Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16480
- 16499)
16480. Interestingly enough, it seems that Mr
Berryman of Crossrail, in fact, agreed with us, albeit it has
not filtered down to those that wrote the letter on 10 July. If
I could refer you to paragraph 6751 (this is the evidence on 18
April—I think it was in connection with the residents of
Mayfair and others and their Petition), I think at that time Mr
Berryman was being asked by the Chairman on that day about the
various options for alignment. Mr Berryman said, and I quote:
"There are always local variations that are possible but
you need to bear in mind that some of the sites on the route have
been reserved for occupation for Crossrail for a number of years.
The landowners are well aware of those sites. It would be quite
difficult to come at a late stage and say, `We were going to take
that building out but we are going to take this building out instead',
particularly if the developer had based his plans on what we had
originally proposed . . . "
16481. As far as I can see, that is exactly
what we did; we were well aware of the sites, we were well aware
of the route that Crossrail was planned to take and we based our
plans on what they had originally proposed. You may say to me:
"Well, things change, times change, we will never build anything
in London if that is the case". I say: "Fine; I accept
plans change", but I do not see why the three of us should
be in a position of having to suffer simply because Crossrail
have changed their minds about exactly what it is they are going
to do, when we, in all good faith and honesty, bought these properties
and relied on the information which was then available to us.
We are not talking about a hundred years ago; I am talking about
buying a property in 2001.
16482. Turning now to what we have got as a
situation now, the current safeguarded route was put forward,
I think, by Crossrail and finally went through in 2003. The net
effect of all of this is that none of us can sell the property
on the open market. We cannot do anything with it, because even
if we could find somebody (I do not know where we would find them)
who was happy to go along with the Crossrail proposal, the hardship
policies and such like, under Crossrail's own rules if someone
was to buy at this stage in knowledge of the Crossrail proposals
as they now stand, they would not be eligible for the hardship
proposals. That means it is impossible to sell these properties
on the open market. That means we are thrown back on to the mercies
of Crossrail, and if we cannot shoehorn ourselves into their hardship
policy then what it means is that if this project never goes ahead,
for example, and if there is no funding (there does not seem to
be any funding at the moment for the project), how long are we
supposed to wait in that position?
16483. Crossrail has been on the go, I understand,
for more than 15 years. Are we supposed to wait and do nothing;
sit tight and lose all the options for our various life options
that are perfectly reasonable options for people to take? The
other point is, we cannot rent the properties out because—and
this is where I personally have a problem—Crossrail make
a residential qualification and say you must actually be living
in the property for the previous six months before anything clocks
in. So all of us, living our own ordinary lives, are locked into
this scheme because Crossrail changed their mind from what we
were originally told. There we are waiting.
16484. Mr Mould said: "Yes, yes, yes, but
these three Petitioners can all apply at a much earlier stage
under the hardship policy." That is right—if we are
getting divorced, if we are sick or if we need to move somewhere
else, eg larger premises or for employment. On whose judgment?
Divorce and sickness, well perhaps, but why should we not just
be able to move because we want to move? What is wrong with that?
Why should we not be able to rent out the property just because
we happen to be working abroad? It seems to me a wholly ridiculous
situation that we have been placed in because of Crossrail.
16485. What Crossrail have indicated, and Mr
Mould in his address to you, and in their letter, is that they
have made much of this change, in that they are no longer going
to make us suffer the hardship but it is what is "predicted".
All three of us would say that Crossrail can predict perfectly
well right now what is going to happen because if they cannot
I am not sure what all of us are doing here. If they are now going
to turn round and say: "We are going to do something completely
different" then it makes me wonder why we and you, in particular,
have been sitting here for however many weeks and months it is.
What am I actually talking about if they are going to change their
minds and come up with some new plan? It seems to me that they
can predict.
16486. This is an aerial shot, if you like,
of the property. You can see the bit that is headed up with a
little white flag that says "Britannia House. Now going to
be retained", and, underneath that, "Will act as noise
barrier". Perpendicular to that we have another little row
of buildings and this is where we are; this is where number 61
is. It says: "Mixed use including residential". That
means there are shops on the ground floor and the rest are residents'
flats. "Maybe eligible for (I presume) Temporary Housing.
Also acts as a noise barrier." So they predict we are going
to be a noise barrier. In other words, what we are going to be
there to do is to make the lives of everybody else round about
a good deal more tenable. If that is the case, it rather suggests
to me that our lives as a noise barrier are going to be somewhat
untenable and intolerable.
16487. It seems, also, that what we are actively
being used for is used by Crossrail to protect other properties.
We are being used as an environmental factor. It seems to me this
was one of the fundamental reasons why Crossrail were preferring
this site at Hanbury Street than some of the other sites because
there was this barrier effect from our flats in conjunction with
Britannia House.
16488. I refer you to document B4.[3]
This is some of the information that was provided in the response
to the Petition. It is dealing in connection with acquisition
of land for compulsory purchase, and it is talking here, at paragraph
2, about situations where the power (ie compulsory purchase) might
be used to acquire land in order to help those affected by the
project. One of the criteria here to allow Crossrail to go ahead
and purchase the property is where it is "For use in mitigating
the effect of the Crossrail works on the environment". It
seems to me that that is what we are.
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk, (LINEWD-IPB4-001).
16489. The first bullet point sets out that
if land (property) is being used in mitigating the effects of
the Crossrail works on the environment, then that seems to be
justification, under this clause, 7(4), for the properties to
be purchased. So Crossrail seem quite happy to be able to predict
that we are a noise barrier but what they also seem to be able
to predict, and this comes up at page 34 in my Petition, is that
there will be a necessity for temporary re-housing for something
like nine to twelve months. I think Mr Mould referred to it as
"some months". Nine to twelve months is not "some
months"; nine to twelve months is half the length of this
project. It is a very, very long time. What if the situation varies?
If when we get to this stage in the future, if when they have
done their detailed designs they somehow change their minds and
it appears in the mind of Crossrail that it is tolerable for us
to put up with the situation for two months and x-number of days,
then they are going to turn round and say: "I am sorry, we
are not going to do anything about you." In the mean time,
as far as we are concerned, that is an intolerable situation.
They have the means to deal with the situation, we are quite clearly
a noise barrier and I think some of your Committee saw the photographs
before and have a good idea of the proximity of the house and
of the flats to the actual work. We just find this whole situation
intolerable.
16490. Our view is that what will happen is
that they will look at their scheme of work—if you look
at it, things jump about; there are three months here, three months
there—but it gives us no certainty whatsoever and leaves
us, as I have explained earlier, in a state of total limbo. If
this project does not go ahead and we do not get divorced and
we do not get sick and we are not able to prove to Crossrail that
we need to move to larger premises for business or other reasons,
we are stuck. The properties cannot be sold; we can do absolutely
nothing.
16491. They mention their hardship policy as
if it was written in tablets of stone. It is not; it is a discretionary
policy—a creation of Crossrail. In other words, they can
deal with that situation, and there is a clause in it which allows
for exceptional circumstances. I would certainly suggest to all
of you on the Committee that our condition is exceptional.
16492. If Crossrail has somewhere in their minds—and
I think Mr Mould alluded to this—a fear that they are going
to be setting some sort of precedent on how they deal with blight
that could impact on others, quite frankly, I would hope that
they would deal with others in a reasonable way, in whatever way
they deal with us. They have the ability to say: "Yes, we
understand. You are a noise barrier, you have this huge impact,
you are going to be stuck and locked into this situation, it is
very unpredictable, these are exceptional circumstances and, in
light of that, we will go ahead and make that commitment to buy
your properties now." We think it is perfectly reasonable
that they should do so.
16493. There is one other point I would like
to make. They talk also about temporary re-housing and whatever.
If I could refer you to some documents which I had lodged previously,
in July 2004, Caroline and myself, following a meeting that we
had with some of the people from Crossrail at the actual flats,
wrote a letter to Crossrail setting out some of our concerns.
If I could refer you to page 7 of this, if you look at the bottom
two paragraphs (a) and (b), this is all on the subject of relocation.[4]
I think you can see there what we said was that: "Before
we can even consider relocating, we made it clear that we must
have answers to a large number of important questions, none of
which you appeared to be able to provide at our meeting. You therefore
promised to provide us with a detailed response . . . " One
of these points was well, this is fine, but what do our mortgagees
have to say about all of this if we are going to be shunted out?
Their security is going to be devalued. We said how are you going
to deal with that situation? How are you going to deal with the
situation of insurance and all these other issues? It was back
in 2004 that these issues were raised.
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk, (LINEWD-IPB4-001).
16494. If I can refer you to page 11 in the
same bundle of documents, this is the reply we got from Mr Mantey
of Crossrail, and I think it is dated 17 August 2004.[5]
At that time he says: "The detailed questions at the end
of your letter highlight some of the problems associated with
long-term temporary relocation and because of the length of the
proposed construction works at Hanbury Street we accept that temporary
alternative accommodation may not be the best solution for affected
occupiers." It seems to me that Crossrail have accepted the
practical situation that we are in is a problem; it cannot be
dealt with. So that that is yet another point which I would say
points to the one solution, which is that Crossrail should make
a commitment now; it should be written into the Bill that allows
for us to have the option for those properties to be purchased.
It seems to me wholly unreasonable that we should be put in a
situation of total uncertainty, falling back on a hardship policy
that is so narrow in ambit it is almost impossible to use unless
you can somehow persuade Crossrail at a much later date in the
future, if and when it happens, that we are an exceptional circumstance.
16495. So the three of us would be asking you,
as the Committee, that it should be written into the legislation
that all three of us have the option to sell our properties to
Crossrail at that point onwards from when the Bill goes through,
and that that should be at market value to, effectively, put us
in the position as if Crossrail had never happened. In other words,
the position that we were all expecting to be in when, in good
faith, we bought those properties in the first place.
16496. Chairman: Mr Mould, do you want
to respond?
16497. Mr Mould: Yes, I will seek to
respond to the points raised. As I say, I do have Mr Smith here,
so if the Committee would like to hear from him on the details—
16498. Chairman: Before you do that,
there are some questions I would like an answer to. The three
months at this site (and we have had a lot of evidence on the
Hanbury site); bearing in mind some of the questions that have
been raised and the answers that have been given, it could be
considerably longer than that. There was even the business of
on-street/off-street parking during construction on this particular
site. Given that, it is going to be considerably longer than three
months, whichever option is undertaken.
16499. Mr Mould: Sir, I sought to make
it clear when I spoke to you a few moments ago that our expectation
is that on current assessments the impact of the operation of
the Hanbury Street worksite on these properties and these Petitioners
occupying them as their homes is likely to render those homes
incapable of reasonable residential occupation for a period of
greater than three months. On that basis, we would expect the
predictive exercise that I mentioned, under the terms of the hardship
policy, at nine months before the works begin, would show that
these Petitioners fall within the embrace of the policy, and the
Secretary of State would expect to, at that stage, be asked to
purchase their interests.
3 Crossrail Information Paper B4-Acquisition of Land
Outside the Limits of Deviation, Back
4
Crossrail Information Paper B4-Acquisition of Land Outside the
Limits of Deviation, Back
5
Committee Ref: A183, Correspondence from CLRL to Ms Eleanor Ferguson,
17 August 2004 (SCN-20060719-002). Back
|
