Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5780
- 5799)
5780. MS JONES: If it was Royal Assent
of the Bill I doubt that would be that much further in the future.
Within a reasonable timescale I think would be acceptable.
5781. CHAIRMAN: Very well.
5782. MS JONES: If we go on to the Promoter's
obligation to make good damage, effectively I think what the Petitioners
are looking for is to make sure that if anything happens to their
property they are in a no loss situation. They do not want to
make anything out of it but neither do they want to be out of
pocket. They want the property reinstated to the state it was
before, insofar as that can be done with listed buildings. It
seems to me that the Promoter is asking me to rely on a report
from its consultants to say that there will be negligible damage.
I cannot rely on those reports because they are not addressed
to me; I was not the person who commissioned them, and I have
no contractual link with those consultants. It is the Promoter
who commissioned them, and only the Promoter can rely on them.
5783. My view, therefore, is that the Promoter
can rely on those to say that there is no negligible damage and
it should therefore have no difficulty giving the Petitioners
the full indemnity in relation to any damage or loss they may
suffer as a result of the construction of the tunnels or the running
of the trains in the vicinity of their properties. If the Promoter
is confident relying on those reports that there will be no damage
then I do not see why it cannot give, if you like, the Petitioners
that guarantee. For example, in any other project where a party
proposes works which affect the adjoining property then you would
either get a party wall award, which you would negotiate between
the parties, or you would have an absolute discretion whether
to consent to those works or not because that party would effectively
be trespassing on your property.
5784. In effect this project will trespass on
the properties by virtue of taking the subsoil. It is only permitted
to do so by the compulsory purchase process, which is permitted
if the Bill is enacted. All the Promoter has offered the Petitioners
is a Settlement Deed. I am used to looking at these sorts of things
over the course of 23 years, sadly, and I consider that to be
inadequate to protect the building owner. If I were acting for
someone in my position I would say, "You should not agree
that Deed; it does not protect you adequately". In my opinion
it does not even cover the recommendations made by the select
committee in the other Place.
5785. In 2006 I made some comments on the draft
Settlement Deed to the Promoter, to which I have never received
any substantive response. I think Mr Mantey said he would come
back to me but we never had any discussions on that. There has
been no negotiation on the terms of the Settlement Deed.
5786. If your Lordships and Ladyship were to
accept and recommend as a principle that the Petitioners should
not suffer any loss due to the construction or the running of
trains under or near their properties which is not made good by
the Promoter, and direct the Promoter to negotiate the Settlement
Deed with me on that basis I am happy to do so and return here
and let you know if it is agreed. If not, and I hesitate to put
your Lordships and Ladyship through this, but I am happy to go
through what I see as the deficiencies in the Settlement Deed
and how I think they should be remedied to protect the Petitioners
because I see no other forum.
5787. CHAIRMAN: I do not think this is
going to be a useful exercise at all. The petitions from Spitalfields
are full of requirements for 100 per cent indemnities about everything.
Have you drafted one in relation to structural changes and settlement
for buildings?
5788. MS JONES: I made some amendments
to the form of Settlement Deed in 2006 which I sent to the Promoters.
5789. CHAIRMAN: That is what you have
just been saying, but have you got a text?
5790. MS JONES: I probably do have it
here.
5791. CHAIRMAN: We have not got it.
5792. MS JONES: What I can tell you is
that the points raised are covered in the remainder of my paper,
because I have gone through them individually on pages 4 and 5.
Those are the bullet points of what I would expect to see in a
Settlement Deed in order to give sufficient protection to the
Petitioners.
5793. MR MOULD: My Lord, if we are going
to deal with matters of some detail like this it is obviously
very helpful to have them in front of one in hard copy, rather
than trying to work to something on a screen.
5794. CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is
feasible, and I do not think we are ever going to follow it.
5795. MR MOULD: No, I agree.
5796. MS JONES: Could I assist. I do
not know whether this is appropriate in this forum. Would it assist
if I went through the Settlement Deed?
5797. CHAIRMAN: No, it would not assist
at all. What we would like is your text not on the screen so that
we can read it.
5798. MS JONES: I do not have additional
copies of the text because I thought it would be helpful to put
it up.
5799. CHAIRMAN: I want to be clear about
this. There is a Settlement Deed; you do not like it?
| 
