|
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the Tuesday 25 July 2006 Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Mr Brian Binley Mr Philip Hollobone Kelvin Hopkins Mrs Siān C James Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger Sir Peter Soulsby
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in. 16553. CHAIRMAN: Can I first of all start off by saying that we have a particular announcement to make at the beginning. It is that the Committee were informed last week that two members of the Promoter's legal team have been given QC status and we want to congratulate them. Can I say, I am not one for titles, and everybody knows that, but we regard this a bit of trade recognition. In that respect, we have two bottles of Amber Nectar and two cards. Well done. 16554. MR MOULD: That is very kind of you. We will declare that! It used to be the prelude to the collapse of one's practice but we are hoping that will not happen 16555. MS LIEVEN: We think we might have a few more months guaranteed. 16556. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, do you have anything to add? 16557. MS LIEVEN: I have got one thing to say which is that the Committee may have noticed that there were a number of large landowner Petitioners who were listed for today and I have been asked to say that we have reached a substantial measure of agreement with them in respect of the over-station development agreements. In those circumstances we have agreed to defer them until the autumn, but in the strong hope that they will not have to appear then. There is no business today other than the Committee's announcement. 16558. CHAIRMAN: That is another piece of good news. That is two pieces of good news and now the bad news, if I can start. 16559. This Select Committee started meeting 23 weeks ago in January, 2006. So far we have had 399 Petitioners to deal with since then, sitting up to eight times a week and there are still, at the moment, 145 further Petitioners remaining to be heard. As many of you know, the Government has already introduced two sets of amendments to the Bill which alter the proposed railway works so as to extend the impact of the Bill itself. These amendments are known as "additional provisions". As we are all aware, when a Bill like this is amended it can end up affecting people who were not affected by the original scheme or, in contrast, it can change the way in which people are affected. It is essential, therefore, that these people have an opportunity to petition against the Bill so that they can tell this Committee how the amendments will affect them. 16560. The Government is preparing to bring forward a third set of amendments to the Bill. Petitioners against these and any other amendments we ask to be made to the Bill must also be heard by this Committee before we can make our final decision and then report it to the House. 16561. Therefore, we have decided to make the following interim decisions of the Committee public at this time in order to allow the Government to undertake the necessary work to bring some amendments forward as we do not accept that the current proposals in the Bill as they are presently devised are sufficient for the success of this important scheme. 16562. Provision of information: at the outset, let me state on behalf of the Committee that we would like to ensure that each Petitioner against the Bill clearly understands what commitment have been offered to them through the general undertakings which have been described in Committee as information papers. The Committee has heard a great deal of assurances from the Promoters in the last seven months. Many of these have been helpful to the Committee and to the Petitioners. However, we are concerned that many Petitioners may not be clear which undertakings apply to their particular case. With this in mind, we ask the Promoters to write to every Petitioner whose property is affected on the route to state specifically which undertakings apply to their problem and what those undertakings mean. Understandably, many Petitioners have requested personal letters of comfort to explain their position. We feel that the Government should be as transparent in this process as possible and provide such letters where possible as a matter of course. 16563. On matters relating to compensation and compulsory purchase, we feel that the following guidance and instructions are necessary at this time. 16564. Smithfield Market Tenants Association: the Committee agreed that the tenants of Smithfield Market are not covered by the Compensation Code in an appropriate manner due to the exceptional and historic nature of their business. The Committee invites the Promoters to draw up an alternative provision which would provide the tenants with the right to claim compensation in circumstances where a specific level of loss is experienced. 16565. Charterhouse Street: following the Petition of Save Britain's Heritage, we would also ask the Promoter to explore and assess alternatives to the compulsory purchase of 33-37 Charterhouse Street. 16566. EMI Limited: the Committee has listened carefully to the case of EMI. We recognise that the increased value of the building would have to be built into any compulsory purchase order negotiation. Therefore, in order to keep the cost to the public purse as low as possible, we believe that the Petitioners should be subject to a CPO as soon as practicable after Royal Assent. 16567. Grand Central Sound Studios: Similarly, in the case of Grand Central Sound studios, the Committee agreed that the exceptional technical nature of the Petitioner's business required protection against potential disruption from the works. We ask that sound mitigation work is carried out before construction commences where possible. 16568. Shenfield: we will discuss the cases presented to us about Shenfield in detail in our report. At this stage, we wish the Promoters to demonstrate that they have worked closely with the local community to ensure that appropriate noise insulation is provided to those who will be affected by the additional noise of the Crossrail works. The Committee would also like the Promoter to look again at the possibility of using the existing sidings at Shenfield as highlighted by Mr Jardine on 29 March, paragraph 6145. 16569. London Borough of Havering: in the case of the London Borough of Havering, the Committee has found certain merit with the Petitioner's case. At this stage, we invite the Promoters to find a way to provide appropriate access for mobility impaired people to the developed station in the location of the current ramp. In the same way we expect access to all Crossrail stations to be developed with awareness of the access needs of people with impaired mobility. 16570. Southend Arterial Action Group: we are aware that these Petitioners did not have the opportunity to fully finish their case. However, the Committee agreed with the Petitioner that the cul-de-sac was not appropriate for the level of access proposed. We believe that the Promoters must find either an alternative access to this worksite or an adequate solution to this particular problem. 16571. Freight: the Committee is persuaded that the freight industry faces an increasing challenge with current capacity insufficient for the needs of growth in the industry, and we believe that the Government should take steps to address this. However, the Committee believes that these issues are largely the responsibility of Network Rail and others and not wholly that of the Crossrail project. We will return to this issue in our full report. The Committee is concerned about the uncertainty regarding the Access Option and asks the Promoter to ensure that the Committee is updated on these issues later in the year. 16572. Ealing Broadway: the Committee asks the Promoter to demonstrate that a good cross platform interchange could be made available at Ealing Broadway between the Reading and Crossrail lines. 16573. Paddington: issues regarding Paddington Station will be dealt with in detail in our report. At this time, we ask the Promoters to replace the footbridge at Westbourne Terrace with one that fully complies with modern safety and disability standards for users. We would also like to thank the Promoters at this time for their helpful decisions on dust mitigation in their area. 16574. Christchurch, Spitalfields and Bow Bell Church Stepney: similarly, the Committee was pleased with the undertakings given by the Promoters to both these churches, however, we wish to clearly state for the record that these churches should receive top tier mitigation, they should not be expected to pay for the monitoring of any impact on the structures of the churches due to the tunnelling. We expect the Promoters to pay for independent assessment and monitoring of both these churches during the works. 16575. Spitalfields: the Committee heard a great deal of concern from the people in the Spitalfields area, especially those affected by the Hanbury Street shaft. This is something we will focus on in detail in our report. Needless to say, we do agree that the Hanbury Street shaft is the appropriate area for the shaft. At this stage, we are concerned that there has been a certain lack of clear information about the project in the area and we feel that a certain amount of action is necessary in the locality immediately. We are concerned that local residents feel that there are times when they have not been properly informed and times when they were poorly advised during the consultation process. This has led to huge concern and distress in the local area about the extent of the Crossrail project. We have heard all the evidence put to the Committee and wish to make it clear that the scale of the works and the length of construction in the area have been largely overstated. We believe that the Crossrail project must revisit the problems in the Spitalfields area. We want the Promoters to set up a monitoring body with Tower Hamlets Borough Council and representatives within the community, especially those from the local schools affected by the works. This body must meet monthly in order to provide up-to-date information to local residents about the project. 16576. We would also like Crossrail to open up a one-stop-shop in the area for the duration of the works to enable local people to report concerns and help ensure that the works by the contractor meets with dust and noise requirements set out by the Promoters in the same way as it has been very helpful in the Paddington area. 16577. In this respect, we would also like this office, working with appropriate Government agencies, to advertise how local individuals wishing to work on the project may apply for jobs connected with the project in Whitechapel and elsewhere. 16578. We understand that the Promoters have reached an agreement with Swanlea School regarding the hours the lorries in the area will operate. This agreement must apply to any road which a school faces onto in the area. We are particularly concerned with access to Buxton Road and the traffic entering Valance Road. We want the Promoter to ensure that it employs staff to enforce access rules 24 hours a day. We are concerned that the large number of asthma sufferers and those with other respiratory illnesses should be protected from sources of dust which we understand to be the highest indication of these particular illnesses in the UK. With this mind, we expect staff securing the roads to ensure that access is only given to lorries properly and securely covered and that access is only given to lorries strictly where necessary. We expect the safety and health of the children and local residents in that area to be the Promoters first priority. 16579. The Promoters must provide a regular liaison meeting with each school to monitor these arrangements and to support the schools during the full period of the work. 16580. We also expect the Promoter to work with other Government departments, particularly the DfES, to ensure that the schools in the area are in no way disadvantaged by the works. 16581. Historic buildings in Spitalfields: we also heard a great deal of evidence about listed buildings in the Princelet Street area. We want the Promoters to come back to the Committee in the autumn and demonstrate clearly that an individual assessment has been made of each listed and historic building in the area and that appropriate mitigation has been put in place. 16582. We also expect the Promoter to monitor these buildings throughout the tunnelling process and for a minimum of seven years thereafter following the completion of the process. Equally, we expect the Promoter to pay for the repair of any damage that occurs due to the tunnelling and associated works. These buildings must be repaired in a manner appropriate to the age of the building. 16583. In respect of the Petitioners who are the owners of flats within the building at 61 Princelet Street in Spitalfields, Alistair and Eleanor Ferguson, Ms Hamilton and Mr Collins and Ms Hatoum, we recognise that these people will be extraordinarily affected by the Hanbury Street shaft. We want the Promoters to take steps to ensure that these properties are compulsorily purchased and to provide the Petitioners with individual letters of comfort guaranteeing that the flats will be bought before the work begins. 16584. Liverpool Street Station: the Committee has been asked to consider a variety of issues at Liverpool Street Station. We are sympathetic to the argument for enhancing ticket hall facilities at Liverpool Street Station. We have carefully considered the three final options presented to the Committee and have decided to ask the Promoters to amend the Bill to enable options 3b and 7c with the extended gate line, removing the necessary retail units, to come forward as an integral part of the Crossrail project at Liverpool Street station. We were not convinced that it was reasonable to pursue option 4a. Equally, we are not persuaded that the implementation of option 7c should be delayed. 16585. Greenwich: The major issue arising from Petitions in the Greenwich area was the need for a station at Woolwich. We will refer to this issue in detail in our report. At this time we wish to state that we have carefully examined all the evidence put before us and we are clearly convinced of the essential need for a Crossrail station in Woolwich, an area which includes some of the poorest wards in the United Kingdom. 16586. We noted that the Promoter's calculations of cost of this station showed that it would provide exceptional value for money and we require the Promoters to bring forward the necessary additional provision to add this to the Bill. We would also ask the Promoters to work with the local Council to ensure that the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure. 16587. As I conclude I would like to stress again that the Committee is not publishing a report at this stage. A transcript of these decisions will be made available later today in the usual places. The Committee will resume in the autumn to hear further cases - we will also hear one or two cases tomorrow morning in this room - to deliberate over possible subsequent amendments and then to deliver a full report on the Bill as soon as possible. 16588. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, Sir. 16589. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Adjourned until 10.00am tomorrow
|