6400. MR MOULD: No. Once the dam has been constructed to the east, they are there then until the dam is taken down at the end of the construction phase. It is really in relation to that fact that the principal claim for costs and expenditure is likely to arise, that in practice here which gives rise to the loss of private right of navigation which is compensatable under that provision I mentioned to you. I put up the rest of the letter. It is in the packs in front of you and I do not take any point on this now. I will provide more detailed answers, if necessary, once Mr Cartwright has presented to you.

  6401. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Mould. Mr Cartwright, that letter we have now seen and we would be very grateful to hear from you for what you have to say about it all.

  6402. MR CARTWRIGHT: My Lord, thank you for the opportunity to address you.

  6403. CHAIRMAN: You are entitled to it, you are a Petitioner.

  6404. MR CARTWRIGHT: My Lord, I am very grateful. Thank you. I am not of a legal background, so I will do my best to try and observe the legal procedures.

  6405. CHAIRMAN: You are not alone!

  6406. MR CARTWRIGHT: First, may I say we have been very grateful for the co-operation that we have received from the Promoters of the Bill from Crossrail and I do believe that in respect of compensation, the compensation falls into two parts. First, the concerns we have that the vessels must be insured and that in order to insure them we need to have our insurers, and it is the same insurer for all four vessels, and that insurer is satisfied the vessels have been properly prepared to be landlocked for that period of time. To that end, the insurers at their expense engaged a surveyor to undertake a preliminary investigation and to make recommendations to the insurers, which I have passed to the Promoters on this occasion. The letter you have before you is their response to that. In principle, providing that we are able to agree with the surveyor appointed by Crossrail and we do not end up with a dispute between two surveyors as to exactly what works are required, providing our insurers are content with the works that are proposed and Crossrail are happy to meet the costs of those works, then we are content in regard to the compensation regarding satisfaction of our insurers' requirements.

  6407. On the second part of our request for compensation, my Lord, we are not entitled to any compensation under the Landlords and Tenants Act. Boats are specifically excluded from the Landlords and Tenants Act and, therefore, the only element of compensation which is open to us is the loss of private navigation which comes as part of our mooring agreements with British Waterways. I believe that the Promoter has clearly indicated that they appreciate that there is a loss of navigation and, therefore, I do not propose to detail in what respect that is established, I believe that has been so established.

  6408. CHAIRMAN: I think we understand this very well.

  6409. MR CARTWRIGHT: Thank you.

  6410. CHAIRMAN: You are going to be waterlocked.

  6411. MR CARTWRIGHT: Indeed. May I briefly outline to you the particular circumstances that relate to each of the four craft and explain to you precisely why I believe that compensation is due in each regard, and they are different.

  6412. First of all, the Barge Leven is Strijd, Dutch and meaning "life is a struggle", and never more so than today, this craft has been owned by myself and my wife for approximately 25 years and has been trading as a fully licensed private function suite within the West India Dock complex for all of that time. It has a long-term commercial mooring agreement with British Waterways. The craft's value lies in its long-established business record and its facilities, including the adjacent pontoon area which is part of the licensed area. The barge is my wife's sole business and its eventual sale will fund her retirement. We are aware that, being a small craft, potentially any purchaser of the craft and its licence may well wish to remove the smaller vessel and replace it on the licensed site with a larger craft and, indeed, initial inquiries have indicated from reliable authorities that would be the case. Certainly, while we have no desire at this stage to dispose of our craft, to put our whole business on hold for five years and leave us with no options to progress would place us in some considerable difficulties. The landlocking of the craft really precludes any potential purchaser from varying the circumstances and maximising the full benefit of the business we might wish to dispose of at some point. While we have no plans whatsoever at this stage to do this, we do believe that the situation that places us in clearly fits the situation and entitles us to some compensation, not the least of which, of course, are the other issues relating to the proximity to the works, vibration, noise, et cetera.

  6413. If I may now turn to St Peter's Barge, the floating church, the barge is somewhat restricted in its ability to relocate because it must remain in its own parish and, therefore, it is probably best that it should remain where it is. It is a very popular church with an extensive ministry for the Canary Wharf community. Indeed, perhaps in view of recent events it may be even more popular, indeed so popular it may have to have two sittings on many of its weekly meetings. Despite being by far the largest craft of the four that I represent today, it may very soon be too small. The trustees are currently reviewing their options and the most obvious one would be to look to replace the St Peter with a larger, different craft which would more enable them to extend their ministry within the parish. Clearly, they would need to fundraise for this change of craft and the timescales promoted by Crossrail would mean that it really would not be possible for them to achieve that in the short term. Therefore, it is our view that the St Peter is also constrained by works from being able to be navigated and removed and replaced with a larger vessel and that places some constraints on the activities of the church, though I can hardly call it a business.

  6414. My Lord, if I may turn to the gallery barge, The Prins, the Prenelle Gallery. The Prenelle family have two children and a new baby on the way very soon and live aboard the Barge Prins and operate the craft as a gallery, hosting approximately eight events each year. Dr Prenelle is a consultant within the NHS and can reasonably be expected to need to relocate his family and career as his career in medicine develops. Not being able to move their cherished family home, which they converted themselves to fit their precise family and business needs, impacts heavily on their future options. Again, five years is a long time to put your life on hold unless there is compensation for the lack of ability to move their barge during that period, should they so wish, to a new location.

  6415. Lastly, if I may return to the Barge Dana which is the property of myself and my wife, this was converted by myself over a six-year period to provide a large and well appointed family home and an office and to give us a better quality of life, having lived above the shop on board the smaller barge, the Leven, for some 20-odd years. As with the Leven, we have no plans whatsoever to dispose of that vessel, but I am 61 years of age and I have retirement looming before me and I suddenly find myself again with my life on hold. I have no idea how my circumstances may change during that period, nor have any of my fellow petitioners. We find ourselves, therefore, really frozen for a period of time during which we must carry on and operate as best we can. What I am seeking to achieve for my fellow petitioners is compensation in respect of those exceptional circumstances created by the landlocking of our vessels.

  6416. I have actually proposed a compensation solution to Crossrail which I believe we may further develop in the weeks ahead and that is based around the mooring fees which are charged by British Waterways in respect of each of the vessels, as those fees are actually a reflection of the size, value and whatever of the craft concerned. Our proposal would be that we would ask the Promoters to cover the costs of the mooring fees for those four vessels during the time that they are unable to move and unable to either be disposed of or whatever and the period for which our lives are on hold. In a nutshell, the situation could well arise that one of the families finds itself in difficult circumstances, perhaps through illness or any other disaster that can fall upon a family. Our vessels' value is greatly decreased during the period they cannot be sold as a moving vessel and, therefore, we are in some difficulty and we feel that having certainty that we would not find ourselves forced to continue to pay the mooring fees due to British Waterways during the period when we were unable to remove to a lower cost or dispose of our vessel at a market value would be of very great relief to us to know that we have that compensation. Therefore, my Lord, it is in that area I am seeking your support to encourage the Promoter to consider favourably this proposition. Thank you, my Lord.

  6417. CHAIRMAN: It really depends what is meant by Schedule 2 paragraph 10(2)?

  6418. MR CARTWRIGHT: My Lord, I could draw your attention to the Promoter's Information Paper C2 and in paragraph 3.1 of that Information Paper there is a clear example which is most relevant to the application for compensation.[18] If I briefly summarise—

  6419. CHAIRMAN: 3.1, yes.