Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3420
- 3439)
3420. MR WHEELER: Thank you. Could I
just ask that this extract from the registry of undertakings and
assurances be put up on the screen because I do not think we have
looked at it hard enough. If we go to the bottom, I think it was
the last undertaking that was highlighted. Let me read it to you.
This is the undertaking we were talking about, let me just check.
3421. CHAIRMAN: Number?
3422. MR WHEELER: 240.[38]
Yes, you were asking whether we were aware. Let me read it: "The
Promoter will also undertake an internal inspection of the buildings
within these contours that are on the English Heritage Buildings
at Risk register to ensure that any particularly sensitive aspects
of these properties are considered in the assessment process.
This does not apply to listed buildings or any other historic
buildings other than those on the Buildings At Risk Register".
It is slightly irrelevant but, in fact, I think I will demonstrate
it is completely irrelevant. There is only one building that is
on the At Risk Register and that is 19 Princelet Street, the synagogue
that we spoke of and illustrated earlier. The reason I say it
is completely irrelevant is that is one of the buildings we persuaded
Crossrail to come around and do an internal inspection of, it
was our initiative. This undertaking is of no use to us at all.
3423. CHAIRMAN: You may like to look
at that, Mr Mould.
3424. MR MOULD: Yes, lest there be any
doubt about it, I do not suggest this is the sum total of the
inspections that we shall be carrying out, but this is a specific
undertaking that we have given in relation to buildings which
fall within that description. Mr Berryman has already explained
to the Committee earlier that there are broader proposals in relation
to inspection. I think he mentioned, for example, that there would
be a process, creating the defects survey would involve internal
inspection of buildings along the route, but I thought it right
to draw attention to this particular provision because it was
one that had been raised and an undertaking given to Parliament
at an earlier stage in the process. It should not be seen as the
only undertaking in relation to this topic, it is one of a number
of provisions that we have referred to during the course of our
evidence.
3425. MR WHEELER: Can I confirm whether
there are any other similar undertakings or not with regard to
listed buildings?
3426. MR MOULD: There is a policy to
which Mr Berryman has referred already and which we referred to
in earlier stages in our submissions to you, in the opening for
example, which is set out at Information Paper D12 which deals
with our approach to settlement. The provisions and the components
of that settlement policy embrace, amongst other things, monitoring
at various stages, inspection for the purposes of preparing schedules
of defects to which you have had reference made already, the approach
we take to assessing and keeping under assessment buildings which
are on the statutory list, our commitment to make good at our
costs any damage that is caused to buildings whether listed or
unlisted as a result of the construction of the railway, a range
of matters. I was proposing to deal with those in a little more
detail when we hear the evidence from Professor Mair tomorrow.
As you know, I did not intend to provide an exhaustive presentation
through Mr Berryman today but that is a short and, I stress, incomplete
account of the various matters that are dealt with in that settlement
policy. It also explains in some detail the Settlement Deed arrangements
which I referred to earlier which enable property openers within
30 metres of the running tunnels to enter into a direct contractual
relationship with the Promoter which will embrace all of those
matters to which I have just referred.
3427. CHAIRMAN: How are these things
to be enforced?
3428. MR MOULD: The deed, of course,
is enforceable directly by contract by the building owner against
the Promoter or the nominated undertaker as a contracting party.
Undertakings and assurances are enforceable through the environmental
minimum requirements which we have mentioned to you and in very
short and, I suspect, rather crude terms they are enforced by
the Secretary of State through the contractual arrangements that
she enters into with the nominated undertaker in relation to the
construction of the railway. They are dealt with; there is a section
of the Code of Construction Practice which addresses impacts on
heritage features, for example, which will find its way into the
contractual arrangements between the Secretary of State and the
nominated undertaker. These matters have been the subject of very
thorough and continuing discussions between the Promoter and interested
local authorities. They are the subject of continuing discussions
at the planning forum to which you have heard reference already.
Matters relating to heritage interests, as we have touched on,
have been and continue to be the subject of discussions with English
Heritage for obvious reasons and we have made very good progress
with agreeing heritage deeds with English Heritage for a number
of locations along the route and that process continues. I have
already pointed out that embraces, amongst other things, the need
for any mitigation works that may be needed, and I stress may
be needed, in relation to listed buildings affected by ground
movement.
3429. CHAIRMAN: I think that on this
and on a number of other matters members of the community of Spitalfields,
and no doubt elsewhere, will want to know what do we do, where
do we go, how do we get these things implemented and it is not
a bit clear on the papers that I have seen.
3430. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: If
I may, my supplementary question on that was, what happens in
the event of a dispute? Is there a procedure for resolving the
dispute?
3431. MR MOULD: Mr Wheeler, as I understand
it, is representing a number of proprietors of listed buildings
which lie overall within a close distance of the running tunnels
in Spitalfields. As I explained and Mr Berryman clarified, the
majority of those Petitioners who Mr Wheeler represents are eligible
to call for a Settlement Deed so they will be able to enter into
a direct contract with the Promoter in relation to the controls
and continuing assessment and monitoring and so forth of the impact
of the works upon their particular property. By far the most straightforward
way in which they can get involved in terms of securing the proper
consideration of their interests, my Lord, is for them to take
advantage of the opportunity to call for such a deed and to negotiate
such a deed with the Promoter.
3432. CHAIRMAN: That can only be done
presumably after the Bill has passed?
3433. MR MOULD: No, indeed not. This
is something, I believe, that can be done now and I will be corrected
if I am wrong, but I believe we are already negotiating Settlement
Deeds with a number of proprietors along the route. I do not know
the facts but if your Lordships would like me to find out, I shall
readily do so but I shall be surprised if we have not already
received requests from proprietors within the Spitalfields area
who wish to begin negotiations with us to enter into such a deed.
The point I was coming to was that under the terms of the model
deed there is a dispute resolution clause which provides in short
for arbitration --- The technical point is an independent expert
determination of any dispute that arises under the deed by a suitably
qualified independent expert, I suspect somebody who would be
a chartered surveyor would be the obvious solution. I should say
this is not new information in the public domain. These arrangements
have not changed substantially since the committee proceedings
in another place and in the context of a number of petition hearings
at that time in the parliamentary process we explained these arrangements
to the Committee and, indeed, my clear recollection is that we
explained them in some considerable detail in the context of the
Spitalfields petition hearings in June 2006.
3434. CHAIRMAN: The trouble is that you
are in a different House and I think that you have to accept that
the members of this Select Committee have probably not read every
word of the transcripts of the proceedings in the Commons.
3435. MR MOULD: That point was not directed
at the Committee, that was directed at people within Spitalfields.
Of course I appreciate, we should ensure that we inform your Lordships'
Committee as appropriate as to these matters but I had thought
the question was how do Petitioners know about these matters.
Forgive me if I misunderstood the point.
3436. CHAIRMAN: All right, they do. Go
ahead, you wanted to ask a few questions.
3437. MR MOULD: I am going to hand over
now to Mr Wheeler.
Cross-examined by MR
WHEELER
3438. MR WHEELER: Thank you. Can I just
ask whether the policy referred to has the same strength, if that
is the right phrase, as an undertaking? Because I am assuming
--- Sorry, Mr Berryman, is it?
(Mr Berryman) It is Mr Berryman.
3439. MR WHEELER: I am asking for guidance.
I asked the question whether there was an undertaking of a similar
nature as this one here in respect to the Buildings At Risk Register
for listed buildings and the answer I got was not yes or no but
the fact that there is a policy. Does the policy have equal strength
to an undertaking? I am not quite sure what I am supposed to take
back to Spitalfields from here. I can say there is a policy but
not an undertaking?
(Mr Berryman) Generally speaking, the commitments which are
made in policy documents are picked up in the register of undertakings,
that is the same with the information papers. If there is something
that is in the information paper which constitutes a commitment
to do something, that is called up again in the register of commitments
and undertakings. If that has not been done yet, it will be done
before the final version of that is published.
38 Crossrail Ref: P23, Extract from the Register of
Undertakings and Assurances, No. 240 (SCN-20080311-012) Back
| 
