Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17720
- 17739)
17720. Chairman: Can I stop you there?
I think we have got to readily accept that there has been a certain
degree of lack of consultation when somebody comes along and is
asked by a neighbour on 22 October, which is a few days before
the end of the consultation period, that something is amiss in
relation to their property which you found out by accident when
they were trying to sell their house which had fallen through,
and subsequently proven by the first contacts which were made.
I think we have an opportunity here actually of putting some consultation
into the process. I think what we should do is readily accept
that it was not the best; there were mistakes made and what we
should do is pause on this hearing on this Petition and return
to it at a later date where we can perhaps, if they still wish
to persist with the lack of consultation, leave that open for
them, but in the hope we can get some degree of agreement between
the parties. Does that sound sensible?
17721. Mr Mould: It does. What I am anxious
to do is focus on the substantial impacts of the proposal on them,
and that is what I think you have asked us to do. We are of one
mind. In relation to the consultation process, all I can put before
you is what I am told we did. I will ask to follow that up.
17722. Chairman: What I am saying is:
is there any point in us doing that now because we can return
to it at a later stage anyway?
17723. Mr Mould: I am happy to leave
it there, if you are content to leave it there.
17724. Chairman: Mr and Mrs Wheeler,
just so you understand what has occurred, we have accepted that
you had difficulties in the process of the consultation and we
are going to restart. We are not going to reopen the whole proceedings
but what we are going to do is try and get some consultation in
now. We are going to set up for Crossrail to meet with you to
discuss your worries and concerns over things like the tunnel,
the noise, the ongoing noise mitigation—factors which might
or might not be reduced—about blight and about all the stage
1, 2, 3 processes, and beyond if necessary. So we are going to
ask Crossrail to have meetings with you now and to go away and
discuss all of your concerns and for you to come back to this
Committee at a later date.
17725. We think that is sensible because, clearly,
you are really asking questions rather than petitioning. You are
raising concerns to which you have not been able to elicit any
answers so far that you understand. What we are going to do is
pause the process and come back later. Do you understand that?
17726. Mr Wheeler: The gentleman at the
end raised questions earlier on about the works. The 3.6 metre
hoarding is on Wick Lane and outside our house is also the decommissioning
of the sewer line which was shown to you earlier.
17727. Chairman: Can I just come in and
say that all of your concerns and matters can be raised in the
process of this consultation which will occur. We have paused
it because, quite frankly, we see little point in pursuing at
this present time because of the lack of clarity and because we
accept there has been a degree of a lack of consultation. Mistakes
have been made, so we are giving the opportunity for you to talk
and either worsen your fears or clear them up. Do you understand
that? Then I am going to pause your Petition. It will be rearranged
at a later date and you will be contacted in that respect. We
are going to move on to the next Petition. The next Petition is
Anthony Chambers. This is going to be the final Petition today.
The other ones for later today have been rescheduled along with
Mr and Mrs Wheeler.
The Petition of Mr Anthony Chambers.
The Petitioner appeared in person.
17728. Chairman: Mr Chambers, you have
seen part of the process certainly. Before you make your case
Mr Mould is going to outline to the Committee the background.
17729. Mr Mould: Mr Chambers' property,
I believe, is this property here at 37 Ridgdale Street.[56]
His Petition is that he has concerns about land compensation,
and I will hand over to him to make that point.
17730. Mr Chambers: I have to say that
in terms of the public part of it, having Crossrail, is a terrific
idea—I have no concerns about that—it is really the
fact that it is going underneath my house, basically. When I talked
to them about what I would get in terms of value for the purchase
of the subsoil, they came back and they said that it would be
a nominal value in the region of £50. There was a possibility
that there would be something called "injurious affection"
but they thought it highly unlikely and pretty much at every single
meeting they stated that, so I get the impression they would not,
unless forced into that position by a land tribunal or something,
be offering anything like that.
17731. I also had a quick look at the sort of
compulsory purchase things from the Deputy Prime Minister, and
the first thing that it says in section 3.1 is that they are under
a duty to try to, first, purchase the property, which they are
obviously not planning to do, and I am left to approach them to
do the same. They have not done anything about that. I went and
tried to find out some values, and I talked to estate agents.
They basically said that it is their experience that in the market
at the moment if you are planning to sell your house with the
plan for a Crossrail tunnel underneath you are likely to have
a loss of sale value of about £10,000. That was just one
estate agent, but to me if you think about the couple who were
here before, there are probably many people that would have concerns
about purchasing a house with such plans under.
17732. The other way that I looked at it was
looking at what the cost of and cost savings on energy use would
be to have what is called a heat exchange bore hole, which is
basically a geo-thermal heating system, which would provide all
my subsoil down to about 60 or 70 metres into the ground, and
over about 50 years the saving in electricity would be in the
region of £12,000. So there is a value there that, in my
thoughts, is not £50 at least.
17733. I do not really want to go through the
process of having to go to a land tribunal with complicated things
involved to try and work out a fair price or not, because it is
lawyers involved and potential dangers. They should come and talk
to me and work out something sensible as opposed to just waiting.
I do not see why that cannot happen now; it does not mean that
they have to purchase now but an agreement could easily be made.
That should happen for everyone, it should not be something that
has to be waited for for years.
17734. I guess the other thing that is more
specific was that I saw in these notes there are thoughts that
the loss in value could be offset by the fact that it brings benefits;
that you have access to Crossrail. Well, in my view, that is a
benefit that everyone gets; it is not a specific benefit to me.
So I just wanted to see that clearly stated; that is not something
that could be taken into account in the valuation sense. That
is it.
17735. Mr Mould: Sir, the Petitioner's
property is some 13 metres above the running tunnel. First of
all, insofar as his entitlement to land compensation is concerned,
it is, in principle, indistinguishable from that which is set
out on section 1 of this note, you remember we put in, on the
illustration for land compensation. So it corresponds to that,
of which Mrs Ingrid Meidal Johnsen is an example.[57]
We will: " . . . compulsorily purchase the subsoil ie land
beneath the surface, required for the purpose of constructing
and operating the railway through the central and other underground
sections of the line." As the freehold owner of the property
he can claim the following items, the amount of which is determined
by reference to the date on which we take possession of the subsoil
which essentially corresponds to when the tunnel boring machine
passes beneath: "The open market value of their underground
land" and then "the amount of any reduction in the open
market value of their property resulting from the construction
or operation of the railway (eg due to noise and vibration). The
assessment of the amount payable will include any reduction in
the development value of the property in question as a result
of the construction or operation of the railway."
17736. It also includes the cost of the damage
which has to be made good, and (the point that has been made by
the Petitioner) we do not expect as a rule the open market value
of the subsoil taken for the tunnel, a little shaft of soil, will
be significant. We make the point that we expect the procedures
(which you are very familiar with now) for the assessment, control
and remediation of the effects of ground settlement will avoid
any significant physical damage to the property . . . and other
matters as well. So that sets the basic framework under the existing
law which is applied to the Crossrail Bill, for reasons that we
have explained to you.
17737. If the Petitioner wishes to enter into
a voluntary agreement to sell his subsoil at the appropriate time
then, plainly, that is an arrangement that we can deal with against
the framework of compulsory purchase powers that we will take
to acquire that subsoil from him. So that is the position on the
assumption that he retains his property other than the subsoil
which we require for the running tunnel beneath his property.
17738. Turning to the next point, he then raises
the issue of blight. If he wishes to sell his property and he
is unable to do so except at a substantial under-value, and he
is able to establish the reason why his property is substantially
under-valued in the market is because of the shadow, the impact,
of the Crossrail proposals, to run a tunnel beneath his house,
then he is able to serve a blight notice under the statutory provisions
of the Town & Country Planning Act. He is a residential owner-occupier,
as I understand it; he qualifies in that respect and can serve
a blight notice. I can see no reason why, provided he can show
that the house has been substantially devalued in the market as
a result of the shadow of the scheme, that blight notice should
be resisted by the Promoter.
17739. I do not know if that is the position
he wants to take but he did hint that that was something he was
considering. If that is something he wants to pursue then the
sensible thing for him to do is either to take his own legal advice
in relation to that or to take advice from an estate agent or
valuation surveyor to establish what the position is in relation
to the current value of his property in the face of the Crossrail
scheme and in the absence of that scheme. Alternatively, he can
get in touch with the Promoter and we can take matters further
forward from there. So if he wants to stay there the position
is in principle as set out in the note before you, but if he feels
that he wants to sell but feels he cannot sell because Crossrail
has blighted, then in accordance with the procedures I have set
out there is a remedy available to him under the current rules.
I think that covers the two eventualities.
56 Crossrail Ref: P126, H.A.M. and Wick Lane Sewers
Diversion, Locality of Petitioners (TOWHLB-29104-030). Back
57
Crossrail Ref: P126, Illustrative Claims for Land Compensation
(TOWHLB-29104D-004 and -005). Back
| 
