How much of the route is safeguarded?

In his Commons briefing paper, Andrew Haylen referred to a TfL Programmes and Investment Committee paper from 2018. According to Haylen, this acknowledged that a risk was emerging related to land and property costs because existing route safeguarding directions “do not reflect the strategic outline business case route alignment”.

However, revisions were postponed “pending the outcome of the funding, financing and affordability work”.

By summer 2019, this process was worrying London politicians. In her motion supporting C2, Caroline Pidgeon said that the “Assembly expresses its concern… that there are insufficient safeguarding directions for Crossrail 2 with only 35% of the current preferred alignment safeguarded”.

She argued there was a “need to update the directions to reflect the new preferred alignment in the central section and include… land needed to build the railway in Hertfordshire and Surrey…”

A request by one landowner to see a full safeguarding map, including proposed revisions to the 2015 route, was refused by TfL, and the decision upheld by the Information Commissioner’s Office in 2019. RAIL sought clarification from the DfT about the London Assembly’s concerns and other aspects of safeguarding. How much more work has been done since July 2019, and where?

“The focus of the discussions with TfL covering Crossrail 2 over recent months has been affordability not safeguarding,” the Department replied.

The DfT says it has had no challenges from landowners to the safeguarding process, but accepts having received six claims under the statutory blight process since 2015 (statutory blight occurs when land needed for public works loses value because of the proposals).

“One has been accepted but not yet been settled,” the DfT added.