Request ID: FOI-3451-2223 Date published: 11 April 2023
You asked
Dear Crossrail 2 Ltd,
The Crossrail 2 route safeguarding published in 2015 extended southwards as far as Wimbledon station.
I understand that extensive remodelling of Raynes Park station was expected to be required in order to deliver Crossrail 2 plans, however this was not included in the original safeguarding.
As design and development of Crossrail 2 plans has been indefinitely paused, with no near-term prospect of resumption or consultation, can I please request the following under the freedom of information act:
- Plans for any station design option(s) that had been developed for Raynes Park
- Plans for potential safeguarding requirements that had been developed for Raynes Park
We answered
TfL Ref: EIR-3451-2223
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 17th March 2023 asking for information about Crossrail 2 plans for Raynes Park station.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and our information access policy.
Specifically you asked:
“The Crossrail 2 route safeguarding published in 2015 extended southwards as far as Wimbledon station.
I understand that extensive remodelling of Raynes Park station was expected to be required in order to deliver Crossrail 2 plans, however this was not included in the original safeguarding.
As design and development of Crossrail 2 plans has been indefinitely paused, with no near-term prospect of resumption or consultation, can I please request the following under the freedom of information act:
- Plans for any station design option(s) that had been developed for Raynes Park - Plans for potential safeguarding requirements that had been developed for Raynes Park “.
I can confirm that we hold the information you require. However, I am afraid that the information is excepted from disclosure under Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The rationale for this is explained below.
Note that for the Crossrail 2 scheme to proceed it would require Ministerial approval. At this present point in time there are no proposed Safeguarding Directions in any published document or in the public domain, and the current Crossrail 2 proposals therefore have no formal status. The current proposals for the scheme, including updates to the Safeguarding Directions, are subject to future change. Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR says that a public authority may refuse to disclose information,“...to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.” If the requested material were to be released, prior to Ministerial approval, this would provide advance information directly affecting residential, commercial and community use properties. These properties are potentially the subject of future acquisitions, if the necessary powers are confirmed by the Government for the future delivery of the project. Once land has been safeguarded it becomes protected and no development should take place without Crossrail 2 being notified, to determine whether it would have an impact on the future ability to build or add to the future costs associated with operating the railway. All land and property has an existing use value reflecting what it is worth in its current form. Anything that might change the status of that land and gives greater certainty about the future development prospects will inevitably add to the value of that land. This ‘hope value’ will increase as the likelihood of new alternative, more profitable, uses for that land become more certain. Release of the requested material - although still subject to potential change - would therefore drive up the cost of land acquisition and inflate the costs for the project.
This exception is subject to consideration of the Public Interest Test, to determine whether the overall balance of public interest rests in the exception applying and the material being withheld, or in releasing it in any event. We appreciate the need for openness and transparency in the operation of our business, and the fact that you have requested the information is in itself an argument in favour of release. However, in this instance we believe that the balance of public interest rests in the exception applying. Any land purchased for the project to proceed will be paid for by the public purse, and there is a very strong interest in protecting public money and achieving the best value for money. Note further that should the project receive formal sign off from the Secretary of State then the information that is requested will be publicly available as part of a public consultation, which further tips the balance of interest in favour of the exception applying.
Note that this approach has been considered previously by the Information Commissioner in relation to another case asking for similar information. The Commissioner upheld the application of the exception, as outlined in the following Decision Notice, which provides more detailed rationale about the application of the exception and the consideration of the Public Interest Test:
