Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10920
- 10939)
10920. CHAIRMAN: Whatever the door is
in the central corridor?
10921. MR MOULD: Indeed, my Lord. Those
are important matters. As regards the question of dust, which
is where the real issue has focused today on the facts, we say
that taking those matters together, the risk of dust penetrating
into the market and contaminating meat and products within the
market is one which is very manageable and we say can fairly be
described in relation to the revised scheme as a minimum risk.
10922. Turning briefly to the other point raised,
which is the question of deliveries and lorry movements, we have
confirmed that under the revised scheme there will be no physical
hoardings in the streets surrounding the market and no narrowing
of the existing highway. We are committed to maintaining lorry
access throughout the construction phrase, that is set out in
the deed. As regards Lindsey Street itself, Crossrail deliveries
are unlikely, given the hours of working on a daily basis, to
give rise to any significant conflict with vehicles associated
with the market and the interference with the loading bays is
unlikely to happen for that reason.
10923. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask you to pause
for a second, Lord Young has a question.
10924. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Before
you move off the dust point, I just have a couple of points I
want to establish. You are doing continuous monitoring. If during
that process the monitor alarm sounded, what would you do?
10925. MR MOULD: As a matter of urgency,
we would seek to identify the cause of that alarm being sounded
and identify immediate remedial steps which should be taken in
order to cure the reason for the alarm. For the reasons Mr Berryman
gave, which are essentially to do with safety, we cannot give
a commitment that we will stop work.
10926. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
understand that, that is a matter of site judgment, but assuming
there was not a safety impact, there are circumstances where you
would have to suspend operations anyway, so that should not be
an opt-out clause.
10927. MR MOULD: No, I am being lawyerly
to a degree. Of course, what is needed on the ground in relation
to any given event will need to be judged at the time. What we
are setting out is the basic parameters. If it was a situation
as basic as a lorry just not having been sheeted properly, then
obviously that would be dealt with and the necessary measures
taken to remind operatives of the need to be very careful about
this.
10928. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I am
thinking of something like you have a failure of seal on your
plastic sheeting around the site, you have got a lot of dust being
generated due to the demolition process. In order to minimise
the possibility of airborne pollution, it seems it would be prudent
to pause for a while until you seal that again. That is taking
into account the safety issue.
10929. MR MOULD: My Lord, you are absolutely
right. One would clearly take a view at the time as to how far
one could go in terms of limiting ongoing operations in order
to enable the problem to be minimised and then to be cured.
10930. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: If I
may pursue it further, have you considered in the worst part of
the demolition, if you like, the dirtiest part of that process,
of doing that over a weekend period?
10931. MR MOULD: No, I think the difficulty
of dealing with the crucial part of the construction phase on
that basis is that it is not just a question of dust, it is very
likely that that would involve significant noise generation and
things like that and we do have to think about the environmental
impacts in the round. I do stress, nothing that we have considered
thus far, including the assessment of these works through the
Environmental Statement, which involved very careful consideration
of the likely risk of dust escaping and penetrating into the market,
have suggested that there is likely to be a significant risk with
all the measures we are proposing of a problem arising.
10932. Distinguishing, of course, between dust
generation on the site and the risk of the market traders actually
experiencing dust damage to their meat.
10933. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
would not disagree but I was just trying to probe, if you like,
as far as I possibly could, to ascertain the circumstances, and
if I could take issue with you on one point, as a question of
degree, whilst you might argue that they are not unique, they
are certainly different. You compared it to the sandwich shop
in Bond Street; it is a different operation to that, the doors
of the sandwich shop can be shut. But it does seem to me it is
different in terms of the nature of the operation and the scale
of it and the "possible", even if it is unlikely. So
whilst I accept your point of view that one might not say that
it was unique, I certainly do not think that is a fair comparison
or an appropriate comparison to compare it to a shop in Bond Street.
It is a totally different operation.
10934. MR MOULD: I was seeking to draw
attention to the degree that there was a risk of being impacted,
if you like. We are talking about very significant construction
works being carried out throughout Central London. Of course,
the sensitivity of the receptor is a significant consideration,
and we accepted the Committee's view in the other place, that
for historic and operational reasons these Petitioners were clearly
sensitive receptors and some special arrangements were justified
as regards compensation, which was why we made the arrangements
that we did. So the issue is not that they are not sensitive;
the issue is how far should one go in terms of reflecting that
in the compensation regime.
10935. The remedial and mitigation and preventative
measures I have just reminded your Lordships of are obviously
central to that judgment because in assessing the degree of risk
one needs to take account what is being done in order to avoid
that risk being realised.
10936. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Indeed.
10937. MR MOULD: I was just at the end
of summarising the fact position, and I have one final point on
the road and deliveries aspect. Clearly, from what he said just
before the short adjournment my learned friend, his lawyers and
I take a slightly different view about the degree to which interference
with the loading bays on the market side of Lindsey Street would
undoubtedly sound in compensation as an interference with a private
right, but I do not think I need to trouble your Lordships with
resolving that issue. It would not be appropriate to do so in
light of the fact that, on the facts you now have, the likelihood
of any significant interference of that kind taking place can
clearly be seen to be relatively limited, and I have referred
to the small claims scheme which is in operation and which is
set out in Information Paper C4, I think.
10938. So that is the position on the facts
and, my Lord, what I would like to do now is just to go to my
note. I am loathe to read it all out because you have it there,
it is a verbatim note, but can I just pick up on what I say are
the key points, to make good my submission.
10939. I will not trouble you with the first
four paragraphs.
| 
