Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16520
- 16539)
16520. If we turn to the next page and turn
to paragraph 3.5.2d, we see (d): "Where the serious effect
(that is to say of Crossrail) is itself a compelling reason to
move", (ii) "If the carrying out of construction works
does or is predicted by the Promoter to affect the enjoyment of
the property for a continuous period of not less than three months
to such an extent that future occupation of that property is not
reasonably practicable". At 3.5.4 you see ground (d) is directly
related to the construction works. In the case of ground (d) (i)
or (ii) : "An offer will not be made to buy earlier than
nine months in advance of the start of the construction works
in the vicinity. If an application under this ground is made early
in the life of the scheme the applicant may be asked to reapply
later".
16521. The final point, turning to the bottom
of the page, is that where we are dealing with this ground of
an application, that is to say the effects of the works themselves,
it is not necessary—as was alerted to by the Petition—also
to show that there have been reasonable endeavours made to sell.
16522. In short order, what Ms Ferguson would
need to do would be to show that the effects of the works themselves
at Hanbury Street, if that worksite goes ahead, would be such
as to make her and her colleagues—
16523. Mr Binley: I think I understand
your point.
16524. Mr Mould: The only point between
us is tiny.
16525. Mr Binley: I do not think it is.
I think you have missed my point. My point is this Committee does
not make the decision about the hardship, but you are saying that
somebody in future will make a decision about whether the hardship
is enough to qualify for the purchase. I am saying, I want a more
positive view than that. I think this is unfair to these people
in the circumstances of this particular set of flats. I am asking
why something more positive cannot be done?
16526. Mr Mould: In that case, sir, you
are asking us to make a radical change to the statutory and particular
extra statutory arrangements that apply in relation to blight.
You are effectively asking us to commit ourselves to buying the
properties of those who we can see are likely in due time to be
seriously affected by the scheme and to buy those properties at
a time when the scheme itself has not yet been passed into law.
That is an extension of the blight provision.
16527. Mr Binley: With respect, that
is not the case. I am asking you to say, "We will buy these
properties if, if, if . . . : and these people will have that
letter and that will give them the support of this Committee without
waiting to see whether or not a view might be given in their favour
at a later date.
16528. Mr Mould: That is why I say I
do not believe there is any difference between us because I have
effectively said that under the terms of the policy, if Crossrail
obtains Royal Assent, if the prediction is that upon the completion
of this detailed design that the works on Hanbury Street—that
being a feature of this scheme—will be to render the occupation
of these intolerable for more than three months, then the Secretary
of State will buy these properties.
16529. Mr Binley: Forgive me, you have
missed my point. This is a very defensive position about "if
hardship" "if this" "if that", I want
a more positive position for these good people who are in this
situation through no fault of their own simply because the nation
wants Crossrail to happen and disturb them. I therefore believe
that they should have some responsibility. That is my view. I
am coming to you because we sit as a Committee to suggest this
and to say, "I want something more positive", and to
say, "We will buy this property if this goes ahead, if the
finances are arranged and if these things occur".
16530. Mr Mould: If this goes ahead,
if the finance is arranged—
16531. Mr Binley: I could say more about
it in more detail but you get the point.
16532. Chairman: Mr Mould, may I interrupt.
I think we need to move on. Many members of the Committee have
made it perfectly clear that they are very sympathetic to these
cases. I ask that that be taken away with you because the only
way we are going to settle this matter is that the Committee will
have to make a decision at some point. Bearing in mind, Mrs Fergusson,
I have got to say to you, we may all be pre-empting because we
have not taken the decision about where such a shaft should be
at the present time. It may not be on the site that we are talking
about, it may be nearby.
16533. Ms Ferguson: I appreciate that,
but I appreciate also that will be a decision the Committee will
make, it maybe that one can follow on from the other.
16534. Chairman: I understand your feelings
on it, but we have also been lobbied by other groups who have
a view and we have to take all of those matters into consideration
which we will do in the future. I think Mr Mould has seen quite
clearly from the responses of the Committee today that if that
decision is taken, then we are fairly sympathetic to the points
which you have raised today in your Petition. I think what we
have got to do is allow Mr Mould to go away with that and come
back to see if any further comfort can be drawn. If it is not,
then the Committee has its option as a full Committee to take
its decision one way or the other.
16535. Mr Pugh: This question is for
Mr Mould. If I am to understand your submission correctly, is
it the case that you never made any commitment throughout the
entire length and breadth of these proceedings that could, in
the event, be covered by the compensation system which requires
the act to go through Royal Assent and so on? That is your argument.
Essentially you are saying the effect may well be the same in
terms of the plaintiff in this case and you are not going to give
that in advance. Looking back over all of the Petitions we have
had with Crossrail, is it the case that in no event have Crossrail
made any concession whatsoever to anybody whose case may, at a
latter date, be covered by the compensation system with or without
statute?
16536. Mr Mould: The reason I hesitated
is that whilst I have a reasonably good knowledge of what we have
done, I do not want to give an answer which is inadvertently a
misleading answer. If you will allow me to consult about that
so I can give an answer which I am confident with.
16537. Chairman: If you cannot come up
with it in the next minute or two then you have only got until
2:30 today or tomorrow morning, it would be helpful.
16538. Mr Mould: If you will allow me
a minute or two I maybe able to answer the point straightaway.
16539. Ms Ferguson: Perhaps while Mr
Mould is checking I can say one thing. I feel very uncomfortable
that the three of us are effectively being sacrificed for the
greater good of many, that sort of argument. I feel very strongly
that they seem to be saying, "Just because it has never been
done before we are not going to do it now". I can understand
why you cannot write a hardship policy that takes into account
everybody's individual situations. To me, that is the whole reason
why we have an exceptional circumstances clause at the end of
it which allows for the reality of people's lives to be taken
into account. Mr Mould has focused a lot purely on the impact
of the project as and when it happens, that is part of it, but
the other part is the impact now, the fact that we cannot sell
these properties. If this project does not go ahead, or if it
is delayed for 50 years, we cannot sell these properties or rent
them out, we are stuck. That is why we are Petitioning.
| 
