Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6000
- 6019)
6000. I do not think she is in fear of waking
up one morning and finding she has become Alice in Wonderland
at the bottom of a hole. What she is concerned about is her ceiling
falling down as a result of vibration once it is built. It is
not the process of building it. What happens after the tunnel
is built?
6001. MR MOULD: My Lord, you raise two
points. First of all, with respect, she did utter the phrase "catastrophic
collapse" during the course of her presentation. There is
no question of that happening in Crossrail. Certainly as your
Lordships will recall from last week, the predictions that we
have from Professor Mair at this part are of a negligible risk
of structural damage based on the investigations and the assessments
that have been carried out for buildings, and I showed you the
graph if you will recall last week which illustrates that between
Liverpool Street and Whitechapel. Let us put to one side if we
may the spectre of catastrophic collapse in this case.
6002. The second point your Lordship makes is
whether there may be a risk of settlement occurring and causing
damage over the years after the construction phrase has been completed
and once the operation of the railway has begun. Again, there
is absolutely nothing in the work we have done that suggests there
is anything like a real risk. Contrary to everything we believe
to be the case, having built these tunnels, having as it were
signed off substantial completion in 2017, the trains start running
through the tunnels under Spitalfields and two or three years
later chronic settlement begins to occur (and I am not quite sure
how it would) which causes damage to Ms Jones's property at 21
Wilkes Street, she would be entitled as a matter of law to the
cost of remedying that damage. She would have to demonstrate that
it was damage that had been caused by the presence and operation
of the Crossrail tunnels; that is what anybody would have to do
if their land was undermined by a private or a public undertaker.
She is in exactly the position there as she would be in any set
of circumstances of that kind.
6003. Let us assume she could establish that
and she produced a report from a surveyor who said, "This
is clearly referable to the presence of Crossrail", then
the nominated undertaker would be obliged as a matter of law to
reimburse her the costs of putting that right. That is just simply
the legal position. That is reflected in the terms of the Settlement
Deed so far as the construction phase is concerned. We have not
embraced operational failure in the Deed.
6004. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: The point
of principle at issue between you and Ms Jones is the extent to
which she accepts that interpretation of the law and seeks additional
reassurance of it being written into the agreement at this time.
6005. MR MOULD: There is a limit, if
I may say so, to how far the Deed should seek to embrace wholly
unrealistic circumstances, that is the point. We do not believe
the Deed should cope with catastrophic collapse because we do
not think that is something in any way likely to happen; equally,
we do not believe the Deed—this is our position, you may
take a different view—should embrace the risk of creeping
settlement and ground movement in Spitalfields causing actual
damage to buildings such as Ms Jones's during the operational
as opposed to the construction phase because we simply do not
think that is something that is likely to happen.
6006. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: My Lord
Chairman, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to
have that exchange with Mr Mould, but I think I should shut up
and let the lawyers argue it for us now because I think it is
one for you gentlemen.
6007. CHAIRMAN: I think you may be right,
Lord James, but still I am glad you raised the point. Mr Mould,
where do we go from here? It seems to me we have the points in
Ms Jones's submission identified, she tells us they are reflected
in the text that she has put forward to you.
6008. MR MOULD: Yes.
6009. CHAIRMAN: I do not think there
is anything further this Committee can do at this stage to see
whether there is a resolution of this as between the two of you.
There would have to be serious consideration by the Promoters
of the extent, if any, to which you can accommodate the points
she has put forward and I do not expect you to do that now.
6010. MR MOULD: No, I am grateful for
that.
6011. CHAIRMAN: I do not think there
is a great deal of point in asking you to reply to the points
she has made now because that is going to turn up in the form
of any agreement that you come to. Is that right?
6012. MR MOULD: Yes, my Lord, that is
right. I should say I was ready to respond to the various points
in her notes. I am very happy to do that in writing but I think
I ought to make it clear that in relation to each and every one
of them the answer is, I am afraid, no.
6013. CHAIRMAN: That may be, but we have
now got the revised text of the settlement agreement. You will
have an opportunity, I think, of discussing this with Ms Jones.
If you come back to us and say, "Sorry, no, we can't do anything
about any of these except conceivably one and we are prepared
to make an amendment on that", that would then carry through
into the Settlement Deed for everybody and we would have to decide
whether we are going to do anything about Ms Jones's petition
in respect of the rest of them, but I do not think we can do that
now because we would have to leave time for you to discuss these
points with Ms Jones and see whether there is any accommodation
you can reach.
6014. MR MOULD: Yes. My Lord, I am for
my part perfectly happy to deal with matters on that basis. There
is one matter, if I may.
6015. CHAIRMAN: Please.
6016. MR MOULD: I would like just to
make absolutely clear, because this was the point that Ms Jones
began with this morning, if you recall, I think her words were
that the concern of those she effectively represents here today
was, "If my property is damaged will the Promoter make it
good?" Now I have dealt with that to a degree. I want to
make it absolutely clear and this is something, if I could prey
upon your Lordships' patience beyond what I consider to be acceptable,
I would give you copious references to where this point has been
made clear in the past but I simply confine myself to this, to
say if the construction of the running tunnels beneath Spitalfields
causes damage to the property of Ms Jones and other proprietors
whom she represents, then the Promoter will remedy that damage.
I make that absolutely clear. The reason I am able to say that
with complete confidence is because that is our legal responsibility
to do so. I have explained why that is by reference to common
law and also to the statutory Compensation Code and the Deed does
not seek to cut down that responsibility at all. That is absolutely
a fundamental point. The only other point is this—
6017. CHAIRMAN: That would be the effect
of the Bill as it stands?
6018. MR MOULD: Quite so. The only point
that Ms Jones takes on that is what is meant by the concept of
material, I think your Lordship had that point very clearly in
mind when he was debating that with her shortly a few moments
ago. It is on a case-by-case basis ultimately in relation to these
matters, but I can illustrate it by two examples that Ms Jones
put herself. First of all, I think Lord James picked up on one
of these, was the question of the ceiling collapse. If, as a result
of ground movement resulting from the tunnelling of the Crossrail
railway beneath Spitalfields, a ceiling is caused to collapse,
then it would be our responsibility to remediate that damage,
no question of that. If that was caused by the construction of
Crossrail works, it would be our responsibility to put it right.
The other example she gave was the door sticking. If a door which,
prior to the construction of the railway, was working perfectly
properly or a sash window that was able to be moved up and down
perfectly acceptably was caused to stick by virtue of some limited
ground movement caused by the Crossrail works, we would have to
put it right and it would be our responsibility to pay for the
cost of doing that.
6019. CHAIRMAN: Those are the normal
results of the imposition of strains as a result of ground movement?
| 
