Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10440
- 10459)
10440. Ms Ferguson: For us, personally,
but also for all the other reasons that you have heard from the
Spitalfields Society and the likes of the doctor that you have
just been listening to, we would also say Crossrail should be
looking properly at the impact of all the options not just picking
one to suit the plan that they have. I think you heard a lot from
the Tower Hamlets Borough Council about this and the relative
merits and the relative assessments. I think you also heard from
the Spitalfields Society about looking into the southern option.
The three of us would certainly say it would be our view if you
do not need these shafts, do not put them there; if this is an
alternative, look for it. You as a Committee have heard from people
on behalf of the council, Dr Bower, Dr Whalley, Dr Turner, the
experts. It is possible. It is not impossible to do it and what
we feel is that if there is a way and a will, then it can be done.
10441. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Can I just
stop you just there. One of the things you are obviously concerned
about is rehousing or housing?
10442. Ms Ferguson: Yes.
10443. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Just to cut
you to quick, are you looking for rehousing compensation to stay
where you are or temporary?
10444. Ms Ferguson: We are looking for
rehousing.
10445. Mr Liddell-Grainger: What you
are looking for is permanent rehousing. I let you nod at that
stage, yes. I am quite happy to put this to counsel now, if you
like, because I can understand exactly what you want. I think
this Committee understands, yes, we are happy to ask counsel now.
10446. Ms Ferguson: Crossrail, what they
propose to do? I am happy to ask Crossrail what their proposals
are. I would love to hear. I have been waiting for three years.
10447. Mr Liddell-Grainger: If we get
to the stage where we know what the three of you want and this
is cannot go anywhere else, I am quite happy to ask counsel now
to reply to that. Would that be acceptable?
10448. Ms Ferguson: It is acceptable
to do anything that gets me to my end result, which is to be bought
out.
10449. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I should
ask, Mr Mould, if you can reply to the specific point which the
Petitioners would like their answer.
10450. Mr Mould: The answer is that we
are not prepared to offer permanent rehousing. What we are prepared
to say, what we do say, to you in the light of what you heard
from Mr Thornley-Taylor yesterday is that we accept the impact
of the work site on Hanbury Street under current proposals, particularly
in relation to noise impact, will certainly justify the provision
of noise insulation and will justify temporary rehousing for the
duration of the most significant period of the work. That was
made clear by Mr Thornley-Taylor yesterday. It has been our position
in written responses to the Petitioners. I am not instructed to
make a commitment for permanent rehousing. That is the position.
We have told you what the nature of the noise insulation provisions
that we offer under our mitigation policy are, which is set out
in information paper D9, you have heard evidence about that.[63]
We have explained to you how the housing policy operates. I cannot
tell you precisely what the duration of the housing offer would
be in relation to these resident, but I can tell you that we accept
rehousing would be acceptable for a period of time in this case.
10451. Mr Binley: Might I cut to the
quick because I am sure you believe, as I do, that we would do
unto others as we would have done. I quite frankly would be very
unhappy if this were happening to me, and that is the judgment
I bring to this. I am sure, Mr Mould, in your heart of hearts
you would be very unhappy too. On that basis, are you prepared
to go away and talk to Mr Berryman and the proposers and say to
them "we need to have a bit of human compassion to be applied
here, that this looks to me to be a special case for these three
people" and maybe you can come back to us with a slightly
different proposal?
10452. Mrs James: My concerns are that
this is practically on top of the plan here. It appears to me
unacceptable. I certainly would not be happy if it was happening
next to me and I certainly would be expecting you to go away and
look at this. I echo everything that my colleague has said because
what level of noise insulation would be sufficient to guarantee?
10453. Mr Mould: Of course, the Committee
has put a particular proposal to me. It is a proposal I think
probably for the Secretary of State rather than Mr Berryman, but
I will certainly take instructions on that. I will report back
to you with what those instruction are. I should make it clear,
perhaps in referring to noise insulation at all, I deflect attention
to the real question. As I say, we accept the certainty of noise
insulation and temporary rehousing to provide mitigation to take
the residents away from the work site for the most severe duration
of the works. Now the difference, therefore, between accommodating
them in that way, paying, of course, all the costs of temporary
rehousing and then allowing them to return to the property when
the worst is over or we buy their property straight out. The Secretary
of State will then be able to deal with it as he sees it fit.
That is the choice. It is between temporary rehousing and them
being able to return to their homes at a later stage or them having
financial compensation for their homes straight off.
10454. Mr Binley: Mr Mould, if you are
as happy about what you can do, as you say you are, then purchasing
and having property to resell thereafter is not a problem, is
it?
10455. Mr Mould: Sir, I have told you
I will take the Committee's concerns away and take instructions,
but I thought it right to clarify where the difference between
us lies.
10456. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I will, therefore,
ask on behalf of Ms Ferguson, Mr Collins and Ms Hamilton you do
that because this Committee is concerned looking at the photographs,
we can see exactly where this is, and I think précis to
what Ms Ferguson has got to say, I know that is what she would
want. We accept the realignment; the ideal solution for these
Petitioners, the reality is it cannot be changed, they will be
living on top of a shaft.
10457. Mr Mould: The message is loud
is and clear.
10458. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Therefore,
to come back to the Committee as soon as possible after deliberations.
10459. Ms Ferguson: Can I ask the mechanics
of it. Mr Mould has grossly oversimplified the position. He talks
blithely of moving us out. If admitted, we would be subject to
noise insulation or temporary relocation for 9 to 12 months but
they will not commit themselves that that would be a continuous
programme. What it looks from their timeline schedule is they
seem to have in mind shuffling us out for three months and moving
us back in for a couple of weeks. That is not certainly the way
that we would come; they have not given us any alternative. What
I would like to say is if they are prepared to make proposals
clearly with indications from yourselves on that, how does that
work from my point of view and, practically speaking, will I be
notified?
63 Crossrail Information Paper D9-Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Scheme, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
| 
