Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 339)
320. Two, I am told.
(Mr Smith) I have to say both owners did not progress with
that claim because they managed to sell their property quite amicably
on the market without serious impact on the price. That is why
they went away. As the scheme gets closer I think this could become
more real than it has been previously.
321. BARONESS FOOKES: This hardship policy
is a voluntary add-on by Crossrail; it is not part of the statutory
arrangements which you have described and which I disliked.
(Mr Smith) Absolutely. This is to cover the point that I
think you have quite properly raised.
322. MR MOULD: If it helps, just to slot
it in precisely to the statutory regime that we have discussed,
it slots in, really, as an add-on to the statutory blight notice
provisions, because it relates to properties which bear many of
the characteristics of the blight scheme, but they fall outside
the safeguarding limits of the railway itself. If your Lordships
do want to see a little more detail about this policy and the
circumstances which it is intended to capture, it is set out in
Information Paper C8 which you have in your packs.
323. LORD SNAPE: Can I ask, my Lord Chairman,
what would be the situation in the event of a business owner affected
by this scheme when subsequently it was decided not to go ahead
with the purchase of that person's business because, let us say,
a ventilation shaft had been moved and it was no longer necessary
to acquire the property? What compensation would be payable, if
any, in those circumstances?
(Mr Smith) I think it depends on the circumstances of the
case. However, let us assume that disturbance is not suffered,
really, until acquisition becomes close. When acquisition is many
years ahead nobody goes around and says: "I'm not going to
buy a sandwich there because it's affected by Crossrail",
but it can be affected, as you quite rightly say, as the acquisition
gets closer and a business starts to say: "Can I service
a contract—can I do this?" I think it is in line with
the principles. We tried to say: "If there is a causal link
between an owner not being able to let contracts and the Crossrail
scheme", even if Crossrail was abandoned, I would suggest,
I would think—and I will defer to Mr Mould—that even
if Crossrail said: "No, we don't want that" but they
have suffered loss caused by Crossrail, then I think compensation
would be payable, but it would have to be a change very late in
the day. If that helps.
General presentation by the Promoters
on ground settlement
324. MR MOULD: I think the question would,
ultimately, have to turn on whether the land was acquired or not.
If land is not acquired then, by definition, there could be no
compensation payable because compensation, as Mr Smith has explained
in earlier slides, is payable following compulsory acquisition.
However, in a case of a business—I think your Lordship had
in mind a small business (Mr Smith's example was a sandwich bar)—which
presently falls within the proposals under the Bill for acquisition
(so it is intended to purchase it for the purposes of the Bill)
then such an owner would be in a position to serve a blight notice,
provided that he fell within the financial limits that we have
mentioned. Envisage a situation where we are moving right up close
to the scheme being built and there is some change in approach
to the scheme (as you said, if a ventilation shaft was not required,
as it turned out) it would be in a position to serve a blight
notice because that would be the sort of position which the statutory
blight provisions are designed to cope with.
325. LORD SNAPE: How close, then, are
we talking about? You passed a comment, or somebody said words
to the effect: " ... must be fairly close to acquisition".
How close is fairly close?
326. MR MOULD: The reality is that somebody
who has a small business premises which they occupy and which
is situated within the line of the railway, such an owner-occupier
would be able to serve a blight notice today and would be able
to serve one hereonafter up until the scheme becomes a reality,
as it were. Obviously, there would come a point, one would expect,
where they would cease to be blighted because they would actually
be acquired. If your Lordship's position was if, as we go on,
they continue to be earmarked for acquisition, that uncertainty
remains, do they have a compensation claim? If they fall within
the scope of what we call the small business criteria, under the
blight provisions, they would be able to secure reverse purchase
and compensation in that way.
327. CHAIRMAN: Mr Smith, thank you very
much. Mr Mould, do I assume that Mr Smith will be here to deal
with any Petitions within reason, who raise these sorts of points?
328. MR MOULD: He will indeed, yes.
329. CHAIRMAN: I hope we are not going
to go into great detail, but if it is a matter of principle Mr
Smith can explain it.
330. MR MOULD: I am sorry to prolong
this, but there is one further point to make in relation to my
Lord, Lord Snape's, question: another way in which such a person's
uncertainty, if you like, can be cured would be if he served a
blight notice and then, of course, the Promoter would have to
come clean and make clear whether he actually was going to acquire
his land or not. If the Promoter's decision at that point was:
"No, I have reviewed the position; we don't, in fact, need
to acquire this property for the purpose of the scheme",
then he would say so and then he would be fixed with that; he
would not be able to change his mind at a later date. So that
would give certainty as well.
331. LORD SNAPE: What about compensation?
Would there be anything payable in those circumstances?
332. MR MOULD: In those circumstances
there would not.
333. LORD SNAPE: Let us move away from
a sandwich bar; let us say a car repair place and someone said,
originally, that the premises were going to be acquired under
Crossrail, therefore the business owner cannot sign a three-year
contract, let us say, to repair another company's vehicles. Then,
within six months, it is decided not to go ahead with the purchase.
In those circumstances—which are perhaps unlikely but not
impossible—would any compensation be payable?
334. MR MOULD: No. As Ms Lieven points
out, the thing for them to do is to pursue negotiations and sign
an agreement with us and secure the position that way.
(Mr Smith) Could I just add, where you have an acquiring
authority (and I am sure Crossrail will follow this) it is essential
to link in with the businesses that are so affected to discuss
with them about their business needs, where they want to relocate
to. There comes a point in that time when a business owner will
say: "But if I look to spend money will you cover that loss?",
and in many cases, and the law is correct, as Mr Mould has said,
if the acquiring authority said: "Yes, I will cover your
loss for looking for alternative premises because, at that time,
I wanted you out", then I think if that is agreed—and
it very often is agreed that these losses are payable because
the owner quite rightly wants to know he is going to get them
back—in principle, if there is an agreement to cover those
losses, then the authority would be held to pay for them. I just
want to emphasise there is a lot of discussion on this at the
front end.
335. MR MOULD: Thank you very much.
336. CHAIRMAN: I think, perhaps, now,
we will take a short break until 11.40 while you change your witnesses
and get Professor Mair into position.
337. MR MOULD: Thank you very much indeed.
338. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Smith.
The witness withdrew After
a short break
339. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, are you ready?
|
