UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 837-lviii

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY FIFTY-EIGHT

Wednesday 11 October 2006

Before:

Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair

Mr Brian Binley

Mr Philip Hollobone

Kelvin Hopkins

Mrs Siān C James

Mrs Linda Riordan

Sir Peter Soulsby

 

 

Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.

16789. CHAIRMAN: First of all, I would welcome everybody back and a pleasant experience it is going to be yet again. A couple of announcements: coffee will be available in the end area from 11.30 onwards; and we will be recessing around 11.45 so that Members can get to Prime Minister's Question Time. Today the Committee will hear the Promoter's written response to the Select Committee's interim decision which will be read into the transcript of today's proceeding. Mr Lieven, do you want to make a statement

16790. MS LIEVEN: Sir, before I do, can I say that as far as today's business is concerned, the only Petitioner who is now intending to appear is Ms Ann-Marie Cousins. All the other Petitioners have either formally withdrawn or have reached agreements and are going to withdraw. That is the only other business. Sir, so far as the Government's response is concerned, I have a script which I am about to read. I hope it is acceptable that what we have done is broken it down into the Committee decisions which we have put in italics and then the response. Subject to your views, I was not intending to read the Committee decisions, merely the heading and the Committee can see in italics what the decision was. I hope that is acceptable. I am quite happy to read the italics if you want me to.

16791. CHAIRMAN: No, but just indicate to the stenographer that we do want it as it is in today's proceedings.

16792. MS LIEVEN: Can I apologise in advance, I am afraid it will be a little bit tedious because I am just going to read the script.

16793. CHAIRMAN: Same as usual then!

16794. MS LIEVEN: Probably for me, sir, but not for Mr Mould. This is the Promoter's response to the Select Committee's interim decisions.

16795. This document constitutes the response of the Promoter of the Crossrail Bill to the interim decisions made on 25 July by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill. Where the Promoter has agreed to bring forward additional provisions, it is intended that these will be introduced in November, once an instruction to the Select Committee as to their consideration has been given by the House of Commons.

16796. Provision of information - the Committee decision: 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 commitments 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 Promoter 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.

16797. Promoter's response: The Promoter will write to Petitioners as requested. A number of general undertakings or assurances have been given in information papers or during proceedings in Committee that may be relevant to Petitioners whose property is affected by Crossrail, on matters such as land acquisition and disposal, maintenance of pedestrian and vehicular access, groundborne noise, airborne noise (including trigger levels for the provision of noise insulation and/or temporary re-housing) ground settlement and so on. The intention is that all undertakings and assurances, including these more general ones, will be put on a formal register. Whoever is given the role of implementing the project will be required to comply with the undertakings and assurances on the register. A draft of the register will be published later this year. Further versions will be published at appropriate stages as the Bill progresses through Parliament, with the register being finalised after the Bill receives Royal Assent, ie when the parliamentary process is completed. In order to meet the specific concerns of the Committee, the Promoter will also write to Petitioners whose property is affected by Crossrail, setting out the assurances that we expect to be relevant to them and explaining what they mean in practice. We will do that once the House of Commons Select Committee hearings have finished, which we expect to be early next year. While the Select Committee hearings are still underway, it is possible that there will be further assurances given or changes made to the information papers in the light of the remaining Select Committee hearings. We consider that to write in detail at this stage could be confusing to Petitioners. An example where this might be the case is noise, which the Select Committee did not deal with in its interim decision.

16798. In addition, we propose to write to Petitioners again after the Bill receives Royal Assent to cover any assurances given or changes made to the information papers in the light of the Select Committee hearings in the House of Lords. Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) wrote to all Petitioners on 1 August with the information contained in this response.

16799. Smithfield Market Tenants Association - Committee decision: 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 Promoter 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.

16800. The Promoter's response: The Secretary of State accepts the judgment of the Committee that the exceptional and historical nature of the business of the tenants of Smithfield Market justifies additional rights to compensation with respect to impacts caused by the Crossrail work for this special case. The Promoter's proposal to deal with this is as follows. It applies to the market traders who are tenants of the city corporation at Smithfield Market. Where an event occurs during the construction of Crossrail which triggers a right for the market traders to claim compensation under section 10 of the compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as modified by clause 50 of the Crossrail Bill) or Section 6 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation 1845 (as incorporated with modifications by paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 to the Bill) against the nominated undertaker, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to include in the compensation an amount representing any consequential loss, whether or not reflected in the value of land, (1) which was caused by the construction of the works under statutory authority, (2) for which the nominated undertaker would have been liable to pay damages if the construction had not been authorised by statute. The Promoter has written to the Smithfield Market Tenants Association to offer an undertaking on the basis and to explain how the proposal will would work in practice. A copy of that letter is at Annex A. Sir, I should have said, there are a number of annexes to this document, I do not intend to read them out but they are all there for the Committee to see.

16801. Charterhouse Street - the Committee Decision: 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.

16802. Promoter's response: In response to the Committee's request, the Promoter commissioned an engineering study to investigate whether there is an alternative way of forming a passenger link between the Crossrail station at Farringdon and the eastbound Metropolitan/Circle Line platform at the Barbican London Underground station, providing PRM access to the platforms and street level without the acquisition and demolition of 33-37 Charterhouse Square. The study showed that there were no suitable alternatives which would not have more significant effects on the area than the current Bill scheme. For this reason, the Promoter proposes to continue with the original proposal. The Promoter will work with the relevant planning authority to find the most appropriate solution for developing the site once works have been completed. Further detail of the engineering study carried out is provided at Annex B.

16803. EMI Limited - Committee Decision: 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 negotiations. 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.

16804. Promoter's response: The Promoter will offer to EMI an undertaking to purchase their building at a time of EMI's choosing from the point at which funding for Crossrail has been secured. The form of that undertaking is at Annex C.

16805. Grand Central Sound Studios - Committee Decision: 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.

16806. Promoter's response: In its response the Petition of Grand Central Sound Studios, the Promoter proposed mitigation work to the railway itself in order to mitigate the noise produced by the operation of Crossrail and the running of the construction railway. The Promoter is in the process of discussing with Grand Central Sound Studios precisely what form that mitigation should take. The Promoter understands that the Petitioner has written to the Committee to clarify that point. This Petition has yet to be heard by the Select Committee. If the Promoter and Grand Central Sound Studios are not able to agree, therefore, the issue will come before the Committee in due course.

16807. Shenfield - Committee Decision: 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 has been provided to those who will be affected by the additional noise of the Crossrail works.

16808. Promoter's response: Following the Select Committee's decision, the Promoter commissioned revised noise impact predictions for the Shenfield area. The results are still being finalised and will be included in the Supplementary Environmental Statement expected to be published in November. On 13 September, Cross London Rail Links met with the relevant local authority, Brentwood Borough Council, to explain what was being done and to discuss how the revised noise predictions, once finalised, might best be disseminated to the affected local community. As a result, CLRL intend to write to the residents concerned, providing copies of both the original and the revised predictions in readily comparable and understandable map form. The letter will explain what the predictions mean in terms of likely qualification for either the provision of noise insulation and/or temporary rehousing, and the trigger levels used for their provision. It will also explain in layperson's terms the process for further predictions to be made, nearer the start of the construction, once the detailed design work has been done and a detailed construction methodology devised, and for the actual provision of noise insulation and/or temporary re-housing. The letter will make it clear that whilst the trigger levels for the provision of noise insulation and temporary rehousing will remain the same, it is these later predictions, as opposed to the predictions done now, that will determine who will qualify for noise insulation and/or temporary rehousing.

16809. CLRL then propose to organise, in liaison with the local authority, and advertise widely, including by leafleting all properties within 100m of the proposed work, a drop-in centre or meetings at which concerned residents can be taken through the revised predictions and the process outlined in the letter.

16810. Committee Decision: 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.

16811. Promoter's response: CLRL have considered Mr Jardine's proposal again and reached the same conclusion as before that it is not possible to make use of the existing sidings safely for Crossrail services. More detailed information is provided at Annex D and this has also been provided to Mr Jardine.

16812. London Borough of Havering - Committee's Decision: 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 Promoter 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.

16813. Promoter's response: The Promoter will provide a new access ramp complying with modern standards for access for people with reduced mobility at the south side of Romford Station. The new ramp will be built to the west of the existing door, providing access to the south end of the mezzanine level subway of Romford Station.

16814. Southend Arterial Road Action Group - Committee Decision: We are aware that these Petitioners did not have the opportunity to fully finish their case. However, the Committee agreed with the Petitioners that the cul-de-sac was not appropriate for the level of access proposed. We believe that the Promoter must find either an alternative access to this worksite or an adequate solution to this particular problem.

16815. Promoter's response: The Promoter will bring forward an additional provision to provide for an alternative access to the Crossrail worksite. The access will make use of a vacant residential plot immediately adjacent to the worksite. This proposal would remove the need to access the site from the cul-de-sac off the Southend Arterial Road.

16816. Freight - Committee Decision: 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 that Promoter to ensure that the Committee is updated on these issues later in the year.

16817. Promoter's response: The Promoter agrees with the Committee's analysis that there are issues in relation to freight capacity which are broader than the impact of the Crossrail project and which need to be analysed and solutions considered by the rail industry's planning mechanisms (including developing further two short-listed applications for Transport Innovation Fund support). This work will progress at the pace of the industry mechanisms rather than necessarily before the Select Committee completes its work. The focus of the work in relation to Crossrail is developing the Access Option with Network Rail, and consulting the ORR, which is currently at the stage of heads of terms. To support this, a considerable volume of technical analysis and modelling have been commissioned to demonstrate operational viability, as explained in the paper put to the Committee shortly before the summer recess. This includes, but is not confined to, further train timetabling work. As this work develops, input will be sought from the rail industry via the Reference Group that has been established to replace the Timetable Working Group. Formal consultation will be undertaken by the ORR once it receives the application for the Access Option. Further updates on progress will be given to the Committee.

16818. Ealing Broadway - Committee Decision: 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.

16819. Promoter's response: Although Crossrail will not directly serve Reading and Twyford, passengers from these stations will find significant improvement in the journey times into central London. This is because they will be able to interchange onto Crossrail trains either at Paddington or at Ealing Broadway. Interchange will be particularly attractive at Ealing Broadway where same platform interchange will be possible. To do this, a passenger will simply get off their semi-fast service from Reading or Twyford and get onto the next train, which will always be a Crossrail train. As an example, passengers travelling from Twyford to Liverpool Street by relief line trains will experience at least a 15-minute reduction in journey time by making a same platform interchange at Ealing Broadway when Crossrail opens.

16820. Paddington - Committee Decision: 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.

16821. Promoter's response: The Promoter will bring forward an additional provision to enable the replacement of the southern span of the Westbourne Terrace footbridge with a new structure and the addition of a series of ramps complying with modern standards for people with reduced mobility at the southern side of the railway to provide access to street level.

16822. Christchurch, Spitalfields and Bow Bell Church Stepney - Committee Decision: 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 Promoter to pay for the independent assessment and monitoring of both these churches during the works.

16823. Promoter's response: The Promoter agrees. The Promoter assumes that the reference to Bow Bell Church is in fact a reference to St Dunstan and All Saints Church, as this was the church the Committee heard evidence from on day 34, 18 May 2006. The Promoter would like to confirm that the commitment to protect St Dunstan Church given by Mr Tim Mould to the Committee on day 34 applies equally to Christchurch, Spitalfields.

16824. Spitalfields, and, sir, this is broken down into different sections - Committee Decision: 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 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 work 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.

16825. Promoter's response: The Promoter agrees and has already acted on the concerns of the Committee. Invitations are to be sent for a first meeting in October. It is the Promoter's intention that this body should meet monthly.

16826. Committee Decision: 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 Promoter in the same way as it has been very helpful in the Paddington area. In this respect, we would like this office, working with appropriate government agencies, to advertise how local individuals wishing to work on the project may apply for the jobs connected with the project in Whitechapel and elsewhere.

16827. Promoter's response: The Promoter accepts this decision.

16828. Swanlea School - Committee decision: We understand that the Promoter has 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 hour 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 in 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 Promoter's first priority. The Promoter 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. 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.

16829. Promoter's response: The Promoter has written to the Committee to clarify whether the Committee intended for the Promoter to look at alternative proposals to avoid seeking access to their proposed work site through the school premises. The Promoter is preparing an additional provision that would enable such an alternative access and intends to bring this forward. The Promoter acknowledges the Committee's concern in relation to Buxton Street treat and traffic entering Valance Road and will ensure that appropriate measures are taken in agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to control vehicular access on a 24-hour basis. The Crossrail Construction Code will require all vehicles carrying loose or potentially dusty material to or from worksites to be fully sheeted. The Construction Code forms part of the environmental minimum requirements that the Promoter will make binding on any nominated undertaking. The Promoter will work with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to develop is a strategy for the lorry routes that take into account the nearby sensitive uses, such as schools. Where a proposed Crossrail lorry route passes any entrance to a school that is not currently subject to heavy goods traffic, the Promoter will restrict the hours during which Crossrail construction traffic will operate and/or introduce appropriate traffic management measures to be agreed with the Council. These measures will include a 30-minute prohibition on Crossrail construction traffic when pupils are arriving at school and a 30-minute prohibition when pupils are leaving. The exact hours will be agreed on a case-by-case basis for each school. The Promoter will seek to work with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and other Government departments, such as DfES, to ensure that schools in the area are not disadvantaged by the Crossrail works.

16830. Historic Buildings in Spitalfields - Committee Decision: We also heard a great deal of evidence about Listed buildings in the Princelet Street area. We want the Promoter 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.

16831. Promoter's response: The Promoter has done a considerable amount of work to ensure that the settlement impacts of the works on all buildings, including Listed and historic buildings, have been adequately assessed and appropriate mitigation put in place.

16832. The Promoter can confirm that settlement assessment reports have been produced that consider every individual structure within the predicted zone of influence along the route. The results of this assessment process are reported in one of two ways, both of which are described below. Listed buildings are those buildings which are on statutory lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest compiled by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, on advice from English Heritage. The Promoter can confirm that an individual report for all Listed buildings in the Spitalfields area has been produced. An individual report was considered appropriate because these buildings are statutorily protected and because they have been selected by English Heritage as being of national importance.

16833. The individual report included a heritage appraisal, which established a detailed understanding of the historic character and significance of the building concerned, in accordance with the criteria laid down in PPG15, and in particular identified any feature of particular architectural or historic interest or sensitivity, for example, delicate plasterwork or fine stucco mouldings. Proposed mitigation in this area consist of monitoring and following best practice during tunnelling works to minimise the generation of ground movement at source. During the selection of mitigation, due regard is being given, and will continue to be given, to the sensitivity of the particular features of the building which are of architectural or historical interest and the sensitivity of the structure of the building to ground movement. Further, these assessments, as explained to the Committee, will continue to be reviewed as the detailed design progresses. All other buildings have been reported in a series of settlement reports. Whilst presented in a different format from the Listed building reports, they calculate settlement and building damage in the same way as the individual assessments. The Promoter confirms that appropriate monitoring and mitigation for these buildings will also be provided. With respect to the internal inspections, these will be undertaken for all buildings within a 10mm contour as part of the production of the schedule of defects prior to the commencement of works regardless of the form of report produced for that building. The Promoter will also undertake an internal inspection of buildings within these contours that are on the English Heritage Building At Risk Register to ensure that any particularly sensitive aspects of these properties are considered in the assessment process.

16834. Monitoring - Committee Decision: We will expect the Promoter to monitor these building 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 damages that occur due to the tunnelling and associated work. These buildings must be repaired in manner appropriate to the age of the building.

16835. Promoter's response: Acknowledging the Committee's particular concerns in the Spitalfields area, and subject to securing all necessary consents, the Promoter agrees to continue monitoring in the Spitalfields area for a fixed seven-year period after the tunnelling excavation works and to use the data obtained as a control case to validate settlement trends across the scheme as far as it is practical to do so. The Promoter confirms that under the settlement policy any material physical damage arising from ground settlement associated with the nominated undertaker's tunnelling works will be made good at no expense to those affected and that particularly in the case of Listed buildings, repairs will be carried out to a standard and quality commensurate with the age and fabric of the building.

16836. 61 Princelet Street - Committee Decision: 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 extraordinary affected by the Hanbury Street shaft. We want the Promoter 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.

16837. Promoter response: The Promoter accepts the Committee's judgment that the occupiers of the flats within 61 Princelet Street are likely to be extraordinarily affected should an intervention and emergency access shaft be constructed in the Hanbury Street. The Promoter has written to the owners of the flats within 61 Princelet Street, undertaking, in the case of a shaft being constructed at Hanbury Street broadly as proposed, to purchase their properties no sooner than nine months before the shaft works begin.

16838. Liverpool Street Station - Committee Decision: 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 present to the Committee and have decided to ask the Promoter to amend the Bill to enable options 3c and 7b 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 4. Equally, we are not persuaded that the implementation of option 7b should be delayed.

16839. Promoter response: The Promoter accepts the Committee's decision and will bring forward an additional provision to enable options 3C and 7b.

16840. Greenwich - Committee Decision: 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. 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.

 

16841. Promoter's Response: The Promoter recognises that a strong case has been made for a station at Woolwich. In the light of the Committee's decision, the Promoter has looked over the summer at the design of a station to explore ways of reducing its very high cost. A key reason why the station would be expensive to build is the depth of the running tunnels. A shallower station would be possible if the running tunnels in that area were nearer to the surface. This appears, in principle, to be feasible although much more detailed work would be needed to understand the wider environmental consequences. The cost of a shallower station would be of the order of £200m. The Promoter has given very serious consideration to the Committee's decision. As the Promoter has made clear, the key issue is affordability. The challenge in funding Crossrail is huge and the Promoter is engaged in an intensive value management process to bear down heavily on the cost of the project. The revised tunnelling and depot strategies are a result of that process and will yield substantial savings. The Promoter believes it is vital to continue to develop a Crossrail project that can be delivered in order to secure the benefits that it will bring. The Promoter does not believe that adding £200m to the cost of Crossrail can be justified and cannot therefore accept the Committee's decision."

16842. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Ms Lieven. First of all I am going to say that we will take away this document and read it as a Committee and go through it line by line, but I can tell you that already it is pretty obvious that we are going to have to come back here because our instructions are on the decisions we have made that it is for you to go away and build them into the proposals which come back. Clearly, in the case of 17.1 and 17.2 that is not the case. You have come back and said that you do not accept our decision. While we fully understand you are not the Promoters for Crossrail and you act on their behalf, it is not for Crossrail or anybody else to take the decision on that. It is for this Committee to take the decision and if there are any changes to be made to the decision on the Bill it will be made by the Committee itself or, when it leaves this Committee, on the floor of the House, and there it will be either set in stone or not, as the case may be. It is impossible to give a full response to this now. We will have to go away and digest it, discuss it among ourselves and then come back here with our response to it, and we will do that at the earliest possibility, but we warn you that people on a Committee such as this do not take kindly to being told that you are not going to accept their decision because that is not your role at all. Anyway, we will move on to the first case. Thank you very much.

16843. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, sir.

 

The Petition of MS ANN-MARIE COUSINS.

16844. MS LIEVEN: Sir, just a brief factual outline. If I can have put up the relevant map, Ms Cousins' own house and material garden are at 71 Abbey Grove, which is to the west of Abbey Wood station. It is not easy to see on that map but it is being pointed out in outline where the site is and you can see the middle of that map is Abbey Wood, which the Committee will remember is at the end of the terminus of the south east branch of Crossrail.

16845. That is the general outline. If I can then put up the plan that shows the two plots concerned, the plots are outlined in yellow, two plots at the end of Ms Cousins' garden. The Committee can see plot 217 and plot 219. You can see from the photograph above that it is outlined in red where the land affected is. The two plots are affected slightly differently. Plot 217 is required permanently for works, including the widening of the railway to four tracks and the erection of an acoustic barrier. Plot 219 is only required temporarily, primarily for sewer diversion works, and Mr Berryman will explain them. You can see from the photographs that Ms Cousins' garden is a slightly unusual shape. It widens out at the end and in that widened section at the end she has constructed a fairly large garden building which I think is used as a playroom and outbuilding to the main house. We will have to demolish that garden building during construction, for which, of course, she will receive full compensation. It is not possible to reconstruct it during the construction phase because there is nowhere else on the site that is big enough to put it on, but it would be possible to reconstruct a very similar building at the end of the construction phase.

16846. I should have said a moment ago that the Committee will remember that the tracks down to Abbey Wood have to be widened to four tracks to allow the railway to operate, so we are in a situation where, certainly in our case, there is absolutely no alternative but to take this land. We have looked at it very carefully and there is quite simply no alternative, but at least the good news is that Ms Cousins will receive full compensation for the land that is taken.

16847. I hope that is sufficient in opening and I will be calling Mr Berryman to explain why we need the land and what we need to do on it.

16848. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cousins?

16849. MS COUSINS: Thank you. First of all what I would like to do before I introduce myself and what I would like to do is to say a big "thank-you" to Yemi Akinyemi from Crossrail and David Walker from Winckworths, the solicitors, and that is because they have really supported me. I want to make my presentation. I have been very nervous and overwhelmed by it and they have made it clear that if I want a voice I do have a voice and they have been so patient, especially David, in re-scheduling me and saying, "If you want to do it come and do it". I would just like to get that out of the way, thank you very much.

16850. My purpose is to not to go through the petition as is because it is written down and I do not want just to go over old ground, but obviously if there are any questions those will come up later. What I want to do is break up what I want to say into about three sections and talk about me and my family, our property and summarise the key fears that I have about this development and any promises that are being made.

16851. Who am I? I am a single parent. I have two wonderful girls aged ten and seven and we have lived at 71 Abbey Grove since 1989. That is important. I have not just moved there. I have a long-standing history in that community. I have no plans to leave. This is something that the neighbours are considering, "If this is going to go ahead it is big business against a small person. We have to leave". For some people it is not that easy to uproot and start again. I have been committed to the borough, even at the time of the 17 per cent interest rate, just to show you some of the difficulties I have gone through when house prices went high. I have survived that and I really would like to survive this as well.

16852. I work for Greenwich Council and I am a Justice of the Peace. I am active in the community, for example, with the local church and with helping develop the youth group. I have helped to develop the supplementary school in the borough and over-50s projects for African-Caribbean and African over-50s elders in the community, so I am very much embedded in that community.

16853. When we come home the last thing the children and I need is to feel restricted. Part of the difficulty that I have is that I really do not know what we are going to be left with, because if you look at Crossrail's response they use words like "approximate", and so I really do not know. Just to quickly respond to this full compensation, whatever that will be, it is not about the money. It has taken a lot to get where we are.

16854. To help you to understand a bit more about the property - and I love that aerial view; I am actually going to keep it as one of my photo album pictures, so thank you for that as well - and show you the ground level view of our area I have seven photos that you can scan in apparently and I will briefly explain them. This is Abbey Grove (indicating on photograph), I live there. Yes, we have all the other problems with graffiti and so on and it gets cleaned off, but that is part and parcel of our community. That is where I live, I am happy. When I first moved in this was the view, going back to around 1990, straight through to the back. There was not anything there. It has taken me years to get to a position, if we move on to other slides, where I could build those two constructions. The garden is a used garden. We use it through the seasons. These were taken when the children were young. Remember, they are ten and seven now. I did not deliberately go and take photos for this. I have raided my albums. That is spring when we are out in the garden, summer we are out in the garden. It is well used. Even at that time you can see if you look straight down the garden those structures were not there. On the next slide, autumn, we are out there with fireworks, whatever; we use our garden. There is a winter one as well. We are out there; that is not space that is locked away or we are cooped up in the house. I might be but the kids are outside anyway. We use that space. They are probably in their school clothes there and I was trying to figure out: was this after school or before school? Knowing my children, if it was fresh snow they would have been out there first thing in the morning.

16855. The next slide is bringing you right up to date to this year. What I was meant to be trying to photograph was the plant in the foreground. It was my child's homework. At the end of the summer term they brought home a little seedling that they had in cotton wool in the bottom of a plastic tub. We have all done it in school; I do not care what age you are now: think back, we have all done that. We nurtured it and it grew and there it is. It is growing up a little bit on the window sill and I just wanted to take that for my daughter but it shows the view about a year and a half, two years ago, when those structures were finally put up.

16856. Just to tell you a bit more about those structures, they are not wooden. They are breezeblock and brick and concrete. I went through a terrible planning and building control process. We had to dig down a certain depth for the foundation. I nearly gave up because of the costs which that incurred as well. We have some very large trees as you can see from this aerial view, so therefore to meet planning and building controls you have to dig down a certain depth. They are not simple constructions this has thrown up. This is a large garage with a toilet and it leads into a cesspit midway, roughly where the darker grey area on the ground meets the lighter area. The darker trees in the middle obscure it but there is actually a cesspit dug down there, God knows how many feet into the ground. It is a functional toilet. We could not build it into the main toilet supply because it would be going uphill and, as building control said, "We do not pump you-know-what uphill", or something like that, so we had to have a cesspit.

16857. I have been through quite a number of hurdles being a single parent, so it has taken me a while to get there. I really do have an affinity for what I am trying to achieve there and what I am doing in the community, and so now to hear that that is possibly (and to what extent I am still not too sure) going to be taken away from us is a difficulty. My children learned to ride their bikes in the garden. As I say, this is a real live situation. This is how we live. I did not have to have them out on the street. You can see the street on the other side of the photo. They learned to ride in the garden and not fall off. I could be at the kitchen window and monitor them. Now they are older, yes, with their friends they can go up and down the street but at least they are not falling on anyone's cars and damaging anyone's property. I think it is important to accept that.

16858. Moving on to my fears and loss of amenity, as I said, it is all in the petition. I have already mentioned the concern about the building and the work that is done and the amount of land we may or may not get back at the end; I am not sure about that. To me, looking at this property and what I have done, as they say, an Englishman's home is his castle. That is how I feel about this. This is a very large project, not just the Abbey Wood end. During the consultation, and I think things like this will happen with large projects, I was actually sent an invite to the Whitechapel consultation, not to the Abbey Wood one, so even in the development stages there were issues about us not knowing what was going on in Abbey Wood. It was through a neighbour saying, "Oh, did you hear about this? Why were you not at the meeting?", and I was not even aware of it. When I look back and think that this was addressed to "The Occupier". This is something so specific you should know who the people are that are liaising with the local authority and so on, but it is not addressed to individuals; it is sent to the occupier and there are risks of miscommunication as well.

16859. I have also had a history of previous complaints with Network Rail. That is not Crossrail; it is Network Rail, the local supplier. I notice a lot is said about noise. It is not so much the noise; it is the vibration. That was one of the concerns I have had to raise over the years with Network Rail. When the freight vehicles go up and down that line, if you are in bed you are rocked. If you need to be rocked to go to sleep it is fantastic. If you do not it is a nuisance and I have had to raise complaints about being in bed and being woken up at 5.30, a ridiculous hour in the morning, when these freight trains have gone down the line. It has taken MP involvement and so on before you get responses. I then thought, "Oh, they have resolved the problem, so where or how are they going to transport the freight? Are they going on the roads?". What they have done is to shift the time of day, so when I am at home in the holidays or have time off work or whatever it is coming along during the day. I have survived. I went to Jamaica once and I survived the earthquake, five-point-something on the Richter scale, and what I feel in the house with the bed shaking and so on is similar to that to me.

16860. I assume there is going to be a greater frequency of trains and longer trains and heavier trains, plus the freight trains. How is that going to impact on the fabric of the buildings along that road? It is the vibration. The noise at the moment is not an issue. To me noise is what is in the air; it is aerial. It is the actual physical structures rattling and shaking that cause concern, so that problem has not been resolved; it still happens. How is that going to get better? I really do not know.

16861. I have also raised with Network Rail the hazard of overgrown trees, which I felt were probably more to do with the line than with me but I certainly did not want trains derailing in my back yard. The trees are left to grow to an extent where it is actually quite amusing to watch. It is like watching a train go through a train wash or a car go through a car wash and the trees are washing up the train as it goes through. As a resident and as an infrequent but every now and then commuter on the trains it does worry me. There are environmental issues here. With the extra building are there going to be more trees, what trees and what will be the maintenance of those trees? The trees cause a problem in terms of leaf drop, et cetera, on our side as well as on the train track side, and also, the length to which the branches grow and overhang. There have been uprooted trees as well. About two years ago a tree actually did collapse across the line.

16862. Those are the problems. I really cannot see that an holistic approach is being taken to this. It is not just about, "Oh, let us get a train in and private investors and maybe local authorities benefit". I do not know who is benefiting in the long run, but there is an environment out there and I cannot see how it will benefit in the long run.

16863. Even that consultation process, it is so paper-intensive. I have a full-time job, I have two children who do their swimming, their gymnastics, their music lessons and when I come home, the last thing I need is to see communications like this (indicating) coming through the door for me. I do not open it, I am terrified by it because first of all I am thinking, "What's going to be in it?", and in this case it was three of these files, which I think was an error, but it was a waste of paper, a waste of postage. Then the technical information in there, are they really telling me that I must read through that to understand what they may or may not do? There is no way I can really do that. At the end of the day, what I or any other householder who is going to suffer a significant impact wants to know is exactly what the impact is, what we would be left with and then we can have a proper yea or nay negotiation about it. At the moment I feel as though I am fighting against something which is not exactly in a proper form that I can touch and feel or really see. I just know it is something and I do not like the feeling that it is leaving with me.

 

In conclusion, that is Petitioner 133's story. I do have concerns about the impact on lifestyle. I do believe that no matter how it looks, it is not the most wonderful suburban estate or whatever, but it is where I live and I have worked very hard to achieve what I have. There are conflicts between Crossrail's plans and other government priorities as well, for example, its impact on stronger cohesive communities. To me, this will break up communities. In terms of decent homes, I cannot see that my property is going to benefit or other people's property and we surely must suffer worse vibration problems and, to be honest, I do not really know how the house has stood up and I keep wondering if I should go into construction or something, but it has stood up. I cannot see more trains making less of an impact. Obviously there are government priorities around greener environments and so on. We do not want more concrete. We actually do suffer some flooding if we get a heavy downpour. I do not know how well you know the area, but where we are, we are quite low level and my understanding from some of the people who have lived there for a long time is that at the back of the garden where the train track is, that was riverbed some time ago, so actually we do every now and then suffer flooding and I think the last one was just last year. The church itself is still suffering, carpets and stuff have not been relaid, and they are still collecting money to do their improvements. So we do suffer problems and the more concreted over, the less trees and less ground that we have, I cannot see that we are contributing to greener environmental priorities.

 

That is me, my family and my concerns. Thank you for your time. We do trust that you have really heard what I have tried to say and that you will give serious consideration in your deliberations to these things. Thank you.

16864. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed for that refreshing presentation. Ms Lieven, would you like to respond?

16865. MS LIEVEN: Well, sir, I was going to call Mr Berryman very briefly to explain the position.

 

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled

Examined by MS LIEVEN

16866. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, the Committee is extremely familiar with you, but perhaps you could introduce yourself to Ms Cousins.

(Mr Berryman) I am the Managing Director of the company established to build the Crossrail project.

16867. Can you start, Mr Berryman, by explaining why we need Ms Cousins' garden?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, there are two reasons. First of all, as you mentioned in your introduction, we expect to widen the railway here to provide four tracks instead of the current two. We also intend to provide a noise barrier along the southern boundary of the railway. That means that we have to take about three metres of Ms Cousins' land at the bottom of the garden. The garden is about 42 metres long. It is eight metres wide for most of its length and 20 metres at the end, so we will be taking a strip about 20 metres by three metres along the very end of her garden. In addition to that, there is a public sewer which runs diagonally across the two plots of land which are mentioned. There is a public sewer which runs down this right of way and then diagonally across the piece of land here (indicating) and under the railway, and as we are widening the railway embankment in that area, we will need to strengthen that sewer. It is a 300mm-wide sewer, so it is quite a substantial piece of work. That means we will need to take temporary occupation of all of that triangle of land and then permanent occupation of the strip about three metres wide down here (indicating). Unfortunately, that means that the building which stands on Ms Cousins' land will need to be removed.

16868. Have we examined alternatives?

(Mr Berryman) Well, we have, but there is not a lot we can do because the sewer actually runs directly under the garden and directly under the building and it is where it is, so there is not a lot we can do about it. As far as widening the railway is concerned, again we have to work with the existing railway corridor and there is not too much we can do about that. As I said earlier, we will be providing a noise barrier there which may ameliorate some of Ms Cousins' concerns about the existing railway operation, but there is not much we can do about actually taking the land.

Examined by THE COMMITTEE

16869. MRS JAMES: You mentioned three metres. Would that be running the whole length of the track there?

(Mr Berryman) It is three metres in that way (indicating), so a strip along here about three metres wide.

16870. Are all those properties in that street affected similarly?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, every one would be.

16871. CHAIRMAN: The sewer runs from the housing and diagonally across that site which is marked?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

16872. We were told there was a cesspit slightly higher than that.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, these are two different things. Between these two houses here (indicating), there is a right of way or a paved area in any event and the sewer runs down that paved area and diagonally across there. It comes up this road here and down there (indicating). Now, this is a trunk sewer, not a sewer for individual houses, so there are no individual house connections in it. It is a big sewer which serves the whole of this Abbey Grove area, so I imagine that when the outhouse was built or the garden building was built with the need to put a toilet in, you normally would not be allowed to tap into a sewer like that.

16873. The reason I am asking is could not one of the benefits be that the cesspit would be joined into the main sewer line?

(Mr Berryman) I am not sure that Thames Water would let us do that. It would require the construction of a manhole in any event at a minimum which may cause even more disruption. We could certainly investigate it, but I would have to say, without going into the details, unless there is something I really have not understood, I would think it extremely unlikely that a connection could be made.

16874. It just seems that if it is there and if it is a problem, part of the gain exchange could perhaps be incorporation.

(Mr Berryman) We will certainly look at that, but, as I say and I reemphasise, I think Thames Water's reaction would not be very favourable.

16875. KELVIN HOPKINS: It looks as if on the north side, the left-hand side of the diagram, that there were four tracks originally. Is that right? Is it reinstating what was a four-track railway?

(Mr Berryman) No, I understand that it never actually was a four-track railway, but the land was acquired for making it a four-track railway. That is one of the reasons why you see the very strange plot numbering down here (indicating) and the ownership of this land is actually odd. Normally the garden of a house would be all one plot.

16876. To make it a four-track line, you feel you have to take extra land on the southern side to make it wider? Is that right?

(Mr Berryman) We are taking extra land on the southern side and on the northern side, so we are widening symmetrically. There are houses on both the north and the south side.

16877. So the track bed, if you like, never used on the northern side was not sufficient for two tracks?

(Mr Berryman) At that particular location, it looks as if there was a used track there, but in fact there is not. It never was a four-track railway, but always a two-track railway.

16878. But that was left for the possibility of construction?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, there was always the possibility that it would be widened. At this particular location, you can see there is a road on the north side of the railway, but further along there are houses which back on to it.

16879. So you have to take some land to the south as well as the north?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

16880. Could you explain in just a little bit more detail what you actually have to do about the sewer?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, the sewer is almost certainly a standard concrete pipe. Because the railway at this point is on an embankment, we will have to widen the embankment slightly. We would normally put in a strengthening pipe to do that, either a steel sleeve or possibly just a more substantial pipe section.

16881. MR BINLEY: Mr Berryman, I am worried about the consultation again. I have been in marketing for a very long time, so I know how difficult it is to get messages through to people, but I am back to that old monitoring issue again because you do state the consultation vehicles and routes that you use, but there is nowhere in here where your response talks about monitoring to know that the people received those communications. Indeed we have heard from Ms Cousins that in fact she was invited to the wrong consultation which underlines the difficulty. I sympathise, but when I look at the consultation rounds advertised in local newspapers, I know from my canvassing how many people have notices on their doors, "No local newspapers", and I know how many people, given free newspapers, would throw them away without even looking at them. Therefore, I have a concern about simply saying that you have gone through these consultation channels, a concern that that does not mean to say that you have consulted. The only way that you know is by monitoring quite sizeably and that is an expensive exercise, so how can you be sure that you have consulted?

(Mr Berryman) Well, I think evidence was given on this in the last session of the Committee when we explained ----

16882. Yes, and I did not accept it then, sir.

(Mr Berryman) Well, we did explain that we had done two - I have forgotten what the technical word is - surveys to see how many people had picked up the information. I was rather surprised myself to hear what Ms Cousins has just said about being invited to the Whitechapel Centre and I will look into that and find out what happened. It is the first time I have been aware of it.

16883. Do you accept that it is quite unbelievable that Ms Cousins did not know about this situation? I can understand your view that it is unlikely, but it is quite conceivable that she did not. That is the point I am putting to you.

(Mr Berryman) I am sure you will know from your canvassing that it is quite difficult to get messages across to ----

16884. And from being in marketing for 30 years.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, indeed that too, but it is very difficult to get to every single person. The problem with consultation on a scheme like this is that you are actually aiming for single people, you are not aiming for a segment of the market or that sort of thing, you are aiming for individual householders. It is quite difficult to make sure you reach every one of them. We have had major problems with this issue particularly in other parts of London, not so much here, where we have actually gone round and I have personally supervised things being stuck through doors by our own staff and yet people have still said, "We didn't hear about it".

16885. I sympathise enormously, I really do sympathise, but I think the point Ms Cousins is making has some validity in this respect and that is the point I am making.

(Mr Berryman) I do not think we would have ever claimed, and I do not think we could ever claim, to reach every individual house. We have done our best to try and do it and we have focused on hard-to-reach groups. I would not have put Ms Cousins in that category, by the way.

 

Re-examined by MS LIEVEN

16886. MS LIEVEN: Just on consultation, Mr Berryman, once the Bill was published, would Ms Cousins have had individual correspondence addressed to her about the situation, that land was to be acquired?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, she would indeed. As an owner of land to be acquired or, for that matter, as anyone impacted in this way, she would have received an individual letter.

16887. MR BINLEY: Can I ask whether that was after planning permission was sought? That is the relevant point here. If it was after planning permission was sought, it really does impact on Ms Cousins' case in truth.

(Mr Berryman) When a planning application is received, and, as I understand it, it was a late planning application, in other words, the building was already existing, on 20 January 2003.

16888. MS LIEVEN: So was that actually before the land was safeguarded in any event?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, it was. The safeguarding did not take place until quite late in this area.

16889. The only other thing I wanted to ask you about, Mr Berryman, was vibration which Ms Cousins is obviously very concerned about and quite understandably being next to a railway which carries freight.

(Mr Berryman) Indeed.

16890. Can you just say in lay terms how the vibration effect from a Crossrail train will compare to that of a freight train which Ms Cousins experiences at the moment and, secondly, whether your understanding is that there will be any vibration threat from Crossrail?

(Mr Berryman) There will be certainly no discernible vibration from Crossrail. It does not get away from the fact that there will still be freight trains on the line of course, that is nothing to do with us, but the Crossrail trains should be significantly smoother even than the existing passenger trains which operate on this line. It should not be causing the kind of vibration that Ms Cousins referred to.

16891. CHAIRMAN: What about sound-proofing? Would that improve the situation?

(Mr Berryman) Well, we are proposing to put a two-metre-high noise barrier in. The noise from railways comes from quite a number of different sources. The biggest part of it comes from the wheel-rail interface, the actual roughness of the wheel and the rail interacting with each other. By putting up a two-metre noise barrier, you can mitigate 95 per cent of that noise. These noise barriers now are very, very effective. The noise barriers which have been put up on the M1 in Bedfordshire have been absolutely brilliant and we will be putting something similar up.

16892. MS LIEVEN: Those are my only questions, sir.

16893. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cousins, would you like to come back?

 

Cross-examined by MS COUSINS

16894. MS COUSINS: Thank you for asking about the consultation. I did receive this notice, but that was after and I have got that and I have written on it. I tried to ring up for information, so I have got that, the so-called consultation which I think is meant to be prior, so there are gaps in the process. We ended up talking about noise and vibration. I can see that with construction going on there is a barrier between the property and the line which would affect the noise, but the vibration is something else. If you are putting in a new line that will take freight and possibly while they maintain the old lines, I do not know if they are going to be maintained, can there not be a commitment of vibration-isolating mounting?

(Mr Berryman) On what?

16895. On the track, I presume, on the track itself.

(Mr Berryman) Well, in this area the track will be on ballast on the ground which is not amenable to vibration-free mounting. In any event, that would be a problem which applies over the whole of the National Rail network, it does not just apply to this house.

16896. So nothing can be done about the vibration and we could have freight trains travelling a bit closer?

(Mr Berryman) There will of course be the noise barrier, as I mentioned. The track will be new which will also have beneficial effects.

16897. I do not know what the Committee can do, but maybe in looking at that, if you are coming nearer to the property and there is vibration, there is a difference between noise and vibration as one is aerial and the other is through the ground, or that is what I assume, that if you are in your bed and rocking, there is no way that is aerial, so perhaps the Committee could give consideration to whether if it is right across the whole system, and maybe that is a reality that has to be taken into account, but could serious consideration be given to vibration-isolating mounting? Do not ask me what they are, rubber pads or something.

(Mr Berryman) They are rubber pads, but, as I said, they are just not appropriate for lines which are built on an embankment. I think the track down there, and I should not say this about colleagues' lines, but I think the track down there is pretty poor at the moment and it certainly will be significantly better when it is rebuilt.

16898. CHAIRMAN: Mr Berryman, there are a number of questions. Ms Cousins was very clear about compensatory matters which we do not want to discuss here, but also about the scale and size of buildings that are going to be left there. I wondered if you could establish some liaison so we can get someone to sit down with Ms Cousins and actually go through all of that.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, we can certainly do that.

16899. CHAIRMAN: We would be very, very grateful if you could examine whether or not this cesspit was a similar situation which might be rectified which would give a cost benefit to the property owner in relation to all the works which are going on and the loss which will be incurred.

(Mr Berryman) We will certainly look at that.

16900. MR BINLEY: Mr Berryman, going through a planning application, no matter how large or small, is expensive, it is costly, and it is quite apparent to me that, through no fault of her own, because we have already admitted that the consultation came and certainly your letter came after the planning permission was applied for and we all know that it is not the planners' responsibility to tell people of possible other use in the future, so could you look at that too? We are not talking, in the great scheme of things, of a great deal of money, but I think it would be fair to Ms Cousins if you might look at that and see if you can do something to help in that respect.

(Mr Berryman) I shall need to talk to my property colleagues of course on that.

16901. I know you are a kindly man!

(Mr Berryman) I am a kindly man, but unfortunately some of my colleagues are less kindly than I am!

16902. MS COUSINS: One of the things I really would need, and it ties in with what was said about going through planning and dealing with contractors and so on, I really would not want to be left with a piece of ground and be told, "There you are", and have to go through all that again. It is a right of way. It is actually two separate buildings which are separated by half a metre and it is a garage with an integral toilet. We drive down the side between the two properties into the back garden and that dark area is actually the tarmacked area up into the garage, so it is a functional garage/store room and so on, so it is quite large. The playroom or summerhouse, as I prefer to call it when I use it, is a functional building as well. Basically it is just a square room, but it is carpeted and everything. The children use it, they have their birthday parties down there, so I have no problems and the children from the community can come down and go straight down the back and go and play in the playroom and I do not have to have them running up and down in the house. They are functional structures, so I really would want a commitment. Admittedly, before I came here, I had not appreciated, I thought it was the entire, whatever shape area that is that was under proposal to be taken permanently, but if it is only a three-metre strip, whatever is left beyond that three-metre strip to me needs to look like what is there now. That is the commitment I would be looking for.

16903. CHAIRMAN: What we can give you a commitment of today, Ms Cousins, is that Mr Berryman has promised to set up a liaison with yourself to actually examine all of these questions which you have asked, and in particular the installation of sound barriers, and also to give you exact information of what buildings will be there at the end of it. I am sure, even with assurances now at this meeting, that the state of the land will be put back in such a way that it will not be left in disarray.

(Mr Berryman) I am happy to give that commitment. We already have an information paper on that point of course, so it is a policy of the whole thing. As regards the buildings, that is a slightly different issue. The issue of whether they can be rebuilt or not would be covered in compensation.

16904. CHAIRMAN: But perhaps you can take on Ms Cousins' concerns and actually give us an assurance that what will be left will not be worse.

(Mr Berryman) I am happy to give that assurance now. The reinstatement will be with her agreement.

16905. MS LIEVEN: Can I just say, sir, that we will look into whether it would be possible for us to make reprovision. Obviously it is not a financial issue, this one, at all because we will compensate in any event, but if it is possible for us to make the provision within the Bill, then that would ease Ms Cousins' position in having to reapply for planning permission and go through the whole process again, but there are legalities to that which we will have to look into and we will write to her setting out what the position is.

16906. CHAIRMAN: I do not think that any of the things that were suggested here are great difficulties and I think that they are all solvable so that some kind of benefit on both sides can be achieved. Mr Berryman has actually agreed to this meeting and he has been as helpful as he possibly can. I think that is enough for the Committee.

16907. MR BINLEY: Can you report back though in good time while this Committee is still in being? That would be helpful.

16908. MS LIEVEN: We will certainly be able to report back while the Committee is still in being. I do not know how much the Committee knows about the procedure at the moment, but this is likely to be a relatively short period of sitting, perhaps only a couple of weeks or a couple of weeks and a day, but if we can get an answer back within that on it, we will do our utmost.

 

16909. CHAIRMAN: Can I just say, Ms Lieven, that it may be for you, but it may not be for us because we have to read all of your reports!

16910. MS LIEVEN: I should have said the public sittings, sir.

16911. CHAIRMAN: We also have to write our report and agree our report, so we are going to be fairly busy.

(Mr Berryman) We will of course be back with additional provisions in January.

16912. CHAIRMAN: We are not out of October yet, so there is still a while to go. Ms Cousins, are there any other matters you want to raise?

16913. MS COUSINS: No, I think that is the substantial bit, thank you.

 

The witness withdrew

16914. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven?

16915. MS LIEVEN: Do you want me to make a very brief closing, sir, so that you have it on the record largely for those members of the Committee who are not here?

16916. CHAIRMAN: Please.

16917. MS LIEVEN: There are just four points to cover. First of all, there is no real issue; we need the land. Secondly, the permanent acquisition is only of a very small proportion, three metres of a 42-metre garden. Thirdly, on vibration, our trains will not be increasing vibration and they will have no material effect whatsoever and she will be benefited by the acoustic fence which will certainly lessen the noise from the freight trains, albeit not the vibration. As far as the suggestion of putting padded track in is concerned, which we have discussed for the tunnelled sections of the route, as Mr Berryman has explained, on a ballast and earth embankment that simply would not serve the purpose and it would be quite inappropriate. On consultation, we absolutely hear what the Committee says. The consultation has not been perfect, but it never is perfect. It is an impossible thing, I suspect, ever to meet the desires of people who want to know everything with the desires of people like Ms Cousins, and I have to say myself, not to have every tree cut down to get masses of paper or to persuade people to open envelopes which are addressed only to the occupier, but we will keep monitoring and we will keep reporting back to the Committee on how we are getting on.

16918. I should say that we totally understand that members of the public who are directly affected, particularly whose own houses are affected, may well feel very intimidated by the entire process and we do appreciate that and we do as much as we can and we are learning every day to try to do it better. Of course we have said that we will liaise further and we will look into what further works we can do.

16919. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cousins, can I thank you on behalf of the Committee for what I described earlier as a very refreshing presentation. We are very grateful to you and we will look at what has been said today and ensure, as far as possible, if we can, that it reaches a satisfactory conclusion. Thank you, Mr Berryman, again. The Committee will now adjourn and will next meet tomorrow at 10 am.