Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill First Special Report


Cyclists' Touring Club

38.  The Cyclists' Touring Club raised three main issues in their Committee hearing: bicycle carriage on trains, provision for bicycle parking at stations and the danger that the construction period would pose to cyclists.

39.  We are sympathetic to the Petitioners' concerns and we understand the need to provide adequate facilities for cyclists and to protect them on the road.

40.  On the first two issues raised by the Petitioners we can do little. Bicycle carriage on trains will be a matter for the Train Operating Company [TOC] once appointed. We expect whatever policy is adopted by the TOC to be cycle-friendly, so far as is feasible, and in line with Transport for London and London Underground policy. Provision for bicycle parking at stations is largely a matter for local authorities. We would encourage the Petitioners to enter into a dialogue with the TOC [once appointed] and with relevant local authorities on these issues.

41.  Furthermore, we would encourage the Petitioners to continue their dialogue with the Promoters on their final concern. The problems often arise when a lorry turns left, unaware of a cyclist between it and the kerb. The Promoters have assured the Petitioners that they will include a cycle awareness session in their site induction programme—there may be scope for other practical measures and we would encourage both parties to continue their dialogue on safety issues.

Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers' Association and the Open Spaces Society

42.  Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers' Association and the Open Spaces Society petitioned the Committee to require the Promoters to provide a new pedestrian footbridge to replace Dog Kennel bridge—a bridge that has been earmarked for demolition. Dog Kennel bridge was partly designed by Brunel[12] but expert witnesses for the Petitioners freely admitted that the bridge had no unique characteristics in the oeuvre of Brunel (paras 1789-1793) and English Heritage did not petition against its demolition.

43.  The Petitioners did not argue against the demolition of the bridge but contended that the bridge should be replaced. They also argued that, if it was decided that it would not be replaced, their choice of alternative footpath should be accepted.

44.  The Committee are not persuaded by the Petitioner's case. The Petitioners failed to show that the bridge is well used and the cost of providing a replacement bridge does not make this an attractive proposition. Furthermore, there is no public footpath over the bridge itself on the Buckinghamshire County Council definitive map.

45.  We agree with the Petitioners that an alternative footpath should be established to link into the existing footpath network. We note that the Promoters have offered an alternative footpath route which would do so. However, this is not the Petitioners' preferred route. The Petitioners' preferred route goes outside the limits of deviation set out in the Bill. We would therefore encourage the Petitioners to negotiate with the landowners to see if an acceptable path can be established.

Mr James Middleton

46.  Mr Middleton argued that the Promoter was fundamentally promoting the wrong scheme. He argued that Crossrail should be a regional scheme that, amongst other locations, should go to Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and more far-flung places around the East and South-East of England.

47.  The Promoter made clear their position that the petition fell outside the principle of the Bill but they did not challenge Mr Middleton's locus standi.

48.  We allowed Mr Middleton to present his petition, and listened with interest to some of his suggestions, but we made clear to him that his petition did indeed fall outside the principle of the Bill and that therefore we would be unable and unwilling to do anything about it.

Mr David Saunderson

49.  Mr Saunderson is the part owner of a property which falls within the area of the proposed Crossrail Farringdon East ticket hall. Mr Saunderson petitioned in the House of Commons and the main issue before that Committee was the question of whether or not the Promoters would accept a blight notice on the property if served by Mr Saunderson. Subsequent to that petition hearing Mr Saunderson served a blight notice on 18 December 2006 and on 16 February 2007 the Promoters accepted that notice. There have since been discussions over the valuation of the property between the Promoters, various agents and Mr Saunderson's agents and there has been a dispute over the valuation and about payment of agents' and surveyors' fees.

50.  We recognise that an impasse has been reached in negotiations between Mr Saunderson and the Promoters and we would encourage Mr Saunderson to take his case to the Lands Tribunal which is the proper statutory body to deal with such a valuation dispute.

Petitions from the Spitalfields area

51.  We spent a good deal of time hearing from Petitioners from the Spitalfields area. Petitioners had many concerns over the construction of the Hanbury Street shaft and the running tunnels through the Spitalfields area. The Petitioners divided up responsibility for presenting their concerns to the Committee to avoid repetition and for that we are grateful. Below we set out our response to the Petitioners' main concerns.


52.  The House of Commons Committee's Special Report noted that "there has been a lack of clear information about the project in the area" and concluded that "a certain amount of action is necessary in the locality immediately"[13]. In response to Petitioners' concerns over a lack of communication on the project and involvement with the project the House of Commons Committee asked the Promoter to set up a local monitoring body in conjunction with the Tower Hamlets Borough Council and representatives from the community[14].

53.  This body was duly set up but, whilst the Bill was still with the Commons Committee, there were complaints from Petitioners that the Promoter had not done enough to set up a sufficiently independent local panel. In response to these concerns the Promoter engaged an independent charity, Planning Aid, to facilitate meetings of the Liaison Panel.

54.  The Petitioners who appeared before this Committee argued that the Panel was still not functioning correctly for various reasons. There was some suggestion that because the Promoter covered the costs to the charity of conducting the facilitation work the charity was somehow in the Promoter's pocket. Other concerns included a suggestion that the Panel was not properly constituted and that it should have decision-making powers which it does not have at present.

55.  Petitioners have repeatedly said to us that they welcomed the instruction from the Commons Committee to set up the Panel and that they want it to work properly. We can only re-iterate that we think the Panel has, potentially, a very important role to play and we would encourage the Petitioners to work with Planning Aid to come to satisfactory arrangements to make the Panel work. There are many issues that the Panel could tackle to mitigate the impact of the Crossrail works on the local community; for example we would suggest that the Panel could start by focusing on lorry routing issues and health issues related to the construction of works in the area[15]. We hope that the Panel will be in a position to start work on these issues in the near future and that the Tower Hamlets Borough Council will be actively involved. We note that the relevant local authority, the London Borough of Camden, took a leading role on a similar panel set up in connection with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link scheme.


Information Paper D12—the settlement assessment process

56.  Under Crossrail's policy on settlement, as set out in Information Paper D12, buildings along the route which may be subject to settlement are assessed using a three phase process, similar to that developed on other projects including the Jubliee Line extension and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

57.  Full descriptions of these three phases are given in the Information Paper; suffice it to say that where the predicted settlement from bored running tunnels and excavations is less than 10mm, and the predicted ground slope is less than 1/500, buildings are not subject to further assessment after completing Phase 1. Those for which predicted settlement is 10mm or more, or for which predicted ground slope is 1/500 or more, are subject to a Phase 2 assessment. However, this does not mean that all buildings which progress to Phase 2 are predicted to suffer damage from settlement.

58.  Under Phase 2 processes a generic area-wide assessment of settlement identifies zones in which buildings might be at risk of sustaining damage at levels which require individual investigation (risk category 3 or above) based on correlation with the calculated maximum tensile strain values.

59.  In Phase 3 each building is considered individually. The Phase 3 assessment consists of three steps, referred to as "iterations", each refining the building and tunnel model to a higher degree. As a result of the Phase 3 assessment, the risk category of the building is assessed or reassessed, the requirement for any protective works is established and the design and implementation of any protective works and associated specialised monitoring are determined.

Petitions from Spitalfields' residents related to settlement

60.  Petitioners argued that the Promoter had not carried out sufficiently detailed investigations into the condition of listed buildings within the limits of deviation in the Spitalfields area. Specifically, Petitioners argued that the Phase 3 assessments that had been completed were inadequate and incomplete because, in many cases, they did not include an internal inspection of the buildings in question. Petitioners also argued that not all listed buildings in the area had been reported on individually.

61.  The Petitioners asked the Committee to require the Promoters to give them an undertaking that all listed and historic buildings would undergo an accurate and comprehensive individual inspection and assessment, to include internal features, now, and not once work has started, to determine possible settlement impact and mitigation measures. The purpose of this, to the Petitioners' minds, would be threefold:

(1)  for the long term protection of the individual affected buildings;

(2)  to give a clear idea of the likely impact of the Promoter's preferred route alignment on the historic fabric of the area; and

(3)  in support of a proper analysis of the best route east out of Liverpool Street station (para 3243).

62.  All buildings in Spitalfields have been subject to the assessment procedures outlined above. Additionally, all the listed buildings in the Spitalfields area, within the 10mm settlement contour, have automatically progressed to Phase 3, Iteration 1 of the assessment process in line with Crossrail's policy outlined in section seven of the Information Paper. They have not yet gone through Phase 3, Iterations 2 and 3, but they will do so at a later date where this is deemed necessary as a result of the settlement 'scoring' system explained to us by Professor Mair on 20 February and again on 12 March (para 3292).

63.  Furthermore, all the owners of these buildings will be entitled to a Settlement Deed [an agreement], which will include a requirement to survey the interior of the building in some detail before tunnelling actually starts (para 3293), and will provide for prevention or repair of any damage.

64.  Such settlement deeds are not only available to the owners of listed buildings in Spitalfields but to anyone who meets the criteria set out in Appendix A to Information Paper D12. In brief these criteria specify that anyone who has a legal estate within 30 metres on plan of the tunnels, retained cuttings, shafts and boxes forming part of the works authorised to be carried out under the Bill is eligible for a deed.

65.  It is our view that the Petitioners are therefore adequately protected under existing policies [set out in Crossrail Information Paper D12 which includes the draft text of the Settlement Deed]. It may be that there has been some confusion over the content of these policies and the nature of the settlement assessment process and we hope that Petitioners' appearances in Committee on this matter have helped to clarify the situation. We would encourage all affected and entitled Petitioners[16] to take out a Settlement Deed, as the Promoters have already encouraged them to do (para 3433), for their own protection.


Explanation of noise measurements

66.  As this is the first time noise has been discussed in this Report we thought it would be helpful for the reader to include an explanation of how noise measurements are expressed, and what the suffix LAmax,S, which is used throughout this Report, means.

67.  The symbol "L" indicates a value expressed in decibels (abbreviated dB). The dB scale measures relative magnitudes of sound power or intensity (sound power per unit area) a property proportional to the mean squared value of the amplitudes of the air pressure oscillations that cause sound.

68.  Every doubling of intensity is a 3dB increase and every tenfold increase in intensity is a 10dB increase. A standard reference level (0dB = 20 micropascals of root mean square sound pressure) is used so that the dB scale can measure absolute levels as well as relative levels. The symbol "A" signifies that the measured sound pressure has been subjected to frequency weighting using the standard "A-weighting scale", to approximate the frequency response of the human ear—relatively insensitive at low frequencies and very high frequencies. Every 10dB increase in A-weighted sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness—slightly more than a doubling for sound of low frequency.

69.  The symbol "S" specifies a method of averaging the oscillating sound pressure, by exponential averaging, using the standard "slow" time constant of one second—the alternative being the "F" or "fast" time constant of 1/8 second. "S" has a greater smoothing effect on sound that varies in level. The symbol "max" means the highest averaged value reached during an event such as the passage of a train. The value of LAmax,S nearly equals the value of LAmax,F for a steady sound that lasts for one second or more, otherwise LAmax,F levels exceed LAmax,S levels by an amount dependent on the rapidity and magnitude of the variations. For groundborne noise from a modern underground railway LAmax,S levels are typically 2dB lower than LAmax,F levels. LAmax,S can alternatively be written as LASmax.

Petitions from Spitalfields residents related to noise

70.  Petitioners from the Spitalfields area argued that the groundborne noise level of 40dBLAMAX,S, set as the highest level for residential properties, was unacceptable for the Spitalfields area. Petitioners argued that the noise levels that they currently experience in their properties should not be exceeded by the frequently running Crossrail trains and asked the Committee to require the Promoter to set a maximum level for groundborne noise in the Spitalfields area of 25dBLAMAX,S, a figure which is five decibels below the level proposed for sound-recording studios (para 4272).

71.  Crossrail Information Paper D10 sets out the Promoter's approach to the design of the permanent track form. The maximum level of groundborne noise residential properties will experience is 40dBLAMAX,S. We undertook a visit to the Renaissance Chancery Court hotel in High Holborn to experience the groundborne noise emanating from trains running along the Central and Piccadilly underground lines below the hotel. We heard a number of trains pass below the hotel and readings were recorded on the experts' meters of between 30dB and 41dB[17]. We believe that 40dBLAMAX,S is an acceptable criterion as the maximum level of groundborne noise that residential properties along the route will experience.

72.  However, most property owners are likely to experience levels below the maximum. In Spitalfields, the Promoter's estimate of the maximum level of groundborne noise, based on noise modelling and groundborne noise contours, is 28dBLAMAX, S (para 4275). We are therefore of the opinion that no special measures need to be taken in Spitalfields to reduce groundborne noise levels.


73.  Petitioners had understandable concerns that the existing poor health of some local residents would be further affected by the Crossrail works in the Spitalfields area. The Petitioners asked this Committee to require the Promoter to conduct a site specific Health Impact Assessment for Spitalfields.

74.  We note that the Promoter has produced a Health Impact Assessment for the Crossrail project as a whole which includes a section on the Whitechapel and Hanbury Street area. We do not doubt the strength of local feeling on the health impact of Crossrail works in the area but we were concerned to learn that to date there had not been any engagement with the appropriate authorities on health issues through the forum of the Community Liaison Panel. We urge the Petitioners and the Promoter to engage on health issues through the forum of the Community Liaison Panel.


75.  Several Petitioners raised the issue of lorry routing in the Spitalfields area with us. There were concerns over the number of lorries and the frequency of movements, the narrowness of the streets and the number of schools in the area. The Committee undertook a visit to the area and saw the narrow streets and school locations[18].

76.  The Committee was sympathetic to these concerns and explored the issue of lorry routing in several hearings with Petitioners and the Promoter. We heard about the lorry-holding area in Burdett Road and about the proposed lorry routes in the area in some detail and we hope that Petitioners will have benefited from the chance to explore these issues with the Promoter. The Promoter has produced the swept path diagrams[19] for the anticipated four axle large tipper lorries for specific roads in Whitechapel and Spitalfields in response to concerns raised by Petitioners. Details of lorry traffic to be generated by the project in each area are available in the Environmental Statement[20].

77.  In the forthcoming months and years, we would urge Tower Hamlets Borough Council, as the local highway authority, to continue to pursue, and negotiate on, lorry routing issues. We recognise the importance of lorry routing, junction alterations (temporary or permanent) and road safety to local residents and we urge the Council to pursue this matter rigorously with the Promoter and, in time, with the nominated undertaker.

78.  We take the opportunity to note here that the Schools Panel (a Sub-Group of the Community Liaison Panel—composed of school representatives, representatives from the Education Authority (Tower Hamlets), and Crossrail representatives) has met several times successfully. Crossrail has given an undertaking that lorry stoppages will take place for 30 minutes at the start of the school day and 30 minutes at the end of the school day[21]. Exact timings will be agreed with individual schools according to their timetables. We have received no petitions from schools in the Borough of Tower Hamlets and are pleased that negotiations between schools and the Promoter seem to be progressing well. It is our view that safety of school children in these narrow streets deserves continuous attention and demands ongoing liaison with the schools affected.


79.  The Spitalfields Small Business Association, also acting on behalf of other Spitalfields' petitioners, put forward two arguments concerning the adequacy of the Environmental Statement as concerns alternative routes and the alignment of the route between Liverpool Street and Whitechapel stations.

80.  Firstly, the Petitioner contended that there was an error of law in relation to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment (set out in Environmental Impact Directive 85/337/EEC as amended), in failing in that assessment to have studied the 'Route B' southern alignment and to have given the main reasons as to why it was rejected. The Petitioner asked the Committee: a) to rule that 'Route B' should have been considered as a 'main alternative', and b) to should treat it as such, opening it up to comment by the public and study by the House of Lords. We do not intend to rehearse the Petitioner's argument in full here—it can be found in paras 3782-4092 of the transcript.

81.  In response to this Petitioner's argument the Chairman gave a ruling, on behalf of the Committee, on 18 March 2008. The ruling is reproduced in full in Appendix 9 to this Report (and in paras 5552-5565) and we do not intend to dissect it fully here.

82.  In essence the Committee decided that without doubt 'Route B' had never been presented as a 'main alternative' by the Promoters, within the meaning of the Directive, and there was therefore no requirement on them under the Directive to write it up in the Environmental Statement as such.

83.  We are satisfied that the Promoters have fulfilled the requirement in the House of Lords Private Business Standing Order 27A, including the provision of an Environmental Statement which did contain an outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for the choice of route as set out in the Bill as it stands currently.

84.  In conclusion, we decided that there was no flaw in the Promoters' compliance with the requirements of the EIA Directive, and the Regulations which transpose that Directive into UK law, which would lead us to recommend to the House that there are faults in the procedural requirements concerning this sort of legislation or that the House should further postpone consideration of the Bill.

85.  On the second argument we were urged to recommend the adoption of 'Route B' as part of the scheme of the Bill. However, 'Route B' lies outside the limits of deviation in the Bill, and so, for reasons explained in paragraphs 23,24, 28 and 29 of this Report we held ourselves unable to pursue this proposition.

Whitechapel Station and the Kempton Court Residents' Committee

86.  We heard a good deal of evidence about the proposed re-development of Whitechapel station under the Crossrail scheme. We are pleased to note that the new Crossrail station at Whitechapel will be fully accessible to persons of reduced mobility. We hope that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets will take the opportunity afforded them by the construction of this station to upgrade buildings adjacent to the proposed new station which are in need of modernisation.

87.  Patricia Singleton appeared on behalf of the Kempton Court Residents, who live in the vicinity of Whitechapel station, to bring to our attention the disturbance that the residents would suffer as a result of the Crossrail project and to update us on the state of negotiations between themselves and the Promoter.

88.  We are in no doubt that the residents of Kempton Court are suffering real disturbance, which will continue, as a result of various railway and other construction projects taking place in and around Durward Street in the forthcoming decade; including, significantly, the construction of the Crossrail station at Whitechapel and associated works.

89.  In the circumstances we are very pleased that negotiations between the residents and the Promoter seem to be progressing well, that undertakings have been given, and that progress has been made towards putting in place mitigations to lessen the disturbance the residents will suffer. We would encourage the Petitioner to continue to communicate with the Promoter, and vice versa, to ensure that information is shared and concerns are brought out and discussed.

Trustees of the SS Robin Trust

90.  The Trustees first appeared before the Committee on 19 March but asked for more time to continue their constructive negotiations with the Promoter. We were happy to accede to this request. On 1 May the Petitioners returned, having reached agreement with the Promoter, to read a brief statement.

91.  The SS Robin is the oldest surviving working complete steamship in the world and is docked at the West end of North Dock which is part of the West India Quay dock complex in the Isle of Dogs. The parties have agreed that the ship will be removed from the dock for necessary maintenance work before Crossrail works start and will then be returned and 'locked in' for the duration of the works by the construction of temporary coffer dams to enable the Isle of Dogs station to be constructed under the middle of the dock. In the event that the vessel cannot be returned in time to be 'locked in' it will be brought to an alternative, suitable mooring until it can return to West India Quay once Crossrail works have been completed. These arrangements involve material financial support, which includes support from the Promoter.

92.  We are very pleased that such an agreement has been reached and thank both parties for the constructive way in which they approached negotiations.

Association of West India Dock Commercial Ship Owners

93.  The Association represents four vessels which are presently moored in the western part of West India dock, near the SS Robin—the Leven is Strijd, which operates as a licensed restaurant, St Peter's Church Barge, The Prins, which operates as a commercial art gallery, and The Dana, an office and home to Mr and Mrs Cartwright. Mr Cartwright appeared as agent on behalf of all Petitioners.

94.  At the time of the Select Committee proceedings in the House of Commons it was thought that it would be necessary to relocate the vessels for the duration of the works. Under current construction arrangements, however, relocation is no longer needed. Instead, like the SS Robin, the vessels will be 'locked in' for the construction works. The Petitioners' concern was to obtain clarity and satisfaction as to the compensation arrangements that are in place to cover disturbance costs and other losses which might arise from the vessels' loss of the right of private navigation in and out of the dock for the duration of the Crossrail works in this location.

95.  The Petitioners were afforded the opportunity to air some of their concerns regarding compensation and we hope they benefited from the opportunity to further explore their concerns with the Promoter. Both parties agreed that they would go away and continue negotiations with a view to coming to a private arrangement to alleviate the Petitioners' concerns (paras 6452 and 6508).

Canary Wharf Group plc

96.  The Canary Wharf Group plc proposed an amendment to clause 6 of the Bill to remove the Promoter's ability to extend their right to serve a Notice to Treat[22]. At present the Bill allows the Promoter five years to serve a Notice to Treat after which the Promoter can have a further five years to serve a notice subject to Parliament's agreement to such an extension through the Special Parliamentary Procedure, a rigorous scrutiny progress. The Canary Wharf Group wished to amend the Bill to remove this right to an extension of the further five years.

97.  We are not minded to accept the amendment proposed by the Petitioner. Accepting the amendment would set a precedent for other petitioners who may be similarly affected and, more importantly, the protection afforded to the Petitioner under the Bill as it currently reads is, to our minds, sufficient.

Souzel Properties Ltd

98.  Souzel Properties Ltd appeared to ask the Committee to encourage the Promoter to strengthen the agreement they had drawn up with the Petitioner. The Petitioners wanted the Committee to require the Promoters to give them an undertaking stating that they would buy their property after Royal Assent in any event.

99.  We are not minded to accede to the Petitioner's request. We ask that the Promoter put the agreement they have made with the Petitioner, in its current form, into a binding undertaking but we do not ask the Promoter to strengthen it. The Petitioners are afforded sufficient protection under the agreement as it currently stands and we note that the agreement is in line with statutory provision for compensation.

City of London Corporation

100.  The City of London Corporation reached agreement with the Promoter shortly before their scheduled hearing and so did not appear. We were pleased to learn that the Corporation had reached agreement with the Promoter on all counts and that a document would be drawn up setting out the agreement in due course.

Mr Michael Pritchett

101.  Mr Pricthett occupies a flat in a building which will be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of constructing Crossrail. The Committee are grateful to him for taking the time to present his petition and hope that the opportunity gave him a chance to explore his concerns with the Promoters fully and get them on the public record.

102.  The Petitioner argued that the Statutory Home Loss Payment he was entitled to, under the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973, was insufficient. The Statutory Home Loss payment is currently 10% of the market value of the property but there is a cap on the maximum payment. This cap is currently £44,000 and was set by a statutory instrument in mid 2007. £44,000 is less than 10% of the value of some properties affected in central London, including the Petitioner's own, and the Petitioner argued that this was an unsatisfactory situation as he felt, mistakenly it appears, that the original intention of the 1973 Act had been to award homeowners 10% of the market value of their property in the event of compulsory purchase[23], as an addition to the market value itself.

103.  The Petitioner therefore asked the Committee to amend the provisions of the Land Compensation Act, as it relates to Crossrail, to remove the maximum cap on the Home Loss Payment to ensure that all property owners affected received 10% of the market value of their property as the compensatory payment.

104.  Additionally, the Petitioner had concerns over the timing of compulsory purchase and over the provisions potentially enabling residents to reacquire land once the works are complete.

105.  In the light of the Petitioner's representations the Committee thought it prudent to get more information on Home Loss Payments and a note was provided to the Committee by the Promoter. That note is published as Appendix 5 to this Report.

106.  The current cap on the value of the Home Loss Payment (£44,000) was last set in a Statutory Instrument made only last year and we are not minded to alter this cap in relation to those affected by the Crossrail Bill.

107.  We have come to the conclusion that Mr Pritchett's argument that the Land Compensation Act 1973 intended that homeowners displaced by compulsory purchase should be entitled to 10% of the market value of their home as an additional compensatory payment for involuntary ejection from their homes is misguided. Under Section 30 of the 1973 legislation as enacted, the amount of a Home Loss Payment was calculated by a specified multiplier of the rateable value of the dwelling and this amount was subject to specified minimum and maximum payments. Provision was made for the Secretary of State, from time to time, to alter both the multipliers and the specified minimum and maximum payment amounts.

108.  Domestic rating was abolished with effect from 1 April 1990, and in response to this the statutory rules for determining the amount payable by way of Home Loss Payment were changed in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Under this Act, a qualifying owner-occupier displaced from his home was to receive 10% of the market value of his interest in the dwelling, subject to minimum and maximum payments. Again, provision was made for the Secretary of State to set different minimum and maximum payment amounts by way of regulations.

109.  Figures provided to us by the Promoter[24] show that in 1973 the maximum Home Loss Payment happens to have been 15.09% of the average UK house price. In 2007 the maximum Home Loss Payment was 19.86% of the average UK house price. Mr Pritchett made the point that London house prices are substantially higher than the average UK house price. However, the maximum Home Loss Payment in 2007 was still 12.86% of the average London house price.

110.  As regards the Petitioner's other concerns we are satisfied that the Petitioner is afforded sufficient protection under existing Crossrail policies and statutory provisions which give dispossessed owners an opportunity to participate in redevelopment of the site of their former properties.

Mr Roy Carrier

111.  Mr Carrier had concerns over the combined impact of traffic flows generated in the area of Abbey Wood from the proposed Crossrail station at Abbey Wood and other proposed future transport works in the vicinity (namely the Thames Gateway Bridge and the Greenwich Waterfront Transit), not related to Crossrail. Traffic modelling should also include any impact on traffic flows in the area connected to the Channel Tunnel station at Ebbsfleet.

112.  During the course of the House of Commons proceedings the Promoter agreed Undertaking No.153 with Bexley Council which paved the way for further dialogue on traffic management in the area between themselves, Bexley, and Greenwich Borough Council in the forthcoming months and years. We note that shortly before Mr Carrier's hearings the Promoter agreed to expand Undertaking No.153, given to Bexley, to make it clearer and more specific.

113.  The revised undertaking commits the Promoter to continuing "discussions with the London Borough of Bexley, in consultation with the London Borough of Greenwich with a view to agreeing the highway improvements that may be necessary to mitigate the impact of the Crossrail scheme associated with passengers arriving and departing from Abbey Wood Station". Furthermore, the undertaking commits the Promoter to funding "reasonable transport measures that are agreed by the London Borough of Greenwich, the London Borough of Bexley and the Promoter to be reasonably necessary in order to mitigate the impact of the Crossrail project as a result of passengers arriving at and departing from Abbey Wood Station".

114.  We hope that this expanded undertaking will give further reassurance to the Borough Council and to Mr Carrier and other residents in the area. We are grateful to Mr Carrier for raising these issues before us.

The House of St Barnabas-in-Soho

115.   The Petitioners, Mr David Duncan Coode Monro and Reverend Adam Scott, are the Holding Trustees of the charity in the House of St Barnabas-in-Soho. The Petitioner's premises, at 1 Greek Street and on the northern side of Manette Street, are Grade I listed and of historic importance, containing an important cantilevered staircase and elaborate plasterwork ceilings. Additionally, at present, a mobile tuberculosis x-ray screening service, provided by University College Hospital, is operating in the property.

116.  The Petitioners raised concerns over ground settlement before the Committee and also had some worries about the ability of the Trustees to secure compliance with undertakings given to the Trust in the unlikely event that in the future the nominated undertaker should experience financial difficulties, or in a worst case scenario, become insolvent.

117.  The Petitioner's premises have been through Phase 3, Iteration 1 of the settlement assessment process and will go through further assessment, including detailed appraisal and the identification of appropriate protective and preventative measures, before construction work begins. At the time of the petition hearing the Promoter was negotiating a bespoke Settlement Deed with the Petitioners which would allow for certain additional provisions, including the meeting of reasonable costs for a number of experts whom the Petitioners would wish to have instructed to participate in the process of appraising the premises and providing for their protection against any potential damage inflicted by the Crossrail scheme. The expert witness for the Petitioners himself concluded that it would be "impossible" to identify and commit to particular mitigation measures at this stage (para 7895)—the work is ongoing and is necessarily so. We therefore believe and expect that the Petitioners' premises will be afforded adequate protection against damage related to ground settlement as a result of the Crossrail works. Furthermore, we expect the Petitioners to be informed at the earliest possible time of the specific measures that will be taken to protect their property from damage caused by ground settlement, especially if these would affect the tuberculosis screening service.

118.  The Petitioners' second concern—over the hypothetical situation in which the liabilities undertaken by the Promoter are transferred to a nominated undertaker which then becomes insolvent—led them to ask us to amend the Bill so that, were that hypothetical situation to materialise, liability for the project would revert to the Promoter. Though we acknowledge the genuine concern of the Petitioners we are not minded to accede to this request. In the unlikely event that the nominated undertaker becomes insolvent during the construction phase, or at any other time, the Heads of Terms document[25] provides for step-in rights for the Secretary of State who would of course be anxious to ensure the completion of the scheme.

119.  We do however emphasise here the necessity for the Secretary of State to ensure that there is a continuing responsibility for the construction, maintenance and operation of Crossrail—this will be a matter of concern for everyone whose property would otherwise be affected by the failure of a nominated undertaker, and for the public at large.

Smithfield Market Tenants' Association

120.  The Petitioners obtained from the House of Commons Select Committee a recommendation for ameliorative measures to protect them against repercussions from the Crossrail works at the Farringdon ticket hall. As a result of this recommendation the Promoters offered an undertaking[26] in an attempt to protect the Petitioners. The Petitioners appeared before this Committee in the House of Lords because they consider that that undertaking is insufficient properly to protect them.

121.  The problem arises in this way: the Market deals in boxed meat, which arrives and departs in sealed containers, and in carcasses. These latter are transported in lorries which load and unload in sealed docking facilities which are to be found on the north and south frontages to the market. Under European law carcasses must not be kept at a temperature higher than 7 degrees centigrade and there is a strict inspection regime, enforced by a permanent team, which also ensures that they are not contaminated by airborne particles. Contamination leads to the classification of the meat as unfit and such meat must then be destroyed.

122.  Work to the Crossrail Farringdon ticket hall will take place at the eastern end of the market, off Lindsey Street. The original works scheme included substantial work in and below the eastern end of the market but changes in the plans for Thameslink trains, which also run through Farringdon, should now allow for the vast majority of the Crossrail work to be confined to the east side of Lindsey Street. The Promoters are making careful arrangements for dust suppression throughout the scheme but are proposing particularly stringent measures in the Lindsey Street vicinity (which has been categorised as a tier 3 site for these purposes[27]).

123.  We fully understand the Petitioners' concerns. The Petitioners wish to obtain protection which goes beyond the undertaking already agreed. Their concerns turn on what in the provisions for compulsory purchase is known as 'injurious affection'—even if none of a claimant's property is to be acquired the construction and then the use of proposed works may adversely affect a claimant's land or business carried out on it. There are limits in the general law on the extent to which this will attract compensation—Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 reproduced the provisions in Victorian legislation in this respect[28]. The entire code for compensation has been reviewed by the Law Commission but their 2003 and 2004 Reports[29] have not been implemented by Government legislation. Undertaking No.234, as agreed, provides for compensation of this sort but only in cases where it can be shown that the nominated undertaker has acted unreasonably and not in accordance with undertakings and assurances given.

124.  The Petitioners requested us to recommend the insertion into the Bill of a new special clause providing them with comprehensive compensation for 'injurious affection'—if we accepted this recommendation the amendment would be brought forward by the Department for Transport during public bill proceedings in the House. The Promoters noted that the petitioners' proposal did not accord with the Law Commission's recommendations on this issue. Furthermore we recognise that it would be very difficult to change compensation provisions for one Petitioner without offering the same provisions to all similarly affected along the route and we do not wish amend this Bill to anticipate a change in general law. We therefore did not accede to the Petitioners' request for a new clause.

125.  As an alternative way forward the Petitioners asked for an undertaking from the Promoters in a form which would amount to a comprehensive indemnity—there is no novelty in this request since a number of Petitioners have likewise requested indemnities for their own particular perceived problems with the Crossrail scheme.

126.  We also did not accede to the Petitioners' request for such an undertaking. However, we have sympathy with the Petitioners' particular predicament and spent a good deal of time in Committee looking at the Deed the Promoters have offered to the Petitioners. We asked both parties to go away and see if the Deed might be strengthened to provide the Petitioners with some additional comfort, short of the full indemnity they requested.

127.  In response to our request the parties met and agreed amendments to the undertaking to be given to individual traders. The undertaking includes a substantial section on compensation which provides for, amongst other things, compensation "under clause 2.1 in any case where a Trader suffers losses arising from the condemnation of meat by environmental health officers in consequence of dust emanating from authorised works being carried out adjacent to the market". It also allows for compensation "under clause 2.1 in any case where a trader suffers loss from the removal of loading bays on the market side of Lindsey Street".

128.  We are satisfied that the content of this undertaking will now give petitioners adequate protection and are grateful to the parties for their efforts in reaching such an agreement.

Contaminated land at Smithfield

129.  A member of the Committee raised with the Promoter the possibility that there could be anthrax spores contained within a burial pit in the area of Charterhouse Square. The Promoter is aware, from the contaminated land assessment in the Environmental Statement, that there is a burial pit in the area known as the Charterhouse Outer Cemetery, which may extend over the site of the Farringdon East ticket hall.

130.  In accordance with the methodology set out in the Environmental Statement the Charterhouse Outer Cemetery site would constitute a medium or high risk. Under that methodology the site therefore requires further investigation including soil sampling and analysis. The investigation is itself carried out in accordance with best practice and in carefully controlled conditions. This work is currently in the course of being commissioned.

131.  If that investigation shows that there are anthrax spores in the ground then there is a well established methodology for dealing with the contaminated land. This closely follows the methodology for removing asbestos from a site. The contaminated area is sealed and all operatives are issued with special protective equipment. The contaminated material is then removed in sealed containers and taken to appropriately licensed sites to be disposed of under highly secure conditions.

132.  In these circumstances, the Committee is satisfied that if anthrax is found during the works at Farringdon East it will be appropriately dealt with.

Paddington Residents' Active Concern on Transport

133.  Paddington Residents' Active Concern on Transport (PRACT) appeared before the Committee to seek protection from the adverse effects of Crossrail construction and operation. PRACT supported the petition of the Westbourne Park Villas Residents' Association (who appeared on the following day) regarding the surface section of railway around Paddington and the footbridge over the tracks.

134.  PRACT are a very active local residents group who have been continuing a constructive dialogue with the Promoter for some time and have been closely involved with the Paddington Liaison Group. As a result of their meetings with the Promoter PRACT had resolved that there was one major issue outstanding for them—the local impact of decisions yet to be taken during the detailed design phase of Crossrail.

135.  The Petitioners accept that that detailed design work may well alleviate their concerns but at present there is uncertainty. The Petitioners further accept that all designs for rail-connected structures, for which planning permission is conferred by the Bill once enacted, will be subject to Schedule 7 procedure, under which the nominated undertaker puts detailed designs to qualifying local authorities with an eight-week period for the authority to state reasonable grounds for objection.

136.  The Petitioners are confident that they will be consulted by the local authority under this procedure but they are concerned that they have much to offer before this procedure is reached and that they may not be able to contribute as they would wish to do. PRACT believe that they could offer useful inputs to the design process during its early stages because of their local knowledge and they seek an opportunity to do so.

137.  In order to ensure they can contribute in this way PRACT would like the existing Liaison Group to be adapted. They believe that Crossrail should undertake to call, on an ad-hoc basis, more frequent meetings of the Group when required during the detailed design stage. They suggested that small subsections of the Group could be called to contribute as appropriate.

138.  PRACT also raised concerns over sub-surface construction consultation, the design of the Crossrail Paddington station, including provision for taxi ranks, noise from trains and the removal of spoil by lorry in the vicinity of Paddington station.

139.  The Committee wishes to thank the Petitioners for the time and effort put into their petition and for the constructive way in which they have approached the petitioning process. We are pleased that the Paddington Liaison Group has been working well and we are further pleased that the Petitioner has confidence in their local authority and has no doubt that they will be consulted, as they ought to be, during detailed design work on Crossrail. We look to the local authority to ensure that the Petitioner is fully consulted and that the Liaison Group remains effective and responsive to the needs of its members.

140.  We hope that the Promoter's responses to PRACT's other concerns were useful to the Petitioners. They can be found in brief at paragraphs 10844-10847 of the transcript.

Westbourne Park Villas Residents' Association

141.  The Petitioners raised two main issues: the footbridge over the railway tracks near the Petitioners' homes and noise resulting from the construction and operation of Crossrail in the Paddington vicinity.

142.  The Promoter accepts that the footbridge is an important pedestrian link which runs from the residential area in the south through to the area to the north of the tracks, the site of the newly built Westminster Academy. The bridge is well used and a source of much campaigning by residents who feel that it is an attractive site for criminals, partly because it kinks in the middle and is poorly lit, and for other reasons. We asked the residents to provide crime statistics for the bridge which they duly produced. The statistics show that in the past eighteen months two crimes have been committed on the bridge and that it is used as a 'getaway' for criminals who have committed offences on either side of the tracks. The bridge belongs to Network Rail and falls within the area of Westminster City Council.

143.  Crossrail needs to heighten the northern span of the bridge to allow new tracks to go underneath but otherwise does not need to do extensive work on the bridge. However, the Promoter has agreed to do further work to make the bridge fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 [DDA] as a result of representations before the House of Commons Select Committee, and to light the bridge appropriately.

144.  Ideally, the Petitioners would like the bridge to be re-built to remove the kink, but, failing that, they have been campaigning hard for improvements to the bridge including the installation of suitable lighting, concave mirrors, the lowering of the bridge sides and re-painting. They have been successful in gaining some funding for such improvements to the bridge and surrounding areas from the National Lottery through Sustrans, an organisation which promotes sustainable transport.

145.  Progress was made on the issue of the footbridge during the Petitioners' hearing. The Petitioners accepted that the Promoter was not prepared to go any further, in terms of physical works to the bridge, than the works they had already committed to, namely to raise the northern span of the bridge, to make it fully DDA compliant and to provide lighting. However, the Promoter agreed to work together with Network Rail and the Paddington Liaison Group to bring forward the works to the bridge with reasonable expedition. The bridge will be made DDA compliant at the same time as the northern span is raised and the lighting will be put in at a suitable time to be agreed with Westminster City Council.

146.  We support such joint working and strongly recommend that the relevant parties continue to discuss the issue and work together to ensure the works on the bridge are completed expeditiously and satisfactorily to all concerned.

147.  The Petitioner also raised the issue of noise in the vicinity of their properties. They recognise that they live in a 'noise hot spot' as their properties overlook the railway tracks and the Westway but argued that the cumulative effect of noise on the railway resulting from various different schemes and railway operations was becoming intolerable. They noted that, to date, no detailed noise study had yet been carried out in their vicinity. To mitigate the impact of the Crossrail scheme on the already noisy environment the Petitioners asked the Committee to require the Promoters to construct a noise barrier on top of the existing wall which runs between their properties and the railway tracks.

148.  The Promoter accepted that since the initial noise study had been undertaken in the vicinity of Westbourne Park Villas for the purposes of the Environmental Statement the noise environment from the railway at this location had changed. Old engines on high-speed Great Western Main Line trains have recently been replaced with a newer form of engine which produces substantially less noise.

149.  This means that background noise in the location has fallen and so the contribution of noise of Crossrail trains is likely to be proportionately higher. As a consequence of this, when the next stage of noise assessment is carried out in this location more properties in the area might become eligible for noise insulation measures.

150.  One current noise source derives from diesel locomotives which bring aggregates, often at night, to the batching plant. Under the Crossrail scheme, this batching plant is to be relocated and trains supplying it will stop well to the west of their current terminus.

151.  The Petitioners argued that, aside from any noise insulation they might be entitled to, residents should be further protected from the noise of Crossrail trains by a noise barrier to be erected on top of the existing wall (which was plainly built as a noise barrier, among other uses) which runs along Westbourne Park Villas. The Petitioners argued that the installation of a one and a half metre high barrier on top of the existing wall would result in a 3dB drop in noise level in the vicinity which they said would be a halving of unwanted noise.

152.  The Promoter was clear that a noise barrier would be a complicated undertaking and would be disruptive and expensive to erect—figures were given in the region of five million pounds. The Promoter also called evidence which suggested that the existing wall would not be able to sustain the wind blow effect of an additional structure, even one of only one and a half metres in height. Furthermore, complications were anticipated because the wall is in a conservation area. The Petitioners did not put forward a design for the barrier or any costings, and we accept this would have been a difficult undertaking for them as lay people, but they disputed the Promoter's figures and thought the barrier could be built for a far lesser sum.

153.  We do not recommend that the Promoter constructs the noise barrier as requested by the Petitioners. We accept that the construction of such a barrier would be complex, disruptive and expensive and we are not convinced there would be much to be gained from such a use of funds as there are serious doubts about its effectiveness in any event.

154.  We understand that residents have been genuinely concerned that a detailed noise study has not yet been undertaken. However, we hope they have benefited from listening to the Promoter and that they are now reassured that such a study will be undertaken and that the results of that study will be publicly available. Following this study, where appropriate, noise insulation measures will be offered to affected residents.

155.  We want to emphasise that the Petitioners' relationship with the Promoters does not end here and we encourage the Petitioners to maintain a constructive dialogue with the Promoters through Royal Assent to the construction phase and thereafter.

Hammerson (Paddington) Limited and Domaine Developments Limited

156.  The Petitioner's agent appeared on 7 May to read out a short statement confirming that the Petitioner had reached agreement with the Promoter over the future of their development proposals near the mainline station. The agreement was read onto the record (paras 12217-12222) and will become a deed between the parties in due course. The Committee is grateful to both parties for their efforts in reaching agreement.

Mr John Payne

157.  Mr Payne asked the Committee to require the Promoter to install floating slab track along the running tunnels in the vicinity of his property. Mr Payne claimed that he should be eligible for the use of floating slab track under the House of Commons Select Committee's '15 metre rule' because he disputed the accuracy of the Promoter's diagrams showing the depth of the running tunnels under his property.

158.  The Petitioner claimed the running tunnels would be at a depth of approximately 14 metres under his property. The Promoter called evidence and made clear that there was no possibility that upon construction either the westbound running tunnel or the eastbound running tunnel under the Petitioner's property will be at a level which is less than 15 metres below the basement of the property. The top of the tunnels will be at a depth of approximately 23.7 metres under the Petitioner's property and the track will be approximately 29 metres below the basement of the Petitioner's property (para 12456).

159.  These measurements are shown on the deposited plans, subject to the limits of deviation, and once this Bill becomes law the Promoter cannot excavate tunnels at the depth which the Petitioner fears they will. We therefore do not accept Mr Payne's case and do not require the Promoter to install floating slab track at this location.

160.  The Petitioner also raised the issue of the Hyde Park emergency intervention shaft (near the Victoria Gate). We understand that the Promoter is still in discussions with the emergency services as to whether a shaft is required at this location (and indeed at other locations). Clearly, if it is decided that it is not needed, disruption at this location would be minimised but we understand that the decision needs to be made by the proper authorities, including the emergency services, and is not one for us.

161.  On compensation, which was raised in the Petitioner's written submissions, we are satisfied that the Petitioner is adequately protected. The Promoter made clear that he is entitled, in principle, in the event that his property sustains 'injurious affection' by virtue of the impact of the Crossrail scheme, to make a claim under Section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

Residents Society of Mayfair and St James's, the Mayfair Action Group; Mr Leo Walters; and the Crossrail Coalition of Residents and Petitioners

162.  The Residents Society of Mayfair and St James's and the Crossrail Coalition presented their petitions jointly with the same Counsel. Mr Leo Walters presented his petition immediately following theirs but in effect gave support to the combined presentation on behalf of both petitioners.

163.  The Petitioners asked the Committee is consider three distinct issues: the deletion of clause 21 of the Bill, the provision of an independent advice and assistance agency and a Supplementary Environmental Statement on what has come to be known as the Cavendish Square alternative route.

164.  Clause 21 of the Bill deals with proceedings in respect of statutory nuisance. The clause provides that local authorities will safeguard the interests of residents in respect of nuisance. All local authorities have agreed a construction plan which will apply under Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. In consequence of this, the clause also removes the ability of residents to take statutory nuisance cases to the courts. It would be for the local authorities to enforce any breach of the conditions of the construction plan.

165.  The Petitioners asked for this clause to be deleted to enable them to take statutory nuisance cases to court if necessary. The Petitioners do not have confidence in their local authorities to protect their interests and so asked for this clause to be deleted to give them more control, as they saw it, over action to be taken arising from statutory nuisance.

166.  Secondly, the Petitioners asked for an independent advice and assistance service to be set up for the benefit of all those affected by Crossrail. The suggestion was that that service might have experts in various fields available to those affected so that they could seek independent, expert advice. The Petitioners did not present detailed proposals for this service and had not costed the suggestion.

167.  Lastly the Petitioners raised the issue of the Cavendish Square alignment and asked the Committee to recommend that a Supplementary Environmental Statement be completed for this alignment. The Petitioners claimed that they did not necessarily want the route to be re-aligned in consequence of such a statement but that they wanted a comparative exercise to be done between the statement for the Cavendish Square alignment and the Bill scheme route. If the Cavendish Square alignment were to emerge as a 'less harmful' route the Petitioners felt they would be entitled to more extensive mitigation measures to protect themselves and their properties from any harm that might be caused by Crossrail.

168.  We are not minded to require the deletion of clause 21 of the Bill. Clause 21 is needed so that the nominated undertaker knows what work it can carry out without the threat of a member of the public taking a case to the magistrates' court. The local authorities have been charged with protecting residents from statutory nuisance and have together drawn up a construction plan which has to be adhered to by the nominated undertaker. The substance of the clause was included in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act—it is a sensible provision and does not in any way remove the power of local authorities to step in where the nominated undertaker breaches the Section 60 agreement[30].

169.  We are further not minded to require the setting up of a form of independent advice/assistance service. We are satisfied that there is adequate protection for those affected under current proposals. The Promoter will run a 24 hour helpline which will be available to anyone with concerns during the construction phase of Crossrail. The Promoter will also appoint an independent Complaints Commissioner who will act as a form of Ombudsman. We believe and expect that this person will be of suitable stature to take on such an important role (paras 12997-13001).

170.  The Petitioners and all others affected by Crossrail will also be protected by their local authority. We agree with the Promoter that local authorities are taking on a suitable and sensible role as regards Crossrail. Local authorities are democratically elected to represent the interests of all local people. They have access to relevant expertise and can advise residents accordingly. Under Schedule 7 to the Bill, and Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the local authorities have an extensive set of powers that they can use on behalf of local residents. It is unfortunate that some Petitioners have expressed reservations about the competence of their local authorities but that is not adequate reason to spend funds on another advice service without a clear purpose or rationale beyond what is already on offer to those affected by Crossrail.

171.  We do not require the Promoter to carry out a Supplementary Environmental Statement for the Cavendish Square alignment. We consider that such an exercise would be costly, in financial terms, and in terms of time, as it would involve extensive consultation with those who would be affected by the alternative route. We believe that cost would be unjustified. We accept the Promoter's case that there are no clear advantages to the Wigmore Street/Cavendish Square alignment and that it was never considered to be a 'main alternative' and so was not included in the Environmental Statement.

12   Under examination it was established that only one central arch of the bridge appeared to have been built by Brunel and the remaining outer arches were added in about 1919.  Back

13   House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Special Report, Session 2006-07, HC 235-I, para 92 Back

14   ibid., paras 93-95 Back

15   Issues that we discuss further in paragraphs 60-65. Back

16   Property owners whose property lies within 30 metres on plan of the running tunnels (para 3337) Back

17   For more details of the visit see Appendix 2 Back

18   For more details of this visit see Appendix 2 Back

19   A swept path diagram shows the area taken by a vehicle making a turning movement and is used to check whether a manoeuvre can be made in the space available. It is produced by a computer simulation package such as Autotrack and can be specified for a wide range of vehicles. The vehicle can be placed on a suitable scale plan on the computer and "driven" to create the swept path of the vehicle. This includes not only the wheel track but also any overhang of the vehicle's body as it turns. The computer program contains information about the vehicle's wheelbase, body dimensions and steering capability. For the assessment of construction traffic entering and leaving worksites we have used a large 4 axle tipper lorry which is typical of the type of lorry which will be used to remove excavated material. Swept paths have been shown to have a good correlation with what actually happens on the ground. Back

20   Details of lorry movements in Route Window C8, which includes both the Hanbury Street shaft and Whitechapel station, are available in Supplementary Environmental Statement 3, Table 8.1. This table can be found online at: Back

21   Undertaking number 187 on the Register of Undertakings and Assurances Back

22   A Notice to Treat is a formal notice served upon an owner of an interest in land by an Authority with the benefit of compulsory powers giving formal notice of intention to purchase under compulsory powers and usually giving a period after which possession of the premises will be taken. The notice also usually invites an owner to submit a claim for compensation. A Notice to Treat represents implementation of the compulsory powers and commits the authority to purchase the land interest of the owner upon whom a Notice has been served and can only be withdrawn by agreement with the landowner. Back

23   The Petitioner's argument can be found in full in paras 6720-6727 in the transcript.  Back

24   In the note provided to the Committee in the week commencing 21 April 2008-see Appendix 5. Back

25   The Heads of Terms document can be found online at: Back

26   Undertaking No.234 in the Register of Undertakings and Assurances Back

27   Dust control is dealt with under the Crossrail Construction Code (see Information Paper D1). Three levels of control are planned with Tier 3 being the most advanced. Back

28   The wording of subsection 2 of this provision indicates that it is based upon section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845: "This section shall be construed as affording in all cases a right to compensation for injurious affection to land which is the same as the right which section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 has been construed as affording in cases where the amount claimed exceeds fifty pounds". This view is confirmed by Keith Davies in Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation (1984):" [Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845] has been re-enacted, without being repealed, in section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965" (page 183). Back

29   The Law Commission's Reports are entitled Towards A Compulsory Purchase Code: (1) Compensation Final Report, (LAW COM No 286, December 2003: Cm 6071) and Towards A Compulsory Purchase Code: (2) Procedure Final Report, (LAW COM No 291, December 2004: Cm 6406) and can be found on their website at:  Back

30   Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008