Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10480
- 10499)
10480. MR MOULD: The answer is it will
vary depending on the location. I will take instructions but I
am not sure if I can give you a definite answer as to what the
position will be here at this stage in the process. As to the
corresponding performance of bespoke and bought-in escalators
in terms of vibration, I am afraid I cannot help you with that,
but if you would like some information, I will see if I can find
it.
10481. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Mr Berryman
behind you is looking very excited, he might be able to help you!
10482. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, it is his
default mode to look excited. I will see if he is more excited
than usual! Can you bear with me for a moment. (After a short
pause) Mr Berryman tells me that he would prefer to bring them
in in one piece if he can, but it does depend on location. His
position is that he would not expect there to be any significant
difference in terms of vibration performance, whether they are
bespoke or brought in.
10483. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: My experience
of the pre-constructed ones is that they are real bone shakers.
10484. MR MOULD: As one of the themes,
which as your Lordship knows has been a feature of our presentations
to this Committee, is that in many respects design performance
is a fast moving beast in relation to structures of this kind,
and modern escalators may perform very much better than those
that have been in place for as little as ten years, I do not know.
To return to my theme, I have explained how, under our current
revised proposals, the alignment of the escalator will change
and the significance that would have in terms of the need to carry
out construction works within the basement of the east market
building.
10485. On that basis, not only would the permanent
position be very different, but also the degree to which we would
need to use the basement of the east market building as a work
site would be very much reduced. I will ask Mr Berryman to explain
that later in the morning. Suffice to say that on these revised
proposals our expectation is that the degree of impact on the
traders and on the east market building itself would be very considerably
less than that which was presented to the House of Commons. The
reason for that is that it is no longer proposed that the Thames
Link scheme should run into Moorgate Station. That has given us
a little bit more leeway as regards work site and construction
capability in the area to the north of the east market building
and, again, I will ask Mr Berryman to give you more details on
that later.
10486. Can we have 04-029?[6]
I need to explain precisely where we are in relation to the revised
proposal because it is fair to say that we have not yet submitted
those proposals, the up-to-date position is set out in a letter
that we sent to the Parliamentary Agent for the Smithfield Traders'
Association on 24 April of that year. I have produced that letter
as an exhibit for you just to summarise. On this page we summarise
the original proposal and the development of our revised proposal.
If you want to have a glance at that and I will ask if we can
turn to the next page, please.
10487. The key paragraph to note is the final
paragraph of this letter, which says: "Further to recent
progress, our position is that although the Promoter is still
not at the stage where we can categorically abandon our original
plans, we are now able to reinforce the above assurance by offering
to use our best endeavours to deliver such a revised scheme".
Then we set out the assurance that we have given to the market
traders in relation to that. What that means in simple terms is
the best endeavour is that it is now, I am able to say, highly
unlikely, perhaps one could say extremely so, that we shall construct
the east market ticket hall for the Farringdon Station on the
original, more invasive basis. Final confirmation of that is expected
to be given within the project during the summer of this year,
so in June or July of this year. That is the current position.
10488. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: What
is it dependent upon? Is there some slight obstacle you have got
to overcome?
10489. MR MOULD: I do not think it is
on the ground, it is just a process of ticking every box in relation
to the design. I gather that it is essentially just to complete
our site investigation to make sure there is nothing unexpected
which is not revealed in the usual plans, but subject to that
we are committed, as you see in relation to that revised scheme
as set out in the letter.
10490. That then leads me to the penultimate
thing I need to show you, 04036, because there has been a further
significant development since the House of Commons and it is this.
One of the key points, as you will have noted from reading the
Petition, that the market traders have been seeking has been a
direct contractual relationship with the Promoter to confirm a
number of undertakings and assurances that have been given to
the market traders in relation to the impact of the Crossrail
work throughout the parliamentary process. We have agreed that
would be an appropriate course to take and the current position
is there is a draft deed of undertakings in negotiation between
the Promoter and the Market Traders Association. We have provided
you with an up-to-date draft of that in your current pack beginning
at page 36.[7]
It is fair to say the head of terms are agreed. It is down to
the detailed drafting now and I will draw attention to two particular
matters. First of all, assurances and undertakings as regard the
suppression and management of dust escape. If we turn to 039,
you can see that there are detailed arrangements for physical
work involving total enclosure dust barriers.[8]
There are provisions for dust monitoring and management plans,
obviously in consultation with the Market Traders Association.
I am not going to take time on this in detail now, just to draw
it to your attention with the other matters in relation to loading
bays and access.
10491. Perhaps we can turn to page 038.[9]
A particular concern with the traders has been to maintain the
vehicular access to the market and access to the loading bays.
One can understand why I draw attention to item 3 on that page,
which confirms that we will maintain safe vehicular and pedestrian
access through Lindsey Street and around the market including
44 tonne vehicles.
10492. If we can turn on very briefly to page
39 as regards the loading bays.[10]
The key concern has always been the impact of the construction
of the Lindsey Street ticket hall on the use of loading bays,
the street on the eastern side of the market building. This commitment
was given, that is to say we would use every endeavour to maintain
six loading bays. That was given in the context of the original
proposal that was before the House of Commons, but the position
as instructed as regards the revised scheme is it would be possible
to maintain the use of the loading bays in Lindsey Street throughout
the construction stage. That would be a marked significant improvement
in the event the revised scheme is proceeded with. I think it
is fair to say, my learned friend will indicate that the decision
to proceed with those undertakings is seen as a significant advance
insofar as the Market Traders' Association is concerned. We are
very pleased that is the case.
10493. That leaves us with one outstanding issue
and it is that of compensation and the particular issue there
is this. It is the extent to which the ordinary rules for land
compensation and in particular the extent to which payment can
be made for land compensation for disturbances relating to public
works, should be extended in the case of the Smithfield traders
in the House of Commons. The Committee felt that there was a case
for some special arrangement to be made in relation to the market
traders to reflect the historic and sensitive nature of their
case. The Promoter accepted that and the Promoter has undertaken
to achieve that by extending the right of recovery, so where a
claim is justified the Promoter has said that the market traders
will be able to recover not only a sum of money to reflect the
value of leasehold but also to recover consequential loss, particularly
loss of trade and loss of business flowing from that event.
10494. As my Lord, Lord Chairman will certainly
appreciate, that is a significant extension over the ordinary
principles that apply to land compensation for those who occupy
neighbouring land which is affected by public works, that is to
say who do not have any land taken but are affected by public
works carried out on neighbouring property.
10495. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to achieve
this through an undertaking, or what?
10496. MR MOULD: Yes, indeed. The deed
I have shown you does include just such a commitment. There is
an issue as to whether it would be better in the form of the deed
or whether it will be something that stands free from the deed,
but I do not think that is anything that needs trouble your Lordships;
that is essentially a choice for the traders. But the substance
of that commitment is something which we have already indicated
we are willing to commit to.
10497. So the issue today is not so much whether
there should be special arrangements but whether the market traders,
and Mr Dingemans will tell you about this in a minute or two,
should not only have an extended right in relation to the compensation
they recover where they have a valid claim, but whether the actual
right to claim compensation should be extended in itself, and
in particular what they seek is that they should be able to claim
compensation for losses flowing from the disturbance caused by,
for example, dust, not only where that results from some failure
in the Promoter's dust management plans and processes but also
where that is the inevitable consequence of the perfectly proper
performance of the Crossrail works, and your Lordships will appreciate
that that is the significant point, because under the existing
state of the law there is no right of recovery of land compensation
in these circumstances for disturbance, which is the inevitable
consequence of the proper performance of public or private construction
works. So that, I hope I have explained clearly, is precisely
where the issue lies between us today.
10498. Having said that, a theme to which I
shall clearly return in a little more detail when I make my closing
submissions, I shall hand over to my learned friend.
10499. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Dingemans?
6 Committee Ref: P73, Correspondence from CLRL to
Oury Clark Solicitors, 24 April 2008 (LONDLB-23-04-029 and -030) Back
7
Committee Ref: P73, Draft Deed between the Nominated Undertaker
and individual Smithfield Market Traders, April 2008 (LONDLB-23-04-036) Back
8
Committee Ref: P73, Draft Deed between the Nominated Undertaker
and individual Smithfield Market Traders-Farringdon Station Eastern
Ticket Hall-Dust (LONDLB-23-04-039) Back
9
Committee Ref: P73, Draft Deed between the Nominated Undertaker
and individual Smithfield Market Traders-Vehicular Access to and
around the Market (LONDLB-23-04-038) Back
10
Committee Ref: P73, Draft Deed between the Nominated Undertaker
and individual Smithfield Market Traders-Loading Bays (LONDLB-23-04-039) Back
| 
