and like every purchaser of a property
I did my local searches, I did my homework with the solicitors
I employed, and at that time I was told (and this is set out at
page 10 of my Petition—it was specifically requested of
the London Underground Safeguarding Team what the position was
in relation to Crossrail), and I quote: " The property should
not be adversely affected by Crossrail as it lies outside the
safeguarding zone to the south of the proposed tunnelling route."
That is the information that I got. That was fine. I relied on
that—
16472. Chairman: Was that in written
form?
16473. Ms Ferguson: Yes, it is in my—
16474. Chairman: Can we have a copy of
that?
16475. Ms Ferguson: I can certainly get
you a copy of the letter I received from London Underground.
16476. Chairman: Thank you.
16477. Ms Ferguson: That was in written
form and confirmed in writing to my solicitors at the time I bought
the property. On the strength of that I went ahead and bought
the property. If I had known that Crossrail were going to change
their minds in 2003 and do something completely different and
to have the work that is proposed now, I would not have touched
it with a barge pole. Caroline and Gerry are in exactly the same
position.
16478. I think we take the view, just as individuals—and
I think you, possibly, as Members of the Committee will understand
our position—that when you buy a property it is your property
to do what you choose with. In other words, it is an asset that
is capable of realisation at any time that you like; you can move
out of the property, if you like; you do not have to give a reason;
you do not have to be getting divorced; you do not have to fit
any of these other criteria, you can simply move if you like.
We would also take the view that we should be able to rent the
property—quite an ordinary thing that people do if they
are moving away from a period of time for work or other commitments.
We certainly would not expect to find major construction work
for two years, or whatever it is, likely to be longer, outside
your front window and the potential of some other nebulous body
out there saying: "Well, we are going to a make decision
as to whether or not we think it is tolerable for you to be there
for three months and then we are going to move you in, move you
out and move you back again."
16479. It is news to me today from Mr Mould
that Crossrail's position was: "We have already crossed that
hurdle", and as far as they are concerned the three months
has been established. That was not in their proposal, that was
not in their letter of 10 July to any of us, and their position
at that point in time was purely and simply that when we get to
the stage of doing the detailed design, whenever that may be at
some future date, then they will look at the situation and then
they will make a decision. As far as I am concerned, that is unacceptable.
We were in a position that we all bought our properties in reliance
of the fact that Crossrail was going to be somewhere else, not
where it is now. It seems to me that having relied on that we
should not be in any way prejudiced by what the current proposals
are.
1 Crossrail Information Paper C8-Purchase of Property
in Cases of Hardship, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-GEN18-001). Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P90, Properties potentially affected by noise
at Hanbury Street (TOWHLB-GEN01-003). Back
| 
