Crossrail cost increases

Government spokesman warns petitioners not to press for Crossrail cost increases

In a long and uninterrupted speech on the first day's session of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, Government counsel David Elvin QC spoke of Crossrail as a project for the nation as a whole.

"The three key objectives of Crossrail", he said, "are firstly to support the development of London as a world city and its role as the financial centre of Europe; secondly to support the economic growth of London and its regeneration areas; and thirdly, to improve rail access into and within London".

As readers of CIOB International will know, many of the petitioners against the Bill have commented on the lack of consultation about Crossrail's demands for worksites prior to the Bill being introduced.

As most of them have said, they are very willing to discuss the facilities the project requires and to provide them at much less cost than that which would be incurred by the forcible acquisition of high-value land, some of it already approved for development.

On behalf of the Government, Mr Elvin claimed that there had been very wide consultation over many years and that this had continued during the whole of the development of the Crossrail proposals.

In addition to the three forums organised by the Cross London Rail Links company, including the high level forum chaired by the Transport Under-Secretary of State Derek Twigg, he said there has been extensive consultation not only on the environmental statement published at the same time as the Bill, but on a first and now a second supplementary statement.

The London local authorities, claimed Mr Elvin, apart from what he called points of detail, support the proposals.

In particular the City of London Corporation has been vociferous in its lobbying for Crossrail, seeking to persuade the Government that there should be no delay in bringing it forward.

The City of London of course has a number of 'points of detail' to raise with the Select Committee.

They are rather large details, but in discussions subsequent to its petition a number of these issues have been resolved.

Assurances have for example been obtained regarding methods of construction, the location of the Farringdon cross-over and the suggested worksite at Barbican, resulting in an improved proposal.

Mr Elvin's speech included an important clarification on the use of compulsory purchase powers which have raised strong objections from major landowning interests along the route, at many high-value locations opposing them as unnecessary.

The Bill, he said, confers these powers in two forms: "There are powers of direct compulsory purchase in the sense of taking the land absolutely but there are also powers to enable temporary possession to be taken in certain circumstances".

"The Bill will authorise the stopping up or closure of highways and other public thoroughfares, including navigable waterways".

"With regard to compulsory purchase powers", he explained, "it is considered in the case of those powers that the public interest in acquiring the land to build the project, whether permanently or temporarily, outweighs the interest of owners and occupiers".

"There is of course no sensible way to build a scheme of this size through the nation's capital without acquiring land held by others".

"For that reason of overriding public interest the scheme is compliant with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights".

"The Bill seeks powers for compulsory acquisition within the limits of deviation for the works.

These limits are intended to ensure sufficient flexibility of the detailed design of the scheme.

The full extent of the land within the limits, however, will not necessarily be acquired".

"The Secretary of State has policies which are contained in large part in the information papers the committee has been handed, policies to mitigate the effects of compulsory purchase wherever possible." Compulsory powers as last resort Referring to an information paper given to the Select Committee on land acquisition policy, Mr Elvin said: "What this says in simple terms in that while the Bill generally includes full land acquisition powers, the exercise of those powers in an individual case will operate on the basis that the Secretary of State will seek to exercise the powers only so far as is necessary at the time that the detailed design has been carried out.

"In other words, the compulsory powers in the Bill are for the maximum extent of the Secretary of State's powers to compulsorily acquire, under a policy of taking only so much land as is reasonably required once the detailed design work has been done".

"It should be possible and practicable to acquire in many cases smaller areas of land without compromising the Secretary of State's ability to secure the construction and implementation of the project in a timely and economic manner".

"In accordance with any undertaking given by the Secretary of State in respect of the Bill, agreement will be sought with the landowners where reasonable terms can be reached".

"In other words, the compulsory powers will only be used as a last resort." Government counsel also deemed it necessary to tell the committee what the Bill does not do".

"There are a number of locations in Central London where the Bill seeks powers to demolish buildings, including some which are listed buildings and some which are in conservation areas, but does not seek powers from Parliament to replace those buildings in addition to the operational works needed for construction of the railway, construction of the stations and other associated works such as ventilation and emergency access".

Mr Elvin explained that the replacement buildings which the Bill does not contain powers to authorise are referred to in the environmental statement and elsewhere as OSD, over-site development".

"The form of OSD should be applied for and determined through the normal planning process by the appropriate planning authority, subject of course to the power by the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with such cases on appeal or by virtue of his powers of call-in." He conceded that in areas of very high land values such as Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road there would be a strong financial incentive to redevelop, therefore it was extremely unlikely that only operational works would be constructed at such sites.

On the question of compensation, Mr Elvin said that the Department for Transport takes the view that the national compensation code applying generally should apply equally to Crossrail, on the grounds that it would be neither appropriate nor fair to apply a different system of compensation which is not applicable to similar projects.

Crossrail, he reiterated, will generate enormous benefits for the United Kingdom but the cost of building it is large and funding it presents a major challenge".

"Petitioners may argue for changes that taken by themselves appear small relative to the project as a whole".

"But we do urge the committee when considering the requests of petitioners to bear in mind that the cumulative impact of changes could be significant.

"The Department for Transport and Transport for London are working with CLRL to manage costs tightly and ensure good quality design development".

"In other words, we are looking to keep costs under tight control and, wherever we can, to drive them down, whilst preserving the benefits of Crossrail so that costs can be kept to affordable and acceptable limits".

This admonition may explain why the Select Committee has decided to allocate as many as five days for examination of representations by the Corporation of London and British Land that a reassessment is needed at Liverpool Street station to allow for greater passenger movement capacity.

Back to top