|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 837-xiii HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the
Tuesday 28 February 2006 Before: Mr Brian Binley Mr Philip Hollobone Kelvin Hopkins Mrs Siān C James Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger Dr John Pugh Mrs Linda Riordan Sir Peter Soulsby
In the absence of the Chairman, Sir Peter Soulsby was called to the Chair
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in. The Petition of Smithfield Market Tenants' Association. MR JAMES DINGEMANS QC and MR PAUL LETMAN appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. 3605. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Today the Committee is hearing the Petition of the Smithfield Market Tenants' Association. I understand Mr James Dingemans is here, assisted by Mr Paul Letman. You are welcome. Mr Elvin? 3606. MR ELVIN: Sir Peter, can I just record for the record that I received a letter from Mr Meale last week requesting certain discussions relating to the City of London and Liverpool Street. Can I just tell the Committee that those matters are in hand, so that, for the record, you know that we have received the letter and they are being actioned. Also, in accordance with the previous presentations, I wondered whether the Committee would find it helpful for me just to say a few short words to say what is happening at Smithfield before Mr Dingemans begins? 3607. SIR PETER SOULSBY: If Mr Dingemans is happy with that I am sure we will be. 3608. MR ELVIN: It will not be very long. Sir, you should have from us P49 which is the bundle of exhibits which have clearly been supplied to the Petitioners as well. I am only going to refer to three of these documents, and they will be put up on the screen as usual. Sir, an overview of the layout of Crossrail's general proposals for Farringdon Station, the Committee may recall, was given in the opening made by Ms Lieven when the London Borough of Islington presented its Petition to the Committee a few weeks ago. Sir, the overall picture for the Farringdon Crossrail station is dealt with in the transcript of 7 February, in paragraphs 2435 to 2442. 3609. I propose now just to deal with the way in which the east end of the proposed Farringdon station interacts with Smithfield Markets, because of course the Committee is hearing the Petition of the Smithfield Market Tenants' Association. Can I ask for exhibit P49, page 7, to be put on the screen, please? Page 7 shows the eastern end of Farringdon station and its relationship with Smithfield Market. The Committee will see Smithfield Market marked in the bottom left-hand quadrant of the plan. The Committee will see also the triangle of Fox and Knot Street, which was dealt with some weeks ago, you will see the platforms to the eastern end of the proposed Farringdon station, and you will see a tunnel coming up to a box with escalators in it underneath Smithfield Market to the south, which will take passengers to and from the eastern ticket hall which is to be built on Lindsey Street, which you will see just to the right of Smithfield Market. You will see the entrance to Farringdon Crossrail eastern ticket hall at that particular point. 3610. Can I also ask that photograph exhibit page 9 be put up, please? That is simply an aerial photograph. That shows Smithfield Market, the Committee will know. Over Smithfield Market itself there is a dotted line to show the approximate outline of the basement worksite which will be needed for these works, the passage under Lindsey Street, which you will be hearing a good deal about from the Petitioners, and the area of the Lindsay Street worksite which will be needed for excavations and for the construction of the eastern ticket hall. You will see, also, the relationship of the proposed eastern ticket hall with Barbican Tube station which is existing, and you have already heard during the City of London's Petition that there will be a connection between the Crossrail ticket hall and the Barbican station. 3611. As I have already mentioned, there will be an entrance into Lindsey Street, and the eastern ticket hall will also provide an interchange, as I have mentioned, with the Barbican station to the east. As you have seen from the previous plans, there is a series of escalators and passages that will provide access from the Crossrail platforms at deep level up under Smithfield, and one of those flights, as I have already mentioned, passes directly under Lindsey Street and into a box constructed under the Smithfield Market basement. 3612. Perhaps I could ask for drawing 8 to be put up, which shows this in section. You will see there on the left-hand side the eastern end of Smithfield Market and you will see the market basement shown and, underneath that box, the escalator and the passageway from the deep platforms which are to the north up to Lindsey Street and the ticket hall which will be, of course, at ground floor level. To enable the construction of the box under the basement, part of the basement will need to be temporarily occupied as a worksite (the worksite is shown in the response document, which I do not need to show the Committee at this stage, unless the Committee wants to see it) and the approximate outline of the site of the market you have seen on the photograph. Mr Berryman from Crossrail will provide more detail of the engineering matters and will be able to answer any questions that the Committee has on the technical construction issues. 3613. So far as the issues for the Committee are concerned, the main issue raised by the Market Tenants' Association is to protect the traders and their businesses during the construction of Crossrail. It is understood from recent meetings, correspondence and discussions which we have had, both at Crossrail and counsel level, particular items of concern include traffic impacts, loading bay provision in Lindsey Street, car parking, air quality (particularly concerns about nuisance dust and impact on the hygiene of meat), the structure and integrity of the market building and issues as to compensation. No doubt Mr Dingemans will give you his submissions in a moment, and I should note, because he will be mentioning it in a moment, that as a result of the discussions there have been a significant number of assurances and undertakings now given by the Secretary of State to the Market Tenants' Association, but I will leave it for Mr Dingemans to explain what has happened and those matters with which the Market Tenants' Association still require further steps to be taken. Thank you. 3614. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Thank you, Mr Elvin. 3615. MR DINGEMANS: As you know, I appear on behalf of Smithfield Market Tenants' Association, with Mr Letman. I have produced, and I hope it has been handed up, a short note of our submissions which I hope will save your pens, at least, and give a clear outline of what we are attempting to do on behalf of the Association. That is a document beginning "Note of Submissions on behalf of SMTA", and I will refer to a number of other documents which have been handed out together with that. 3616. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr Dingemans, just for the record, that document will be numbered A42. 3617. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you. If one goes to paragraph 3 of that note, you can see that some of the issues which concern the Association were in fact identified in the evidence given by the Corporation of London on 31 January, so I will not repeat that, and since then much progress has been made. I have produced a document headed "Outstanding Undertakings from the Promoter". That is in a treasury tag and there are two documents headed: "Undertakings from the Promoter" and "Outstanding Undertakings". Can I show you that? 3618. SIR PETER SOULSBY: You can, and, predictably, the "Undertakings from the Promoter" document will be numbered A43. 3619. MR DINGEMANS: Perhaps the "Outstanding Undertakings" which are in the same tag - do you want a separate number for that? 3620. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mine are safely stapled together! 3621. MR DINGEMANS: Can I take you straight to the "Outstanding Undertakings", so that we do not travel over the ground that has already been covered, and identify what we are hoping to persuade the Committee to require the Promoter to give to us? First of all, in relation to highways, one of the provisions of the proposed Bill is a power to stop up Lindsey Street in its entirety. Now, if I may ask you to go back to the photograph at page 9, you can see, from what I hope will be an aerial photograph, Lindsey Street is at the end of the market and I think you have heard, and having read the transcript, Lindsey Street is critical to the market because, effectively, there is a one-way system running from Charterhouse Street, round Lindsey Street and through West Smithfield. The Bill proposes the power to stop up Lindsey Street in its entirety. If you look at the undertakings that have been given, "the nominated undertaker will maintain vehicular access around Lindsay Street" is one that has been given, and that is to include the 38, 40 and 44 tonne vehicles. The Petitioner's short point in relation to Lindsey Street is that if there is this undertaking that Lindsey Street will remain open all the time we would much rather this provision was removed from the Bill because the effect of having it in the Bill is that it gives statutory authority to block up Lindsey Street, and the protection that we are given is only the undertaking, and we will come back to what is the effect and legal effect of the undertakings later. That is paragraph 4.1 of my note. 3622. Paragraph 4.2 is the hours of working. There is a short point here. The market, as you probably know from the earlier evidence, works effectively ten at night till nine in the morning. If construction begins at eight in the morning, you will have the construction traffic arriving at seven in the morning, and the effect of that will be, we say on the evidence, chaos. We just do ask for an adjustment of hours of working. 3623. Paragraph 4.3 is the timing of works, which is simply to avoid the Farringdon crossover works. In fact, since this document was produced last night further progress has been made on that point. It seems that that is not likely to be a real issue, so I will skip that very quickly, if I may. 3624. In paragraph 4.4, there has been really substantial progress on dust levels and suppression plans. You do not need any explanations today of how critical dust and environmental measures are for a meat market, but one remaining area of difference is this: that the trigger levels, which are the background levels that you start monitoring the dust at, are, at the moment, all within the power of the nominated undertaker. They are going to carry out some monitoring and consult with us, but then have the power to decide the trigger levels. We simply ask for a provision that we be entitled to agree them with agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, and if we are unreasonable it can go to arbitration. That is because, as you can imagine, dust is really inconsistent with the continued function of a market. 3625. Finally, one undertaking is the continuous use of the market buildings. Everything has been designed to ensure that the market continues to operate, and we would respectfully request an undertaking that that be given for the reasons that I will come back to when we look at remedies for infringement of undertakings and the effect of the construction works. 3626. Can I drop down to the bottom of page 2? As far as paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 are concerned, you are going to hear evidence from some of the market traders (and I will get on to them as soon as possible simply because they have been working overnight - interesting though it is listening to lawyers, I suspect they would rather get on with the real job of life, if that is all right) and I will simply identify for the Committee's consideration the remedies point as briefly as possible, so that you can identify in the evidence what are going to be the important points in this respect. I have shown you the undertakings from the Promoter, which contain the undertakings which have been offered, and we will need to explain the manner in which those carrying on in the business operate in the market, the rights and remedies provided by the Compulsory Purchase Acts, which have been described as the national compensation code, the effect of the Bill on what would have been our rights without statutory authorisation and what we respectfully submit is required to ensure a fair balance between the public interest in ensuring that Smithfield continues and the Crossrail Bill is built. 3627. In relation to all those aspects, you can see that the rights and remedies provided by the national compensation code and the effect of the Bill on common law rights, remedies and a fair balance really stray into legal matters, but it is against that background that you will need to know the manner in which those carrying on business in the market operate with those concerns. So, with that very short introduction, if that is all right, and if I could be a wee bit more boring about the law later on, I will call Mr Greg Lawrence, who is the Chairman of the Traders' Association.
MR GREGORY ALFRED LAWRENCE, Sworn Examined by MR DINGEMANS
3628. MR DINGEMANS: Can you tell the Committee your full name? (Mr Lawrence) Gregory Alfred Lawrence. 3629. What is your occupation? (Mr Lawrence) I am a meat wholesaler. 3630. Are you a Managing Director of a company? (Mr Lawrence) I am. 3631. What is that? (Mr Lawrence) G Lawrence Wholesale Meat Company Limited. 3632. Are you the Chairman of the Association? (Mr Lawrence) I am. 3633. In your witness statement I think you have given us a bit of the background of Smithfield and the Smithfield Market, but if it is all right I will skip that. It is set out in various authorities. How long has the Association been continuing? (Mr Lawrence) I think approximately 120 years. 3634. Who does the Association represent? (Mr Lawrence) I think it is about 99 per cent of the tenants of Smithfield Market. 3635. Can you describe to the Committee how business is carried on at Smithfield Market? First of all, do you own the premises that you occupy? (Mr Lawrence) No, we lease them from the Corporation of London. 3636. I think you have produced a standard lease. Is that right? (Mr Lawrence) That is correct. 3637. That is SMTA1 on the numbering. I will not take you through that now but there are various provisions of it which are relevant. How long is that lease for? (Mr Lawrence) Ten years. 3638. When is it due to expire? (Mr Lawrence) In 2010. 3639. You are protected as a tenant, is that right, under the 1954 Landlord and Tenants Act? (Mr Lawrence) That is correct. 3640. Which, effectively, means you have a right to renew your tenancy? (Mr Lawrence) That is correct. 3641. The business that is carried on in the units, can you describe that for the Committee? (Mr Lawrence) The business is two different types of business. I will call them shops: cutting shops and boxed shops. The cutting shops cut carcasses of lambs, pigs and beef and the boxed shops sell vacuum pack beef and frozen beef already boned out. We start at approximately ten o'clock in the evening, the meat gets delivered from all around the country and Europe. The cutting shops start cutting at ten o'clock for the orders to go out at six, seven or eight o'clock the following morning. 3642. How many lorries make deliveries, as a guesstimate? (Mr Lawrence) Approximately 60 containers a night, approximately. Some nights are busier than others. 3643. Who picks up the meat? To whom is the delivery made? (Mr Lawrence) The tenants of the market. 3644. Who do the tenants sell to? (Mr Lawrence) Butchers, caterers, etc. 3645. How do they arrive at the market? (Mr Lawrence) They arrive from midnight onwards to collect their meat and poultry, load up and then go on their way. 3646. At what time has the market effectively stopped trading? (Mr Lawrence) Effectively, eight-thirty to nine o'clock in the morning. 3647. Are the regulations for the supply of meat the same for boxed meat and carcass meat? (Mr Lawrence) Yes, really. It is, yes. 3648. As far as carcass meat is concerned, how does that have to be delivered? (Mr Lawrence) Everything has to be under temperature control and wrapped. 3649. Does the carcass meat have to come in a specific way? (Mr Lawrence) Yes, the carcass meat is delivered to the market via sealed locked lorries under temperature control, again. 3650. Which premises does your company occupy? (Mr Lawrence) 23 East Market. 3651. How do you keep the meat cold at the market? (Mr Lawrence) Everything is under refrigeration and the cutting rooms are run at seven degrees. 3652. What physically keeps the ability of the market to chill meat? (Mr Lawrence) The refrigeration. 3653. Who runs that? (Mr Lawrence) It is the tenants' own refrigeration. 3654. Is there water supplied? (Mr Lawrence) Yes, chilled water which is provided by - it is not City Gen now. It used to be City Gen. 3655. Where does that come from physically? (Mr Lawrence) From the City. 3656. Where is the chiller unit for that located? (Mr Lawrence) In the car park underneath the East Market. 3657. The market was refurbished. When was that done? (Mr Lawrence) It was completed in 1997. 3658. What was that to ensure? (Mr Lawrence) The market can continue under new rules and regulations. It has to be EC approved. 3659. You mentioned the chiller unit down in the basement. What else is underneath the market at Smithfield? (Mr Lawrence) The car park. 3660. How many car parking spaces are there there? (Mr Lawrence) Approximately 500 (?). 3661. The impact of the proposed Crossrail works on the market operation. Can I, first of all, deal with Lindsey Street? Why is Lindsey Street important to the market? (Mr Lawrence) Well, as you have already mentioned, it is a one-way system of traffic. If Lindsey Street was closed the market would stop absolutely. It would be a disaster. 3662. What else happens on Lindsey Street? (Mr Lawrence) There are loading bays for the customers. I think there are approximately 30 loading bays that are used all through the trading times, through the night and through the morning. 3663. How many loading bays, roughly, on Lindsey Street? (Mr Lawrence) I think it is approxmately30. 3664. What would be the effect of the loss of those loading bays? (Mr Lawrence) Again, it would damage the market considerably, because the loading bays do not just load one for one customers - one customer comes in and stays for half-an-hour and moves on and another customer will arrive to the market. We would be losing, through the day, it could be 120 spaces if it is used three or four times a day. 3665. For those at the east end of the market, those nearest Lindsey Street, which entrance do they use, as it were, for their customers to take the meat out of the market? (Mr Lawrence) The Lindsey Street entrance. 3666. In relation to pollution, what are your concerns about dust and dirt from building works? (Mr Lawrence) They are considerable. This is a 24-hour market and we can expect meat inspections at all times. If there is dust or pollution in the air it will destroy the meat. 3667. How many meat inspections did Smithfield have last year? (Mr Lawrence) I think, again, approximately, between 35,000 and 40,000 inspections. 3668. That is a year? (Mr Lawrence) Each year, yes. 3669. What happens if the inspectors are unhappy with the meat? (Mr Lawrence) They detain it first and then they condemn it if they are not satisfied. 3670. Is it possible to arrange insurance for condemned meat? (Mr Lawrence) No. Sorry, unless the refrigeration breaks down. 3671. The refrigeration unit that you have mentioned. When was that installed? (Mr Lawrence) In 1997. 3672. Has that worked on an uninterrupted basis since then? (Mr Lawrence) No, we have had numerous problems in the ten years we have been continuing trading in the East and West Market concerning mainly the chilled water. 3673. What happens when the unit breaks down? (Mr Lawrence) We cannot trade. Trade stops. 3674. How long will the meat last once the unit is interrupted? (Mr Lawrence) As soon as it goes out of temperature it could be two, three or four hours. 3675. We know that one of the proposals is to put the escalator unit right under the eastern end of the market. What concerns do you have in relation to the continued operation of the market? (Mr Lawrence) It would be very, very difficult, but we will be able to continue as long as Lindsey Street is open all the time while we are trading, but that is an absolute must. It must happen. 3676. In terms of losses that market traders are likely to suffer, what can you envisage the losses that the market traders suffer being? (Mr Lawrence) If Lindsey Street is closed? 3677. Well, just from the works etc. (Mr Lawrence) It is very, very hard to tell, but obviously there will be some loss of trade. It could be considerable; it could be worse for some tenants rather than other tenants. 3678. In relation to your particular business, is there anything else you wanted to say in relation to the proposed effect on your business? (Mr Lawrence) No, our main aim is just to keep Smithfield able to continue trading at all times. That is our main aim. 3679. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you very much. 3680. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr Elvin, are you planning to ask any questions? 3681. MR ELVIN: Mr Dingemans is going to call experts later on, and I will be calling my own evidence. I have just a few points of clarification. 3682. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Before you start doing that, Mr Elvin, Mr Lawrence, I wondered, without obviously revealing any trade secrets or any details of your own business, can you give us some idea of the scale of the business, or the value of the trade on any particular day? (Mr Lawrence) In turnover, the value of the turnover is approximately three-quarters of a million a year. That is for the market. 3683. I was not suggesting that was for your business. Thank you very much indeed.
Cross-examined by MR ELVIN 3684. MR ELVIN: Mr Lawrence, I have only got a couple of questions. The numbers of the Association are 35. How many groups of traders are there there? You said it was about 99 per cent. What is the total number at the moment? (Mr Lawrence) Of traders: 36. 3685. Can I just check with you: as I understood what you said to Mr Dingemans earlier, you see keeping Lindsey Street open as critical to maintaining the operations of the eastern end of the market? (Mr Lawrence) Absolutely. To the whole market. 3686. As you know, the Secretary of State gives you an assurance that it will be kept open even for the larger 44-tonne trucks. You do understand that? (Mr Lawrence) Yes. 3687. If that is done, that will meet your main concern about keeping Lindsey Street open for market trade. (Mr Lawrence) That would be a major concern, yes. 3688. I know there is still the issue of the loading bays, which we will touch on with other witnesses, but that is the key issue from your point of view. (Mr Lawrence) Yes. 3689. So far as dust is concerned, and again I will take it up with your expert on the dust issues, is it right that you have to take a lot of steps at the moment to make sure that the individual trading premises are each secure from dirt and are kept clean and properly refrigerated where necessary? (Mr Lawrence) That is correct, yes. 3690. That is under the EC regulations for hygiene. (Mr Lawrence) Yes. 3691. Can I just get your confirmation: the six loading bays which are hermetically sealed to allow the movement of meat which is not packed into the market, they are three on the north side of the market and three on the south side? None of those loading bays are within Lindsey Street. (Mr Lawrence) That is correct. 3692. If we go to A44, page 55. I said there were three on the north and three on the south but there are four in the north and two in the south. Is that right? (Mr Lawrence) Yes. 3693. Can I put this on the scanner because it is not the right way round? We see four at the top and two at the bottom. Is that right? (Mr Lawrence) Yes. 3694. Four of them are attached to the central part of the market and two attached to the northern part of the eastern end of the market. They are not affected by the Lindsey Street works; they remain in operation. (Mr Lawrence) Yes. The two furthest to your right at the top could be a concern whether the containers can turn round easily, but we are quite confident it should be - we are not 100 per cent sure. 3695. Can I just ask you about your leases? You have got ten-year leases. One of the objects of the Association is to renegotiate the standard form of lease for the City of London. (Mr Lawrence) That is correct. 3696. Given that the leases, although you are protected under the Landlord and Tenants Act, come to an end in 2010, presumably you will be starting to negotiate new ten-year leases at some time before then? (Mr Lawrence) Yes, we will. 3697. Do you have an expectation that you will get further ten-year leases to replace the existing ones? Is that the likelihood? (Mr Lawrence) Absolutely. 3698. So that, at the time of the works, the market traders will be in possession of substantial leases of ten years or thereabouts which will allow them certain rights in relation to the settlement deed (?). (Mr Lawrence) Yes. 3699. MR ELVIN: Thank you very much. 3700. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Thank you very much indeed for your evidence, Mr Lawrence. I am sure the Committee will want me to say that you have helpfully introduced us to the nature, the scale and the vulnerability of your business. We much appreciate that. The Committee did, at an earlier stage, have an opportunity to visit the area and I know that a number of Members, myself included, have actually seen the market in operation on previous occasions. Thank you very much.
The witness withdrew
3701. MR DINGEMANS: Mr Twogood, please. This is page 112 of A44.
MR MARK TWOGOOD, Sworn Examined by MR DINGEMANS
3702. MR DINGEMANS: Can you tell the Committee your full name? (Mr Twogood) Mark Twogood. 3703. What is your occupation? (Mr Twogood) I am a Director of a meat wholesale business. 3704. Where do you trade from? (Mr Twogood) Poultry Market personally, but we have six businesses throughout the market. 3705. How long have you been at the Smithfield Market? (Mr Twogood) Twenty-six years. 3706. Can you tell the Committee how much of your business is done at the market and how much is done over the telephone? (Mr Twogood) We telephone most of our customers most of the day, but pretty much all the meat is bought from the market and picked up from the market over the morning. 3707. So the physical delivery still takes place at Smithfield? (Mr Twogood) Absolutely, yes. 3708. What are your concerns about the Lindsey Street end of the market for those of your units that are towards that end of the market? (Mr Twogood) Most of our businesses are actually on the south side but they will all be affected, the businesses, if we do not have continuation of market flow. On high days and holidays the market can get very clogged, with everything being open, as it is, so with any of the accesses shut it would cause major problems, not just for the businesses on the eastern side but right the way round. 3709. What is your particular view in relation to the loading bays and the loss of loading bays on Lindsey Street? (Mr Twogood) If you had the loss of Lindsey Street it would be almost impossible to actually load or unload meat. I think it would completely mess up the whole of the timings of the delivery. Most of the deliveries are done last thing at night and first thing in the morning. 3710. Can I ask you about the rodent population and your concerns in relation to that? (Mr Twogood) The rodent population? 3711. Yes. (Mr Twogood) At the moment, we are checked on a regular basis. We are told that the upheaval of building works and everything else will cause rodent infestation and movement of rodents, which obviously we have a great concern about. 3712. If there was a rodent infestation, what would be the effect on the ability to trade? (Mr Twogood) Unless we could show that we could actually deal with it, it would be very difficult. 3713. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you. 3714. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr Elvin, do you want to cross-examine? 3715. MR ELVIN: I do not think I do. The issue on rodents is already the subject of an assurance and it is not one of the outstanding undertakings. I do not propose to take that up. I have no questions to ask. 3716. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Thank you very much indeed.
The witness withdrew
3717. MR DINGEMANS: Then Mr Abrahams. This is page 118 in your bundle.
MR GEORGE CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAMS, Sworn Examined by MR DINGEMANS
3718. MR DINGEMANS: Can you tell the Committee your full name? (Mr Abrahams) I am George Christopher Abrahams. 3719. What is your occupation? (Mr Abrahams) I am Chairman and Director of the George Abrahams group of companies. 3720. What part of the business at Smithfield do you deal with? (Mr Abrahams) As my title suggests, I am the MD of the group of companies that trade at Smithfield Market. 3721. Are you in the carcass meat or the boxed meat side? (Mr Abrahams) I am in boxed - predominantly boxed meat, yes. 3722. For how long have you been working in the market? (Mr Abrahams) I am in my 35th year at Smithfield. 3723. Can you tell us about your concerns in relation to Lindsey Street? (Mr Abrahams) I think an important factor that has been missed out is the fact that if you get somebody parking inconsiderately in Lindsey Street when it is even narrower than it is now, it could bring the whole area, not just Lindsey Street, to a complete standstill. The onus is going to be on the market constabulary and, also, the City of London Police to make sure that if Lindsey Street is open we still have a through flow of traffic. 3724. Have you any experience before of closures of roads around Smithfield? (Mr Abrahams) I have. In 1999 we had the West Poultry Avenue closed because of concerns about the underground tunnelling beneath that particular road under the latest EU legislation on tunnels and bridges. Consequently, they closed West Poultry Avenue. One of my businesses, Keevil and Keevil, was situated at that corner of the market, and it was catastrophic for us. We had to take very, very prompt action indeed to make sure that the demise of the business was not long-term and fatal. 3725. What is your view on the likely effect on the continuation of your business if there are no loading bays on Lindsey Street? (Mr Abrahams) As I said earlier, sir, I think the impact on the logistics of running the whole market will have a catastrophic effect on the running. In these ever-increasing days of meeting timetables and delivery slots, we just cannot afford, as companies, to miss these windows because our customers will just go elsewhere. If we do not meet a deadline or a delivery date they will just go elsewhere. 3726. What would be the effect of any temporary closure of the market, for example, if pollution levels have risen too high to continue trading? (Mr Abrahams) Again, I think the Committee has heard the amount of turnover we do collectively, and obviously there are a number of people's livelihoods that are at stake. Smithfield Market is a key part of supplying the food industry in London and the South East, and I would like to think that this Honourable House would be enjoying products from Smithfield Market. 3727. Is the effect on your business because you are boxed produce any less in relation to airborne pollutants, etc? (Mr Abrahams) To a degree, yes, because we have the protection of boxed and wrapped products, but nonetheless, with airborne pollution that could be as significant as asbestos (we just do not know what is in these underground workings) it would, again, have a catastrophic effect on stock and making sure that it was fit for human consumption. 3728. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you very much.
Cross-examined by MR ELVIN
3729. MR ELVIN: I have just a few points of clarification, Mr Abrahams. The West Poultry Avenue. Is that the area that the Committee will have seen permanently closed off? It has got big red and white bollards across the road. (Mr Abrahams) From your descriptions it sounds very much like it, yes, sir. 3730. That was closed in 1999 because of the weight restrictions. (Mr Abrahams) It was, on the tunnelling underneath. 3731. That was closed permanently, though. Was it not? (Mr Abrahams) Until the tunnels are reinforced. So that could open again. 3732. But it has been closed now for over six years, basically. (Mr Abrahams) Possibly. I do not know the exact date, but yes. 3733. Roughly speaking. Can I just check with you? Have you got the blue document in front of you called "Smithfield Market Tenants' Association"? (Mr Abrahams) Yes. 3734. Which is D49. I just want to look at the loading bays in the plan. If you go to tab H inside, you will see that is also page 49 of the exhibit. If that can also be put up on the screen, please. That shows the Committee where the various loading bays are around the market. Is that right? (Mr Abrahams) I do not think it does. 3735. No? (Mr Abrahams) When you say the loading bays, do you mean the temperature controlled ones, or ---- 3736. These are the general loading bays, not the hermetically sealed docks, which the Committee has already seen. (Mr Abrahams) Not really. You have got entrances either side of the Poultry Market building which are tunnels which give access to that particular building, which do not seem to appear on this. 3737. I am just looking at the on-street loading bays here, Mr Abrahams, rather than the entrances into the market. It is just the on-street ones. (Mr Abrahams) That is right. 3738. Does that look about right? (Mr Abrahams) Yes. 3739. The ones we are talking about being lost for some of the time are outlined in red. (Mr Abrahams) Yes. 3740. So are the loading bays in West Poultry Avenue, the ones where there is a weight restriction issue, not used at all now, or can they be used by lighter vehicles? (Mr Abrahams) As far as I am aware, the area in West Poultry Avenue is not used at all. Certainly half of it is not used at all. It is shown as being used on this particular document. 3741. We can see that, on the screen, it has a blue arrow. That is the avenue we are talking about being closed. (Mr Abrahams) Yes. 3742. MR ELVIN: Thank you.
Re-examined by MR DINGEMANS
3743. MR DINGEMANS: Can I just ask one further question? Can we have P49 page 23, if that is all right? This is a photograph, we are told by the Promoter, of Lindsey Street taken at seven in the morning. Does that show, in fact, loading bays on the left-hand side extending right down towards the zebra crossing? (Mr Abrahams) It does, sir, yes. 3744. If we go back to page 49, I am not sure that we see those on page 49. I am not sure very much turns on it. (Mr Abrahams) It is the red rectangle. 3745. MR DINGEMANS: The blue appears to stop halfway down. 3746. MR ELVIN: There is a van parking on a zig-zag "no parking" area! 3747. SIR PETER SOULSBY: The numbers are blocked out. Thank you very much, Mr Abrahams.
The witness withdrew 3748. MR DINGEMANS: That, effectively, is the last witness evidence. We hoped to have two further witnesses: Mr Fisher, whose statement is at pages 115-117, is unfortunately not well, and Mr Andrade, if we do go into Wednesday morning, will be available then. I suspect his evidence duplicates that which you have heard rather than taking it any further. That really will be the lay witness evidence. 3749. Before we go into the expert evidence, and after those members of the Association who want to go back to bed now go back to bed, may I deal with the less interesting aspects of the concerns in relation to compensation, having regard to the particular position of the Association members. 3750. SIR PETER SOULSBY: That would be very helpful. In case your witnesses do feel the need to go back to bed this morning, and before they do, could I thank them very much for so very clearly putting to us their very understandable concerns. 3751. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you very much. 3752. It is at the bottom of page 2 of what I have called the "Note of Submissions". I have set it out at some length in the hope that it remains comprehensible and the dullness factor is reduced, because, unhappily, I will have to deal with a little bit of the law. 3753. Could I pick up, at the bottom of page 3 of that document, on operations of business in the market. As a matter of historical note, if anyone is in the slightest bit interested, the full history to Smithfield Market is set out in a judgment given by Lord Hoffmann. It is available in the bundle and it takes us all the way from 1350 to 1708 and then up to the present day. Of more relevance to the Committee is what is said in paragraph 9, which is the continuing current economic relevance of Smithfield. The Committee is aware, I know, from questions that were asked on 31 January, of the extensive refurbishment which took place, and you have heard Greg Lawrence briefly in relation to that. You have also heard, with reference to paragraph 10, of the difference between boxed meat and carcass meat and inevitably the slight differences in sensitivity between the two aspects of that. 3754. Could I summarise parts of the lease, at the bottom of page 4, and tell you why this is relevant. At the moment, the members of the Association have reasonably short-term leases: ten years, which get renewed, because they have the right to renewal under the 1954 Act. At paragraph 11.1 I have summarised the provisions which you would expect to comply with statutory requirements and bye-laws. I have set out where that appears in the bundle - and, happily, I will not take you to that. 3755. At 11.2 there are, again as you would expect, arrangements relating to the operation of plant and machinery, the insulation and refrigeration machinery. 3756. At 11.3 there is provision for the landlord - and this is important - as far as reasonably possible to perform the services set out in paragraph 5C of the Schedule, and, if you drop to paragraph 11.4, you can see that 5C includes the condenser water, which is the critical part of the business for hygiene. There are also provisions for the suspension of rent if the premises become unfit for occupation at paragraph 11.5. 3757. Now the bit which I will try to keep as interesting and as short as possible: the Compensation Code. As you know, the Promoter in its response to the Association and in correspondence has referred to the provisions of the "National Compensation Code" and has asserted that these provisions are sufficient to satisfy any reasonable requests of the SMTA for compensation. For that reason it is necessary to consider what the relevant statutory provisions are. The analysis in this note (to ensure accuracy and so that references can be verified) is based on the Law Commission Final Report which was presented to Parliament in December 2003. As you know, when the Law Commission present a report, they summarise all the relevant law, so that even lawyers cannot argue about what the law is. The Executive Summary, which I quote at page xiii, says there is at present no "National Compensation Code". There is a collection of Acts: the Land Compensation Act 1961, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and the Land Compensation Act 1973 are the most important, and there is obviously a whole series of other amendments and the Tribunals Act. Effectively, as you probably know, you can get compensation under these schemes under two separate bases: if there is a permanent or temporary taking or if there is no taking. 3758. Effectively, looking at paragraph 13, for the SMTA there is going to be no permanent or temporary taking. Everything that is going to be taken belongs to the Corporation of London. You have seen earlier, on plans, that part of the basement which is going, and that is not demised to the Smithfield Tenants Association, so the relevant scheme is that which relates to compensation after no taking. The Law Commission have summarised what the law is in relation to that at pages 129 to 139: "Compensation where no land is acquired". 3759. I hope that paragraph 14 is a summary of that. That is the Compensation Act and that gives a right to compensation for "injurious affection" caused by the "execution of the works". Do you mind if I show you very briefly that part of the Law Commission's report? I hope it was handed up to you. 3760. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Yes, we have that in front of us. It has been numbered A45. 3761. MR DINGEMANS: At page 130, paragraph 11.4 is set out. There are four conditions that you need to satisfy to get any compensation under the 1965 Act. These are in fact called the McCarthy rules but they have been reaffirmed, if you turn the page to 131, in a case called White Hotels v Harrow London BC. 3762. The four rules are these: "(1) The injurious affection must be the consequence of the lawful exercise of statutory powers, otherwise the remedy is action in the civil courts" - so effectively it has to be something that is provided for in the Act. That is important because, of course, if you exercise your statutory powers negligently then you have remedies. 3763. "(2) The injurious affection must arise from that which will give rise to a cause of action if done without the statutory authority ..." so it has to have been actionable but for the Bill, otherwise you are creating compensation where none existed before. 3764. The third rule is very important. "The damage or injury for which compensation is claimed must be in respect of some loss of value of the land of the claimant." That is really, put shortly, as far as the Association is concerned, where we are in real difficulty because our land is not valuable. We have, as you have seen, reasonably small units and you have seen the price of the leases, on Mr Lawrence's lease. There is the provision for upward-only rent reviews and RPI increases, but the actual value is not great. 3765. "(4) The loss or damage to the claimant's land must arise from the execution of the works and not from the use of the lands compulsorily acquired following completion of the works." 3766. Could I go back to my note at page 7. I have set out what the provision means, because the Law Commission described it as "opaque" - which we respectfully submit is a fair proposition. At paragraph 15 you can see that I have set out four conditions - and I have just taken you through those. Halfway through paragraph 15, I make the point I have just made orally, that, given the limited land held by the claimants, this will not assist. Further, in general terms, there are no claims available to members of the SMTA for noise and inconvenience caused during the construction period. This is because in practical terms liability will only accrue if there is an absence of reasonable consideration for neighbours. Therefore, if you have a contractor doing their honest best that allows an escape of dust, then you have effectively other problems for the claims under the Act. 3767. Turning to the common law claims, this means that the members of the SMTA will be forced to bring actions for the common law tort or civil wrong of nuisance. I am very sorry to get into the law but nuisance is at least one that is reasonably well known. It is a defence to any such claim to show that the activity carried out was authorised by statute - and that is where you get into the need for the Compulsory Purchase Act - and that the nominated undertaker has exercised all reasonable care when carrying out the activity. You cannot just say, "I was authorised by statute"; you have to show you tried carefully. 3768. It is in paragraph 17 that we respectfully identify the problem for the Association. The problem this situation will cause for the members of the SMTA can be illustrated by dust. The Promoter has said that the nominated undertaker will be required to put in place Tier 3 mitigation measures at Lindsey Street and the east basement work sites at Smithfield. That is for all the reasons that you have just heard in the evidence. An important protection for the Association. We do not quibble with the fact that it is an important protection, but if, because of a temporary failure of Tier 3 mitigation measures, dust escapes and relevant environmental limits are exceeded, the market will be closed. You did not hear that this morning. You heard that on 31 January from Mr Smith - who in fact is still listening here - and the paragraph number is set out. The Promoter has made it plain that it will not require the nominated undertaker to stop work in such circumstances. 3769. At paragraph 18 we identify the problems this is likely to cause. The SMTA are likely to suffer losses: the contamination of meat by dust; and the loss of income or profit (if you are trading at a profit) for the periods when the market was closed. Under what the Promoter has called "the National Compensation Code", the SMTA have no possible claims at all because the claims will not relate to the loss of value of land - and that is it. So under section 10 we are out, and the only potential remedy is a claim in the courts for nuisance - which will no doubt be defended on the basis that the undertaker took all reasonable steps and that the escape of dust happened notwithstanding that reasonable care. The only persons who can be happy abut that confrontation are the lawyers - because it is, unhappily, in the very difficult exercise of nuisance and the interrelationship of statutory powers and failure to take reasonable care. That is the problem. If you want to make the lawyers rich, then change the law and make specific provision for the Association. If, as we respectfully ask, clarity can be given for the specific situation of the Association, we now come to a possible way of providing that. That is at the bottom of page 8. 3770. The undertaking from a promoter requiring the nominated undertaker to enter a deed is covered at paragraph 19. It is respectfully suggested on behalf of the Association that a practical way forward is to require the Promoter to undertake to ensure that the nominated undertaker agrees to provide the Tier 3 mitigation measures with the promoter and also with the members of the SMTA .... In fact, it should be: "and the lessees of the Smithfield Meat Market" because there is one missing person. 3771. The costs of the project should not increase (because the nominated undertaker will be charging the Promoter for the costs of providing the Tier 3 mitigation measures anyway) but the persons for whose benefit the measures are being provided and who will suffer the real losses in the event of a failure of those measures will have a contractual right to claim in the event of a relevant breach of the undertaking. That is the critical aspect of it, rather than the uncertain common law claim: "Oh, you did not exercise reasonable care," we would say, because you have breached the Tier 3 measures," and they would say, "Well, you can never be guaranteed, etc, etc. You have a straightforward claim." Another way of achieving the same aim is to provide in the contract between the Promoter and the nominated undertaker that the relevant rights (for example, the dust suppression measures) are for the benefit of, and can be enforced by, members of the SMTA. That would work under something called the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 - and it will not surprise you to know that followed another Law Commission report, because lawyers got very exercised about who could enforce contractual rights but not many others did. 3772. We respectfully submit that a similar formula ought to be adopted for all the requirements which the Promoter has undertaken to impose on the nominated undertaker to meet the concerns of the SMTA. Those are all set out, I hope helpfully, in the "Undertakings from the Promoter" document. That would mean, for example, that if the market became inoperable because vehicular access had not been maintained, the members of the SMTA who would lose business would be able to recover any losses they could prove to have suffered. That is the deed provision and it is simply because of a slight defect in what is called the "National Compensation Code" but is really the collection of statutes. 3773. Could I take you to the bottom of page 9 and the Provision for Cessation of Work. We also respectfully seek measures to compel the cessation of activities of the nominated undertaker when the operation of the market has been halted by an excess of dust or airborne pollution in excess of the trigger levels caused by the activities of the nominated undertaker. For example, if they cause problems to us because of the dust, we do ask for permission to stop their works. That undertaking has been refused and we do submit that, if by reason of a breach of an undertaking the market is forced to cease operation, it is only fair that the nominated undertaker should cease work (as soon as it is safe to do so) until mitigation measures have been agreed. That is a fairly short point which is not going to get better or worse really for repetition. 3774. That brings me, finally, to the question of compensation. The members of the SMTA seek compensation in the event of losses caused by the construction works, in a clause that is not restricted to loss of value of land or breaches of undertakings extracted for the benefit of the SMTA members. If losses are caused by the construction of Crossrail, we submit there is no particular reason why the members of the SMTA should bear those losses. The financial resources of each trader vary, but even a short interruption could lead to the failure of businesses. In fact that was in the written evidence of Greg Lawrence but you really heard it orally from Mr Abrahams. 3775. Such a clause would cover the situation where members of the SMTA have suffered losses because of the partial stopping up of Lindsey Street. The defence of statutory authority would defeat any common law claim for nuisance (which would have been available but for the Bill) and any claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act is restricted to the value of the land. We do submit there is no justification for restricting any claim to the value of the land. The Law Commission in fact supports that. 3776. Could I take you to page 137 of the Law Commission report on this - part of a report which at the moment is still awaiting, as it were, final consideration, but it at least can inform the Committee's considerations. (Discussion between counsel) 3777. The Government have said they are not going to legislate, my learned friend tells me. 3778. In their conclusions, at page 137, 11.22, they say this: "We are on firmer ground when considering the extension of compensation beyond loss in the value of the land. Although this would add to the costs imposed on the public authorities, there is no reason in principle why the extent of compensation should differ materially from the corresponding common law right which is not so limited." That is effectively the point in relation to statutory authority on that side of matters. 3779. Those are the three things that we ask for: the deed; the provision for cessation of work; and the freestanding compensation clause. We do respectfully submit that there is no additional cost in at least the deed, because all these measures are going to be incorporated in any event. 3780. Pages 11, 12 and 13 I can take very shortly. That is really arguments in relation to human rights - which, I am afraid, have infected even this area of law. Could I show you at the bottom of page 11 what the European Commission said in S v France. The reason for showing you that is that this is now, it seems, the most cited statement of the relevant principles: "... where an authority carries on an undertaking in the interest of the community as a whole it may have to pay compensation to individuals whose rights are infringed by that undertaking in order to achieve a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the community." 3781. In paragraph 27 we submit that it is for the Committee to decide the fair balance between the public interest, which we recognise in the Bill, and this. Could I ask you to note, at the bottom of page 12 of this note, the following points as to what we say informs the fair balance: so far as we can discern from the published petitions, the SMTA is in a unique position - well, I say the SMTA, but, all the members/lessees of Smithfield. This is because: the permitted works are to be carried on beside and below their units; access to their businesses will be part removed; there will be a taking of land but the land to be taken is not part of their respective premises; detailed specific requirements for the benefit of the members of the SMTA are being imposed on the nominated undertaker by the Promoter but the members of the SMTA will only have uncertain claims to enforce those requirements at common law; the provisions of the relevant statutes forming part of the Compensation Code provide no effective remedy to the members of the SMTA; and the members of the SMTA are even outside the terms of the settlement deeds - although that depends on when the timing of the works takes place. 3782. It is really with that in mind that you have heard the evidence from the witnesses today. Against that background I propose to turn to deal with the few remaining issues of expert evidence, if that is all right. 3783. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Thank you very much indeed. Yes, we will move straight on to that at this stage. We are very grateful for that very clear exposition you have just given us of both the problem and the Petitioners' proposed solutions. On a couple of occasions you referred to the SMTA as the Petitioners but it is the lessees as a whole to whom ----- 3784. MR DINGEMANS: In fact, I am appearing on behalf of the Petitioners but there is no sensible reason to differentiate between the 35 and the 36th person as well. It is really "all the lessees" yes. It was just inelegant drafting, I am afraid, in the early hours, which meant that I put it down as SMTA rather than Petitioners. 3785. Sir, I think you have a Buro Happold document. 3786. SIR PETER SOULSBY: We do indeed. 3787. MR DINGEMANS: We are going to be looking at that now, and it would be helpful if you could turn to page 18. 3788. SIR PETER SOULSBY: That will be A46.
MR STEVEN KENNETH FARTHING, Sworn Examined by MR DINGEMANS
3789. MR DINGEMANS: Could you tell the Committee your full name. (Mr Farthing) My full name is Steven Kenneth Farthing. 3790. What is your occupation? (Mr Farthing) I am a transport planner. 3791. Could you explain your professional qualifications. (Mr Farthing) I am a Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation and also a Chartered Member of the Institute of Logistics and Transport. 3792. What experience have you had in relation to traffic consultancy? (Mr Farthing) I have seventeen years' experience in transport consultancy. I am currently an associate with Buro Happold Limited, working in London in their infrastructure group. I have worked on a number of transport projects and also a number or rail related projects. 3793. You have looked at the proposed construction works at the Smithfield area, have you not? (Mr Farthing) I have. 3794. And you have identified a number of matters. There are a number of undertakings which have been given, with which I will not tax you, but could I deal with the remaining parking issues. This is loading bays on Lindsey Street. Have you attempted to model the construction works for Lindsey Street? (Mr Farthing) In terms of the swept path movements we have. 3795. Is it now possible to show those to the Committee? Can you describe what this is going to show? (Mr Farthing) In our discussions with Crossrail we have been made aware of some of the changes that will occur to Lindsey Street throughout construction, the closure or partial closure of Lindsey Street. I have developed a scheme which would allow those works still to take place but also to provide throughout construction some loading bay provision on Lindsey Street which is very important to that eastern end of the market. The information we are just about to show will demonstrate that there is a way of accommodating the works and maintaining loading bay provision within Lindsey Street. It is probably worth clarifying that, in a similar way to the Crossrail developed options, we have looked at the three phases, essentially when different sections of the road are closed, so the image you can see before you is the first of those three phases. The swept path there is of a 16.5 metre articulated vehicle. The red area adjacent to the market is the area that we believe could be made available to maintain loading bay provision. The areas on the opposite side of Lindsey Street, adjacent to the Lindsey Street worksite, show the worksite itself and constructions areas that we believe would provide sufficient space to allow that construction work to be undertaken. 3796. As the construction phase goes on, could we move to the second animation. (Mr Farthing) This shows the other half of Lindsey Street being closed, so the loading bays in this diagram are pushed to the northern end of Lindsey Street and changed in their configuration. They are actually perpendicular to the kerb rather than parallel, as in the first diagram. Under this option, we can provide, we think, eight bays. Under the previous option I think it was seven bays. 3797. Could we then move to the final animation. (Mr Farthing) This is very similar to the first phase, although the worksite on the compound area on the opposite side is changed slightly. Again, seven bays can be provided to the east end of the market. 3798. This deals with whether or not you think seven bays can be provided at all times for the market. (Mr Farthing) It does. 3799. Could I turn to the basement car park. As the Committee knows, the Bill provides for the whole of the eastern end of the basement car park to be lost. How many car parking spaces will remain in the western end of the basement car park? (Mr Farthing) One of the areas where we do not have firm numbers yet is in the number of spaces that remain in the car park. West Smithfield car park currently has a capacity for 180 spaces. The environmental statement that Crossrail produced suggests that approximately 50 per cent of those spaces will be removed, which would suggest a balance of 290 spaces. However, having examined the worksite area that would be required by Crossrail, it would appear that quite a bit more than that would be required, or the loss would be greater than the 290, and in the order of 330 spaces would be lost, leaving approximately 250. 3800. Have you done any surveys to see what usage the car park has at material times? (Mr Farthing) We have. We have undertaken surveys of the West Smithfield car park on two occasions. The first of those was in December, just before Christmas. 3801. Could you give us the date. (Mr Farthing) It was 18 December. It was a Sunday. 3802. What did that show? (Mr Farthing) That showed quite a few different things. The key information probably for today is that the maximum number of cars that were accumulated in the car park was 71. The surveys also tried to establish the relationship between those parking in the car park and the market itself. The conclusions from that were that a little under 90 per cent of those using the car park during the period surveyed were related to the market itself. 3803. Obviously we need then to know the period surveyed. (Mr Farthing) It was from 9.00 am on the Sunday until 9.00 am on the Monday morning, so it covered the main operational hours of the market. 3804. When did the second survey that you have referred to take place? (Mr Farthing) That was on February 22, a Wednesday. On that occasion a maximum of 258 vehicles were observed in respect of maximum accumulation. There was a slightly lower level of relationship between the car park and the market at 75 per cent. 3805. Did you reach any conclusions from that? (Mr Farthing) The main conclusion we have drawn, if the car park were to be reduced in the way we have estimated (that is, 250 spaces were remaining), is that under both those situations it would not be sufficient capacity for the parking demands that we have observed. 3806. The final provision related to replacement of loading bays that are lost on Lindsey Street. You go down to seven or eight on your remodelled proposal. Have you looked elsewhere to see whether there might be other loading bays provided? (Mr Farthing) There are limited areas around the market for re-provision of loading bays. One option would be to consider use of space in the Rotunda area. There are possibly some areas there, or possibly re-allocation of spaces from current parking bays - pay and display bays or residents bays - for use of the market.
Cross-examined by MR ELVIN 3807. MR ELVIN: Mr Farthing, I assume you have dealt with the two outstanding matters, which is the loading bays and the car parking. (Mr Farthing) I believe so. 3808. I just wanted to be sure - I do not want to bore the Committee by dealing with matters we have already dealt with. Could I ask you about loading bays, please? The Committee has already seen the plan and the loading bays around the perimeter of the market and some within at ground floor level. You say that with management measures there is scope for the provision of additional loading bays outside of Lindsey Street. Is that right? (Mr Farthing) I am not sure about the reference to management. We believe there are areas where some additional bays could be re-provided during the temporary loss of Lindsey Street bays. 3809. How many do you think? (Mr Farthing) We have not quantified the number of bays. 3810. You must have an idea, if you have sat and tried to work out where the bays could go. (Mr Farthing) The area on which we have focused is the provision of bays within Lindsey Street itself throughout construction. 3811. I will come to that. I am asking about the point you made two minutes ago, which was that you thought there would be some scope for loading bays elsewhere. (Mr Farthing) I believe there is scope for bay provision within the Rotunda, but I cannot give you an estimate of the number of bays that we feel could be accommodated. 3812. Are we talking about five or ten, or one or two? (Mr Farthing) I would have thought it would be nearer to five or ten. 3813. Five or ten. The Committee have already seen a photograph of Lindsey Street and have already visited the market. It is quite clear to anyone who is familiar with this area that lorries and vans do not always park as efficiently as they can to make the best use of space. Some park end-on, some park side-on. It is sometimes rather higgledy-piggledy. I drove past last night and there were a number parked at angles which would have prevented quite a few vehicles parking there. Have you observed that? (Mr Farthing) I have. I would like to add that the photo before us was taken at 7.00 am, which is somewhat out of the market's peak operating period. 3814. I appreciate that. Is the point I am putting to you a fair one, that people do not always park in the most efficient fashion? (Mr Farthing) I have observed in some areas, where, perhaps with closer management, there could be more efficient use of bays. I have also observed vehicles parking in areas perhaps where they should not, because there is not sufficient bay provision for them. 3815. We have the possibility, therefore, not only of finding other loading bay spaces in the order of five to ten, but, if greater management is exercised over existing loading bays, there is some scope for providing additional practical capacity for those who are displaced from Lindsey Street if that is to happen. (Mr Farthing) In theory, yes. 3816. It would be in the interests of all those involved: market traders, Crossrail and the City of London, to make sure that those management operations are carried out and to ensure that the market is kept thriving. (Mr Farthing) I cannot answer on behalf of the traders, but from my own point of view it would seem to make sense, yes. 3817. Could I ask you about your diagrams for Lindsey Street. Rather than showing cartoons again, interesting though they are, we have three diagrams showing the position in your report, A46. Figures 5, 6 and 7 represent the three phases. The position so far as Crossrail is concerned, is that it has indicated it will use all reasonable endeavours to maintain six loading bays during the works but it cannot guarantee that loading bays will be available at all times. That is our position, is it not? You understand that, do you not? (Mr Farthing) I believe I have seen something that alludes to that, yes. 3818. You also understand - and you understood this when you drew up your figures - that of course we have not yet reached the stage of detailed design of the works. (Mr Farthing) Yes. 3819. You are not surprised at that. You would expect detailed designs to come at a later stage. (Mr Farthing) We are aware from discussions with Crossrail which stage of the design process we are at. 3820. The reason that loading bays cannot be guaranteed - I am sure you understand this - is because, until the final design is carried out, there is no certainty as to whether the provision of spaces can be guaranteed for loading at all times. That is right, is it not? Until you know the precise characteristics, dimensions and particular issues when the excavations start of the working site, you cannot be sure that you can provide those loading bays. (Mr Farthing) There is a reasonable level of certainty at this stage that would allow diagrams such as these to progress with some degree of confidence. 3821. How do you know until you know where the boundary is? We have to keep a route through - and we have agreed to do that - but, assuming we keep the route through, how do you know until the detailed drawings are provided, that there will be enough room for loading bays as well as keeping open the route for up to 44 tonne vehicles? (Mr Farthing) The diagrams that we had before us show the areas, working with my structural colleagues, that we think would be needed for the construction - and I use the word "think" carefully - and also the space that would be needed for bays and the swept path. Obviously we cannot categorically say it could be constructed in this manner, but, based on the information we have and the knowledge of structural colleagues, this is what we believe is practical. 3822. You cannot categorically state, because the detailed work has yet to be done. We are with you that those bays should be provided if they reasonably can be - and we give an assurance to that effect - but there can be no certainty until that work of detailed design is done. You cannot be categorical. (Mr Farthing) I guess it depends on where you draw your constraints. 3823. I will ask Mr Berryman to give our side of that, Mr Farthing, but I understand where you are. Could I ask you about the basement car park? You do understand that we do not intend to take any of the western car park and that shared use of the ramp will remain for the duration of the works. (Mr Farthing) That is what I understand, yes. 3824. Therefore, in so far as we are aware - and this was made clear in recent correspondence - 50 per cent of the car park (that is to say, the entirety of the western car park) will remain. (Mr Farthing) We have read in the environmental statement that 50 per cent will remain. We have also received some drawings from Crossrail which show the position of hoarding lines within the basement, which does not appear to equate to 50 per cent loss but seems to equate to a higher loss. 3825. Let us get out the petitioners' response, document P48, which has the diagrams in it. Would you look at the final drawing in appendix A, the mezzanine level. Can you see the three entrances? (Mr Farthing) I can. 3826. This shows up and down routes for vehicles coming in. The hoardings are in the eastern side of the car park only. We see there no reason to believe the hoardings are going to extend beyond the point where they are shown, or that they will prevent proper circulation within the car park - indeed there will still remain a dedicated entrance at the basement level, which is the western ramp that you can see to the left, which will be to the western car park at basement level, and, at the right-hand side, the entrance will be for the area of the worksite at the eastern side. There is no reason, we say, to take the view that the western car park, that is 50 per cent of the car park, will not be available. (Mr Farthing) I am not disputing the fact that the western car park will be available. I am questioning the effect of the hoardings that are shown for the basement and the mezzanine level and the number of spaces that that will effectively remove. 3827. The hoarding is within the eastern side; it is not within the western side. It will not take spaces from the western side. (Mr Farthing) As I have said, I am not questioning any loss of spaces in the western half of the car park. 3828. If we are not questioning that, can we look at how that stacks up in terms of the figures. (Mr Farthing) Certainly. 3829. Could we go to P49, tab B, page 12. In Smithfield there are 580 spaces, 50 per cent of which will be lost. According to my arithmetic, that gives us about 290 spaces. (Mr Farthing) You are correct: 50 per cent of 580 would give you 290. 3830. Your surveys show between 45 per cent and 48 per cent occupancy, maximum accumulation, at 261 and 278; that is to say, less than 290. Our surveys in fact show something slightly less, around 42 per cent and 43 per cent, but let us take your figures. Even on your figures, there is still spare capacity within the western car park for the maximum accumulated demand. (Mr Farthing) If you were applying the 50 per cent to the 580, you are correct, yes. 3831. I am sorry, is there an implied qualification in that? (Mr Farthing) The qualification is that we have been out to the car park and physically counted the spaces, related that back to the hoarding line diagrams (to which I think you referred in the petitioners' response), and the conclusions of that, backed up by some information sent to us in the last day or so from Crossrail's consultants, suggest a greater loss than 50 per cent. 3832. If the hoarding is where we show it in the diagrams, it is actually taking slightly less than the eastern side, is it not? It does not make sense, therefore, that you can be losing more than 50 per cent of the car parking spaces. (Mr Farthing) I am not sure what the protocol is. I have in front of me some sketches based on the visit this morning that can show the number of spaces that we have counted within the hoarding line. At the basement level, we are saying there will be 165 lost and at the mezzanine level 139, which gives a total of 304. If some additional space was required to gain access to the hoarding and the security fence that is indicated on that diagram, it would seem to tie in with the figure of 330 that was referred to in a report that I mentioned provided to us by Crossrail consultants on Monday. 3833. MR ELVIN: I am not sure how far I can advance this by asking questions. I am going to ask my witness and perhaps you could have a word with Crossrail to see if we can reach a resolution. 3834. SIR PETER SOULSBY: That would be very helpful. 3835. MR ELVIN: There is no doubt in your mind that the hoardings are entirely within the eastern side and indeed take up slightly less than the whole of the eastern side. (Mr Farthing) I am not disputing that. I would say that the line that is shown on that diagram there and the number of spaces that are lost as a result of that have been estimated by us on that level to be 139 spaces and ton the other level to be 165 spaces.
3836. MR ELVIN: We will see what we can do to help the Committee with that. 3837. SIR PETER SOULSBY: It will be very helpful to explore those figures between the Promoter and the Petitioners. 3838. MR ELVIN: I know how tedious it can be just having people reading figures and it does not help you. Let us just assume for a minute you are right. If you are right and we are looking at the sorts of levels of capacity that you are talking about, then somewhere between 11 and 28 cars, on the maximum figures you have used, will need to find car parking elsewhere? (Mr Farthing) I think, without checking your maths now, yes, those figures would seem reasonable. 3839. And there is capacity. You have seen our car parking report. There are a number of car parks in the near vicinity of Smithfield. If you want to go back to P49, tab B, they are on the table that I showed the Committee a moment ago, at page 12. There is a plan showing them on page 13. There is ample spare capacity within those car parks according to our car parking report, is there not? Certainly more than enough to accommodate another 11 to 28 cars which may not be able to park in the basement? (Mr Farthing) I believe there is spare capacity in those car parks. I guess the difference would be the car park is directly beneath the market where potentially buyers could be returning with produce brought from the market. I think the other car parks are, on average, about five minutes' walk from the site. 3840. There may be management issues to make sure that those who may need to be proximate because they are picking up produce as opposed to going for other reasons, going for a meeting of some description to discuss supplies and the like, get priority in the basement. Management methods could be used, could they not? (Mr Farthing) I presume they could. I am not quite sure who would be responsible for that but presumably they could. 3841. MR ELVIN: Thank you very much. 3842. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr Dingemans? 3843. MR DINGEMANS: Very briefly, can we have P49, page 28. Is this the document produced by Mott MacDonald, who are the consultants for Crossrail, served on us yesterday giving you the figure of about half will be closed, say 330 spaces? Does that accord with your views? (Mr Farthing) Yes, it does. 3844. Secondly, reference has been made to the other car parks. Are you aware of different pricing structures at the other car parks? (Mr Farthing) I am not aware of the pricing structures but I am aware that the West Smithfield car park has certain discounting arrangements for traders at the market and those visiting the market. 3845. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you very much. 3846. SIR PETER SOULSBY: It strikes me that it is now 11.32 and I understand that some refreshments are available for us. I am sure members of the Committee are ready for a cup of coffee in which case I intend to reconvene in ten minutes' time.
After a short break 3847. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Order, order. Just a note for future reference, that 15 minutes is rather more appropriate than ten! Mr Dingemans? 3848. MR DINGEMANS: Can I now call Mr Curson. This is page 14 of A46.
MR TREVOR ANDREW CURSON, Sworn Examined by MR DINGEMANS 3849. MR DINGEMANS: Can you tell the Committee your full name? (Mr Curson) My full name is Trevor Andrew Curson. 3850. And what are your qualifications? (Mr Curson) I have a Bachelor of Technology Degree and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Acoustics and also a Royal Society of Health Diploma in Air Pollution Control and a Diploma in Dusts, Mists and Vapours. 3851. What relevant experience do you have in relation to dust and airborne pollution? (Mr Curson) I worked as a local authority enforcement officer for seven years and I have been involved in a large number of infrastructure projects for 18 years. 3852. And have you been involved in assessing air quality controls at Smithfield? (Mr Curson) I have, yes. 3853. Can I take the Committee to the outstanding undertakings from the Promoter, it is A43, and it is 8 and 9 just so that you can see what we are arguing about, as it were. And the relevant undertaking that we are seeking is the undertaking that: "the nominated undertaker shall not proceed with the permitted works unless and until the following Tier 3 measures are agreed with SMTA" - the trigger levels and the appropriate dust control plan, and any disagreement is to be resolved by reference to a suitable arbitrator. Can I just ask you in relation to that proposal, what is wrong with consultation alone? (Mr Curson) One of the concerns I have there is that the final decision rests with the undertaker and may result in measures which are less than appropriate for the interests of the market traders. 3854. And have you noticed any potential areas of concern in relation to the proposed trigger levels that have been mentioned by the Promoter's experts? (Mr Curson) I think there is a growing body of evidence that suggests this setting of trigger levels at the outset of a contract like this - and I have suggested in my evidence what those trigger levels should be - is more appropriate than figures which are set on the baseline. The reason for that is that baseline levels of dust would be many times lower than the levels we would seek to use as a trigger level. 3855. Could you explain very briefly what is a baseline? (Mr Curson) The baseline level of dust is the ambient level which is there at the moment and which is satisfactorily uprated for the market. 3856. And you have taken a trigger level from where? (Mr Curson) I have taken a trigger level from my experience which I know has been used on other equivalent contracts, including the new Arsenal Football Stadium and the construction of the Dome Arena, and it is also a figure in the very new draft London-wide Code of Practice. 3857. And that, as I think you made clear, is still a draft figure in relation to other matters? (Mr Curson) It is, yes. 3858. And that is the relevant area of dispute between you and the experts for the Promoter; is that right? (Mr Curson) That is correct, yes. 3859. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Thank you, Mr Dingemans.
Cross-examined by MR ELVIN 3860. MR ELVIN: Good morning, Mr Curson. Your concern is that consultation on the dust management plan which we have offered will not give you enough control; is that right? (Mr Curson) My concern is that consultation alone may not give the level of control that would be appropriate, bearing in mind the nature of the activity and the sensitivity of the interests of the market traders. 3861. Would you be satisfied if it were in the hands of the local authority to determine? (Mr Curson) I have proposed that there is some form of independent arbitration in the event of dispute on the matters, yes. 3862. The problem with this is that it is actually a matter for the local authority to decide. Dust suppression measures under the Bill are within the control of the local authority. Perhaps Schedule 7, paragraph 7 of the Bill could be put up. So you will see paragraph 7: "Development shall be carried out in accordance with arrangements approved by the local planning authority at the request of the nominated undertaker". Sir, if we can go on three pages to point 7 in the table, which is page 132 of the Bill, under "suppression of dust measures" construction operations are matters which fall within the ultimate approval of the local authority, and the grounds upon which they have control you will see it says "as item six", and if we go back to the previous page to item six at the foot of the page, you will see that the basis upon which the authority may exercise its decision-making powers are to preserve the local environment or local amenity and are reasonably capable of being so modified. So the issues - that is the protection of the local environment - are precisely the issues of concern to the market traders, are they not? (Mr Curson) They are the same issues, yes. The point I was seeking to make is that there appears to be a lack of involvement for the market traders, bearing in mind the importance of this issue to them? 3863. The market traders are no more and no less involved than they would be for any local authority decision taken in the public interest. You have a determination by a public body, not Crossrail, the nominated undertaker or the Secretary of State, and we have offered you more, which is we have offered you an assurance that you will be involved in the production of the dust management plan. Could I have put up the letter which we sent yesterday, page 74 of P49, and can we please go to page 75 which deals with the air quality issues. There we have set out over this page and a number of following pages assurances on the dust and air quality issues because you will appreciate that we take them very seriously because we are as concerned as you are to ensure that the market traders remain protected from environmental harm. The first bullet point on page 75 is "to prepare dust management plans to include detailed procedures to be followed in the event of dust escape from the site above the limit specified in the plans, and to consult with the SMTA and the Corporation of London." So we have imposed an additional layer of plan preparation and consultation in addition to the requirement to actually obtain the formal authority of the planning authority under the Act, so we have added in an extra level of consultation. And you would not take issue with the fact that the relevant dust level and trigger level really has to be dictated by the local environment? (Mr Curson) The letter that you have pointed me towards was of course received yesterday and it does helpfully commit to consultation. The market traders themselves are seeking, on my suggestion, something a little bit further than that which is the opportunity to be involved and to influence the dust management plan for the site. With regard to your second point, which was the objective dust levels, baseline monitoring will be helpful, but I go back to my earlier point which is that there is growing custom and practice that the level is set to be unambiguous and the level which identifies that which might start to cause a problem in the interests of local residents or for SMTA. 3864. Mr Curson, the whole intention, if you just look at the first bullet point, is that the dust management plan should set the appropriate levels of concern but at the moment - and you make this clear on page 16 under "meat hygiene" of your report - you have not done the detailed environmental research to know what the dust environment is like specifically, nor have we. The whole purpose of the dust management plan is to allow the research to be carried out, the studies to be carried out as to what the environment is, to know what the background levels are already and then to set the appropriate levels in consultation with the market traders even before we would have to seek the formal approval of the local authority on dust suppression measures. That is a fairly high level of consultation and protection and it is by reference to, I am sure you would agree, the relevant consideration which is the specific circumstances at Smith field; is that right? (Mr Curson) I do not think there is a direct correlation for an area like this between the background level and the trigger level. There is a direct correlation with the proposed activities and I would agree with you that it is appropriate that the Tier 3 measures are agreed when the detailed construction plan is determined. 3865. So the Tier 3 measures, those are the site specific measures to ensure the highest level of protection to the market traders, are to be determined at a later stage. Is it not purely common sense that at the same time the dust levels are consulted upon that the appropriate trigger levels, if that is what they are, are set at that stage? It is all done as a package with the involvement of your clients and with the ultimate sanction of the City of London acting as a public decision maker, not simply as a consultee? Does that not protect your clients sufficiently? (Mr Curson) I would agree it can be done as a package. I think the point I am seeking to emphasise is the lack of a direct linkage between the baseline monitoring which is proposed and the setting of the trigger level. 3866. The setting of the trigger level, though, that sensibly should be done as part of the Tier 3 package and the consultation with your clients and the City of London? That sensibly comes at that stage, does it not? (Mr Curson) If the SMTA are involved in the way we are seeking at that stage then it can be done at that stage. 3867. We have given you a written assurance that you are involved, the letter yesterday says so. So you have that assurance. Your clients will be involved and can employ you no doubt to have your input into saying what the levels should be. That can be satisfactorily done at that point, can it not? (Mr Curson) It can be done at that point. 3868. So the assurance we have provided now is satisfactory to you? (Mr Curson) Yes. I do not want to go over old ground. I have made the point that I was seeking to make. 3869. MR ELVIN: Thank you. 3870. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr Dingemans? 3871. MR DINGEMANS: Page 76 of the same document if that is alright, at the third hyphen down; was that the provision that caused you concern when you saw the otherwise acceptable undertaking? (Mr Curson) Yes, it was. 3872. And just very briefly can you explain what it was that caused concern in that respect? (Mr Curson) The pre-construction monitoring will establish the baseline levels of dust in the area which will be substantially lower than the levels which we would seek to set as a trigger level to make sure that the dust environment does not become too difficult for market traders, so whether, for example, the background level was ten or 50, if we are seeking to set a background of 250, it does not directly connect with the trigger level that we are seeking to set. 3873. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you very much. 3874. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Thank you, Mr Dingemans. I think that is it. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Curson. The witness withdrew 3875. MR DINGEMANS: That is effectively the evidence which we seek to adduce. I know my learned friend is proposing to adduce some evidence. 3876. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr Elvin, are you intending to bring witnesses? 3877. MR ELVIN: I was expecting to hear two other experts according to the report we were served with on Friday. 3878. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think Mr Dingemans explained earlier on that at least two of his witnesses --- 3879. MR DINGEMANS: Of those two witnesses, one was ill and one was due to return tomorrow. In terms of the expert evidence, the other issues are covered by the undertaking we have got so I have tried to restrict the amount of time we take. 3880. SIR PETER SOULSBY: That is clear and very helpful. Mr Elvin, are you ready?
MR KEITH BERRYMAN, Sworn Examined by MR ELVIN 3881. MR ELVIN: You are Keith Berryman, you are Managing Director (Projects) of Cross London Rail Links Limited. You are a civil engineer with extensive experience of planning, design and construction of major railway projects both in the UK and abroad, and the projects that you have been involved in include the Hong Kong Mass Transit and the Jubilee Line Extension? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. 3882. You were previously a Director of the Strategic Rail Authority. You are a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers and a member of the Institution of Structural Engineers? (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct. 3883. Thank you. What I would like to deal with with you, Mr Berryman, is the issue as to what is happening at Smithfield and then particularly to come to look at the various issues affecting Lindsey Street and the like. Can I just ask you to explain first about the Crossrail proposals as they affect the east end of Smithfield Market? (Mr Berryman) Yes, I can certainly do that. As Counsel has explained earlier, the construction at the east end of Smithfield Market is to provide the eastern entrance to Farringdon Station on the Crossrail system and to provide the interchange between Farringdon Station of Crossrail and Barbican Station of the Metropolitan and Circle Line. If we could look at exhibit nine, that is the photo of the site you will be able to see here the size of the site and you will see at the top corner, the Fox and Knot Street worksite, which members of the Committee took evidence on a couple of weeks ago, but the area that we are talking about today is particularly the Lindsey Street site which is on the corner of Lindsey Street and Long Lane and stretches right across to Charterhouse Square and the site underneath the Smithfield Market. Crossrail platforms at this level are approximately 30 metres underground and to get to them from the ticket hall site, which is at the corner of Long Lane and Lindsey Street, we need to go down with escalators to get below the levels of the adjacent railway lines, that is the Thameslink lines and Metropolitan and Circle Lines, pass under them, and then go down again to the Crossrail lines, so the work required underneath the market consists of constructing an escalator box which is below the market. Can we have number 7, please. This is the plan which shows the works there. You can see that there is a large shaft near the corner of Lindsey Street and Long Lane with three little blobs in it. That is a ventilation shaft. It will also be used for construction purposes so that will be built, first of all, to allow access to the tunnels down below. There is also another smaller shaft between the Metropolitan line and the Thameslink lines which is used for fire brigade access and MID access, you can see it there, and then of course there is the work on the other side of the street at the Fox and Knot Street site. The escalator box, which takes escalators down from the ticket hall level to an intermediate level, is under the market and shown there. At the intermediate level, which is above the Crossrail lines but below the Underground and Thameslink lines, there is a passageway which takes us to a location between Crossrail lines so we can get an escalator down to them and the works which we are particularly interested in today are those which are in Lindsey Street itself and underneath the market obviously. 3884. Thank you and if we turn then to what construction activities, focusing on the Lindsey Street area and the eastern end of Smithfield, will be required for the construction of Crossrail. (Mr Berryman) Can I have number 5. All the property on the Lindsey Street site will be demolished and a basement will be followed on the site down to the existing track level of Thameslink. It will be alongside Thameslink at the same level. That basement will be formed using a secant piling system or something similar, where piles will be driven and interlocked with each other. From that basement, a shaft will be sunk which will ultimately be a ventilation shaft but during the construction period will be used for the excavation of the tunnels. The smaller shaft which I mentioned earlier, the escalator shaft, will be constructed to provide lifts and so on. The passage to the basement will be constructed under Lindsey Street, if I could have number 8 up, please. This is a cross-section showing how the works fit in with the market, and you can see there the basement of the market which currently has a mezzanine floor in this. That is not shown on this cross-section. This is a cross-section looking south. You can see Lindsey Street there with the building in the background, there is Lindsey Street, and you can see the box which we intend to construct underneath the market basement so that the roof of the box ultimately forms the floor of the market basement and then you can see the passage which will take passengers down to the Crossrail lines. An interesting feature of Lindsey Street, which is not made very clear here, is that Lindsey Street is itself formed by a series of vaults. Originally there were sidings underneath the market and they continued under Lindsey Street and that structure is still in place so they are Victorian structures. 3885. They are Victorian vaults under Lindsey Street? (Mr Berryman) They are indeed. 3886. Do we know whether they stretch the whole strength of Lindsey Street? (Mr Berryman) They do not stretch the whole length of Lindsey Street but they certainly cover the area we are concerned with. Some of those vaults span over the existing Thameslink lines and the Underground lines. 3887. SIR PETER SOULSBY: That is the fire alarm but let us carry on for now. 3888. MR ELVIN: We were talking about the 19th century vaults. (Mr Berryman) We were and you asked me that immediately before the interruption. The vaults were built at the same time as the market so I would say mid-19th century. Obviously we assume that they are in reasonably good condition but we do not really know that until we get in there and start work on them. 3889. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think we will adjourn now and reconvene at 2.30 this afternoon.
After a short adjournment
3890. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr Elvin, you were on your feet. 3891. MR ELVIN: I was. Sir, hopefully there will not be any division bells, fire alarms or anything else in the next ten minutes, and we will see if we can finish Mr Berryman. 3892. Mr Berryman, I think we tried twice to deal with the Victorian vaults under Lindsey Street. As I understand it, you need to investigate further the state in which those vaults are at the moment. (Mr Berryman) Indeed. 3893. Are there any other issues with regard to Lindsey Street in respect of which there is uncertainty? (Mr Berryman) The other issue about Lindsey Street, which I think is kind of related to the vaults, is at the northern end of the street where there is a bridge over the existing underground lines the condition of which we are not entirely sure about, and we will not be until we have actually demolished the property and had a look at it. 3894. Mr Berryman, we were going to deal with a whole number of issues about construction, percussive and non-percussive methods and the like, but since the issues have narrowed so far as your concerns, can I ask you to go to the questions relating to Lindsey Street, both in terms of the control of dust measures, firstly, in terms of the Lindsey Street site? And then we will go on to the question of certainty over space for loading bays and the like, and it is point eight in your aide memoir. (Mr Berryman) Yes. I think the whole construction process starts with the demolition of the existing buildings which are on the Lindsey Street site, and of course that process has a potential to generate dust. Normally these days in London buildings are completely shrouded when they are demolished; a scaffold frame is put up outside and sheeting is put over the scaffold frame and water mist is applied inside the enclosure to create in that way. So the dust which arises as a result of the demolition does not become a problem, and we would be doing that in this case, of course, as with all the other demolitions in Central London. When the demolition is finished the construction work starts and there are certain activities within the construction work which can generate dust. There are particular issues which will be familiar to anyone who has been near a construction site, where mud gets on the road, it dries and it causes dust. We will have wheel washing to prevent that happening, which again is normal practice in other sites in Central London. We will also have high hoardings around the site, about five metres high, which will prevent the overwhelming majority of dust escaping from the site, if any is developed. But I should emphasise that the best way of dealing with dust is to deal with it at source so that in any dust-generating activities the dust is suppressed by water jets or other appropriate means. 3895. In terms of the basement, the Promoter has undertaken to seal the work site in the basement of Smithfield; can you explain that, Mr Berryman? (Mr Berryman) Yes. As you know, there is a significant work site in the basement at Smithfield Market. What we will be proposing is a floor to ceiling hoarding with tape sealing the apertures between the walls and so on. It is a similar technique to that which is used when buildings are cleared of asbestos and it completely prevents the ingress of dust from the site. We have an entrance into the site from the basement to allow the preliminary underpinning work to be done, and that can be provided either with fans or with an air lock, if that is appropriate, to prevent dust passing out from the basement where we are working into the rest of the building. Also any holes in the floor of the market, which communicate between the market itself and the basement, will be sealed up with tape in the same way. This is a well-established technique which is used on many sites. 3896. Dr Ireland will be dealing with the dust monitoring and trigger levels and those issues, is that right? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. 3897. Can I ask you then to deal with the question of maintaining loading spaces in Lindsey Street, which I think is your final point? (Mr Berryman) That is right. As I have explained before, we have to construct the escalator box partly under Lindsey Street and we propose to do that half and half, by building one half of it first, sliding over, diverting the traffic on to the half that we have already built and then building the other half. If all goes well, and if things are as we expect them to be, that should not be a major problem. We may be able to, during that period, maintain some of the loading bays which the Petitioners have requested; and, as we have already said, we will use reasonable endeavours to do that. We are reluctant to give an undertaking to do that because the condition of the arches underneath is not yet known, and when we actually get to it we may find that it is not actually practical to do it in quite the way which the borough has suggested. However, we are happy to give an undertaking to use reasonable endeavours to do that. 3898. Are there any other uncertainties which exist which make it difficult to give any absolute guarantees with regard to loading spaces in Lindsey Street? (Mr Berryman) Yes. There is also the issue of the fact that the Highway Authority in this area is the City Corporation and they will be interested in making sure that traffic circulates properly in the area and that there are no obstructions caused. So we would need to get their approval for any such scheme.
Cross-examined by MR DINGEMANS 3899. MR DINGEMANS: As far as Lindsey Street is concerned, can I deal first of all with maintaining the loading bays? The difference between you and the Petitioner is reasonable endeavours or an absolute undertaking. This is right, is it not? You know the work site you are going to work on at Lindsey Street, you know the parameters that exist there? (Mr Berryman) Yes, we do within the constraints of knowing what is there in the shape and sub-structure and what we have to demolish, because Lindsey Street is not a ground-on street - it does not sit on the soil, it actually sits on a Victorian structure, the details of which we have as much idea as we can get at this stage, but will not be clear until we start demolition. 3900. This is also right, that if it became a requirement that you maintained the six or seven loading bays, and then you would be able to continue all your works, it would just mean that you would have to adjust the way in which you tackle any unforeseen problems? (Mr Berryman) No, that is not quite correct. We would be able to do the work if things are exactly as they appear to be at the moment, but with structures of this age and this nature we know that there are very often issues which arise and only become clear once we actually start to get into breaking out the structure. 3901. But you have given an undertaking to maintain access around and through Lindsey Street throughout the whole of these works, have you not? (Mr Berryman) That is right, yes. 3902. Which means that you must be confident of maintaining a bridge across Lindsey Street and over the Victorian vaults. (Mr Berryman) That is correct, and if worse comes to worse there are a number of fairly drastic things we can do to achieve that, such as putting a temporary bridge structure over or something of that sort. 3903. The same can be said for the loading bays? (Mr Berryman) Not really no, because some kind of temporary bridge structure would have beams at the side and so on and would make it very difficult to operate loading bays in that area. I have to say that the balance of probability is very strongly that we will be able to maintain the loading bays, but we would be reluctant to give a categorical undertaking to do that with the level of knowledge that we have at the present time. 3904. Because it might impose an expensive parameter on your construction scheme? (Mr Berryman) Yes, I suppose you could put it that way. It is not just expense, of course, it is issues of safety and general construction management. 3905. Just on the importance of the loading bays, you have heard what those witnesses from the market said about the importance of the Lindsey Street loading bays this morning. You would not argue with their expressions of importance? (Mr Berryman) I am sure all the loading bays around the market are very important, but the percentage of the total number of loading bays which we are talking about here is a very small percentage of the total. 3906. Can I turn to the question of working hours? As you know, one of the things that the Petitioners have asked for is that the working hours be moved to enable work to take place between ten and eight rather than the usual eight and six. Is there any reason why the Promoter is resisting that undertaking? (Mr Berryman) We have a code of construction practice which sets out, amongst many other things, the working hours during which we can operate. There is a provision in that to negotiate with the local authority for different working hours if that is appropriate for the site. We know, for example, in the City some people with property nearby would prefer us to work at night rather than in the day, and subject to local authority agreement we are happy to do that, but of course there are other people in the area apart from Smithfield Market, and I think it is appropriate that this kind of negotiation is done with the local authority rather than directly with this group. In principle, assuming that we could agree with the local authority, there would not be any objection to working the kind of hours that they are talking about. 3907. So as far as the Promoter is concerned the hours of ten to eight would be acceptable? (Mr Berryman) As I say, there are other people in the area apart from the market operators, and I think it is for the local authority probably to strike the balance between the requirements of the different inhabitants of the area. 3908. The substitute loading bays for those lost on Lindsey Street - this is the outstanding undertaking number four, following on the document - you accept to try and use your best endeavours to obtain substitute loading bays for those lost on Lindsey Street, is that correct? (Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes. 3909. As far as the Buyers Walk is concerned, I understand that has been clarified and that it is now proposed to keep open the entrance on the eastern side of the market, the west side of Lindsey Street? (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct - a pedestrian entrance only of course at that point, and we may have to move it around a little bit from time to time, but always a reasonable pedestrian access there. 3910. Trigger levels, I understand from what you said, someone else is going to be dealing with that? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. 3911. One final undertaking that the Petitioners asked for was an undertaking that the market could be safely operated and occupied during the course of the construction works. Is there any objection to giving that? (Mr Berryman) It is certainly our intention that the market should be safely operated during construction works; there will of course need to be liaison with the tenants, not just meat traders, but there is office accommodation there as well, as to when exactly some activities are carried out. But generally speaking, yes, we intend that the building should be kept open. 3912. Is there any reason why you would not then be prepared to offer an undertaking to that effect? (Mr Berryman) I was under the impression that we had, actually.
Re-examined by MR ELVIN 3913. MR ELVIN: The safety issues with regard to the situation that might arise if you gave a guarantee of loading bay provision at all times in Lindsey Street, you said that access and, at the worse case, some form of bridging structure could be provided, so what are the safety issues which make loading bays a different consideration? (Mr Berryman) I think with the loading bay it is not just a question of a vehicle passing backwards and forwards, the vehicle has to actually be able to be opened and things taken out and moved out of the way. A bridge structure that one might envisage would need to have some sort of raised sides in a situation like this where we cannot have beams underneath because there is a brick structure underneath, so I think it would be quite a difficult thing to envisage exactly how that might work.
The witness withdrew
MR DAVID ANDERSON, Sworn Examined by MR ELVIN 3914. MR ELVIN: Mr Anderson, you have been sworn but I do not think you have given evidence here so we will introduce you to the Committee. You are David Anderson; you are Head of Planning for Cross London Rail Links Limited. (Mr Anderson) That is correct. 3915. You are responsible for the transport, planning and environmental aspects of the project, including the business case. You previously worked for BAA plc on projects such as the Heathrow Express, Heathrow Terminal 5 and the development of Stanstead Airport. (Mr Anderson) That is correct. 3916. Although you do not use the title you are a Doctor of Philosophy and a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers? (Mr Anderson) That is correct. 3917. You are going to give a little more information as to how environmental impacts during construction works will be controlled and to deal briefly with the remaining issues on parking? (Mr Anderson) That is correct. 3918. Can I ask you to outline very briefly to the Committee - this is the first time this issue has really arisen - how environmental impacts during construction will be controlled? (Mr Anderson) There are two mechanisms for controlling the impacts. The first series of controls will be applied through the Bill itself, and there has been some discussion about this this morning in relation to the suppression of dust, which is a condition contained in Schedule 7 to the Bill. So there will be some controls through the detailed consent process at a later stage on that particular matter. The routing of lorries gaining access to the site is another matter that is controlled in that way. Outside of the Bill we also have the Environmental Minimum Requirements, so-called EMRs. The EMRs comprise the undertaking that is given to Parliament, the planning memorandum and the environmental memorandum, and they are essentially documents which set out the way that the Promoter will work with local authorities and statutory bodies. The EMRs also include the construction code, and it is the code that is most relevant to what we are considering here. 3919. The approach using the Environmental Minimum Requirements, is that something which has just been used for this particular Bill? (Mr Anderson) No, that is not the case; it was developed and applied successfully for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. For that reason the EMRs for CTRL were our starting point in that they provide a template for us. However, particularly for the construction code we have also looked at more recent codes developed for other major projects, such as Terminal 5 and the Jubilee Line Extension. We have also looked at codes developed by local authorities. 3920. And the contents of the code include what? (Mr Anderson) There are a wide range of matters covered by the code. In terms of the discussion today it does include the effects of dust and the effects on harnessing of traffic project. 3921. As can be seen from the various information papers, including the construction code at D1, information paper D1, this has been the subject of detailed discussion with the planning authorities? (Mr Anderson) That is correct. We use the Planning Forum, which reports to the Highway Forum, chaired by the Minister, to develop the code and take on board comments from the local planning authorities. 3922. So how is it expected its compliance with the EMR and the code will operate in practice? (Mr Anderson) The EMRs will be a contractual requirement on the nominated undertaker or undertakers appointed by the Secretary of State. So the nominated undertaker will be required to ensure that all contractors undertaking work upon the project will comply with the code and the code will apply to all the works being undertaken by the Promoter. 3923. What happens in practice, do you expect, if there are problems on a day to day basis? (Mr Anderson) Again, this is covered in the code and in the information papers that there will be community relations personnel appointed, and they will focus on engaging with the community directly affected by the works. They will be the first line of response to deal with any issues which arise. We would hope that if people were unhappy with the project they would raise it with the project in this way. The information papers on the code give more information on how that process would work. It will include, for example, a telephone helpline which will be staffed 24 hours a day to deal with concerns. All calls will be logged and a prompt response would be given. The helpline and the availability of staff will be displayed as a slogan, and it would also be possible to contact the project by the Crossrail website, as you would expect. For those who are still unhappy with any aspect of the construction, the next step would be to complain to the Secretary of State if the project locally was unable to deal satisfactorily with the response. Beyond that there will be a complaints commissioner for the project. Again, the process is set out in information paper F5, and that paper describes how matters may be referred to the commissioner if they have not been dealt with satisfactorily as regards the complainants by the project. The complaints commissioner is an independent person and their role will be to investigate any grievance that has been alleged by complainants. 3924. Let us take an example such as a lorry driver who is not complying with the delivery hours that have been agreed with the local authority and those who have been consulted, or there has been a departure from lorry routing. How would you anticipate that being dealt with? (Mr Anderson) I would anticipate that those affected would raise that with the project in the first instance by the helpline, and what would happen in that instance is that the community relations personnel will take up the issue and steps will be taken to make sure that the controls previously agreed on routing were reinforced. Again, if that was not done satisfactorily there are other recourses, such as the Secretary of State himself or the complaints commissioner. 3925. Can we then turn to the remaining issue so far as loading and car parking is concerned, and Mr Berryman has dealt with some of the loading issues so we can move ahead. So far as loading is concerned we have heard from the consultant employed by the Market Traders' Association that there is scope for provision of another five to ten spaces within the market area and that the use of management techniques might actually make more efficient use of the spaces that exist at the moment. Do you have any views on the ability of management techniques to assist the traders to achieve their objective? (Mr Anderson) I would agree with the views that we heard this morning that there is scope to manage the available loading capacity in the area. I would expect us to be working on that with the traders and indeed the Corporation of London as we take the project forward. 3926. Finally, can I ask you to deal with the loss of car parking in the basement? That is something I have said to the Chairman that you will talk about to the expert from Buro Happold outside, and try and reach agreement on the number of spaces. But so far as you are concerned, what is the position with the car parking? (Mr Anderson) The position from our understanding is that of these 580 spaces currently in the car park that the absolute maximum displacement would be 290. 3927. The 330 that appears in the table that Mr Dingemans has referred to, is that a correct figure? (Mr Anderson) No, that was an earlier estimate based on less good information; we now have better information than that. 3928. I put to the Buro Happold witness that there are other car parks in the area, and I think we have within P49 a map of the other car parks, at tab B, page 13 of the exhibit, if that could be put up? This shows the car parks in proximity to Smithfield, some of which of course will be closed during construction. Has a report been prepared and given to the Petitioners which indicates the scope for potential capacity within those adjoining car parks, which will more than easily accommodate the 11 to 28 additional cars that they thought might not be accommodated if that were a concern? (Mr Anderson) Yes, it has, and all of these car parks operate on a 24-hour basis, and so one would expect them to have a capacity available during the night time period.
Cross-examined by MR DINGEMANS 3929. MR DINGEMANS: You dealt, first of all, Mr Anderson, with the possibilities of complaints when undertakings were breached, both locally and then up to the Secretary of State, and described the mechanism for that. Another possible mechanism would be to extract an undertaking from the nominated undertaker and allow them to contract directly with the market traders, is that right? (Mr Anderson) It would be a possibility, but the method that the Promoter is currently proposing is that set out, that I have set out and is set out in the code. 3930. You will understand the concern of the Petitioners is that if dust levels exceed a certain amount the market is stopped. It is not something that is really suitable for resolution by the Complaints Commission. Would you accept that? (Mr Anderson) There will be action taken much earlier than that. I think I indicated there was a hierarchy of response possibilities and the first step would be to deal with any emission that occurred directly on the ground. 3931. Can I deal with the outstanding undertakings that you are giving evidence about? You talk about management techniques in relation to the missing loading bays and loss of car parking spaces. Who is it that is envisaged will be managing these car parking spaces - employees of the nominated undertaker? (Mr Anderson) No, ultimately this is a matter for the Corporation of London, so I think we envisage taking forward any management strategy in conjunction with, not just the market traders but also with the Corporation themselves. Ultimately it is the Corporation that is responsible for the provision of the parking spaces and loading bays on the highway. 3932. You are aware, are you, that in the two weeks before Christmas there are effectively traffic controllers around the market funded by the Corporation of London? If what you are suggesting is traffic controllers to be funded by the Corporation of London has the question of funding been discussed with the Corporation? (Mr Anderson) I am not aware that it has. 3933. Is that something that the Promoter, if they think the answer is management, would be prepared to deal with? (Mr Anderson) Clearly we would need to discuss that with the Corporation themselves. I think the first step would be to identify with them the appropriate controls and we need to do more work on the strategy and develop it to enable us to do that. 3934. Car parking, there was a rogue figure, I think - I hope that is not unfairly described - in the Mott's report. Can I just clarify now, are you saying that the Promoter will give an undertaking that 50 per cent of 580 spaces will remain in the basement car park? (Mr Anderson) I think that is what the undertaking implies that we have already given, yes.
Re-examined by MR ELVIN 3935. MR ELVIN: The use of EMRs and the complex structure with the construction code, the EMRs and all the various undertakings, which you say were developed in the template of CTRL and with experience from other major infrastructure works, what is your expectation that they will be effective to deal with the sort of concerns which have been expressed by the market traders? (Mr Anderson) I believe they will be very helpful. 3936. Do you have a view as to whether it would be necessary in order to give them the protection they need to give each 36 market traders a contract with the nominated undertaker? (Mr Anderson) No, I would not.
Examined by THE COMMITTEE 3937. MR BINLEY: You know the concept of Sod's Law, do you not, that if something is going to go wrong it is going to go wrong? Let us work on that basis of worse case scenario. Given the worse case scenario what sort of an impact do you think the absence of loading bays might have on the traders in the market place in terms of trade? (Mr Anderson) In terms of the worst case? Clearly the ability to load up at that eastern end of the market will be restricted. That would put pressure on other bays that are used for loading nearby on Long Lane and Charterhouse Street, and one would expect them to get busier. Possibly there could be some congestion arising from that. I think what we would consider in terms of the management strategy is ways of dealing with that. 3938. So you have not really assessed the impact of worse case scenario on traders, is that what you are saying? (Mr Anderson) What I am saying is that we identify that the loss of the space could be an impact on the market operation, but from our observation and investigation at the site we felt that there was sufficient scope there for us to be able to mitigate that. 3939. But you still have no real idea of what impact that might have in a worse case scenario? (Mr Anderson) I think we do in terms of the traffic effects and, as I have said, it could lead to further congestion. 3940. I said on trade. You see, my concern about this is that that is a figure which is not too difficult for clever chaps like you to work out. I am just wondering why you have not worked it out. You are not willing to give an undertaking but you do not know what you are not willing to undertake; that is the concern I have. (Mr Anderson) I think on the basis of the work we have done I would not expect there to be an extremely adverse effect on the operation of the market. 3941. But you do not know. (Mr Anderson) A calculation of that has not been done. 3942. MR BINLEY: Could that be done, just to reassure us that the interests are protected? 3943. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Could you refresh our memories as to the proportion loading space that is likely to be lost if none were possible on Lindsey Street? It might be helpful to go back to the plan, the one which shows the whole of the loading space around the market. 3944. MR ELVIN: It is P49, page 49. 3945. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think it might enable members of the Committee to get an idea of what proportion of the loading space is being lost. (Mr Anderson) Our estimate is that there are about 20 bays available in the area bounded by the red line. So on that basis and on the basis that we believe that some of those bays could be reallocated elsewhere in the market area it would be a relatively small effect on the overall loading capacity available. 3946. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think that is very helpful. 3947. MR BINLEY: If I could ask another question, Chairman, with respect. This is a sizeable market areas and it is an area where particular merchants specialise in particular products, is that so? (Mr Anderson) I believe that to be the case, yes. 3948. So in truth, for given products this loading bay is particularly important to certain traders, is it not? (Mr Anderson) I am sure it is, yes. 3949. MR BINLEY: That is my concern. It is not the overall effect on an overall market if they are just selling one product, it is the specific effect upon specific traders selling specific products, and that is the work that you have not done, and that concerns me, and I think it could be done relatively easily and taken into account as a part of your decision about undertakings. 3950. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Do we have anywhere in addition to this very helpful plan in front of us a schedule saying how many loading bays there were in total in different parts of the market and what proportions are being lost were the worse case scenario to arise here? It might help the members of the Committee to see the context. 3951. MR ELVIN: I do not think we have but we can probably provide one. 3952. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think it might be helpful in the light of those questions to see how many spaces there are, how many will be lost in Lindsey Street and how many might be relocated elsewhere? 3953. MR ELVIN: Can I say in response to that question that we have no idea because we have not been given the information and I suspect that the traders may not be too happy to divulge what the turnover is of those individual units that might be affected. We cannot do an estimate when we do not have the financial information. 3954. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think what I was looking for was the loading space being lost rather than any loss of trade that might result from it. 3955. MR ELVIN: We will see if we can give you the figures overnight. 3956. MR DINGEMANS: May I ask one question arising out of that?
Further cross-examined by MR DINGEMANS 3957. MR DINGEMANS: It is really to Mr Hopkins' question, which related to you also, Mr Binley, just to show the location of units. Can I ask the Committee to be shown A44, page 55? This is the map with the layout. Mr Anderson, if you look at that document, some of the market traders' evidence this morning was that those in the east market would be most affected by the loss of Lindsey Street. Is this right, that you cannot park in Grand Avenue? (Mr Anderson) I believe that is the case. 3958. You can only park in Lindsey Street or East Poultry Avenue or along the outside? (Mr Anderson) Correct, although I think there is some further parking around the Rotunda that Mr Farthing alluded to this morning. 3959. But the concern of those occupying the units towards the right hand side of the picture, as we now look at it, is that Lindsey Street - and this is why you have very kindly given an undertaking to keep open the Buyers Market door - is effectively where you are carrying out market meat and that is why Lindsey Street is so important for those traders at the corner. Is that something you accept? (Mr Anderson) It is certainly the most convenient for them. 3960. MR DINGEMANS: Rather than just a proportion of loading bays as to which we accept the general point.
Further re-examined by MR ELVIN 3961. MR DINGEMANS: Mr Anderson, in terms of those using the hermetically sealed loading bays - and I know that Mr Binley was not in earlier and would not have heard this - those six hermetically sealed loading bays can be seen sticking out at an angle and there are four on the north side and two on the south side. (Mr Anderson) Correct. 3962. Are they proposed to be interfered with by the construction works? (Mr Anderson) No, they are not. 3963. They will remain in operation? (Mr Anderson) Correct. 3964. For those needing the hermetically sealed bays for bringing in of uncovered meat, they will remain? (Mr Anderson) Correct.
The witness withdrew
DR MATTHEW IRELAND, Sworn Examined by MR ELVIN 3965. MR ELVIN: You are Dr Matthew Ireland? (Dr Ireland) I am. 3966. Your various qualifications: you are a Chartered Environmental Scientist; you have wide UK and international project experience in environmental assessment and the management of developments ranging from mining mineral workings to power generation and desalination, waste disposal incineration, road schemes, to residential and commercial developments? (Dr Ireland) That is correct. 3967. You are a technical leader and expert witness and you are with Mott MacDonald? (Dr Ireland) That is right. 3968. You specialise in air quality assessment and management policy with extensive experience in monitoring the compilation of emissions inventories and dispersion modelling? (Dr Ireland) I have, yes. 3969. You were responsible for the air quality climate change and dust assessments in the Crossrail proposal? (Dr Ireland) I was. 3970. You are also a council member of the Institution of Environmental Scientists? (Dr Ireland) Yes. 3971. Since the issue with regard to dust has now narrowed to the question of trigger levels, can I ask you to explain how you consider the question of trigger levels to operate and whether it is either sensible or realistic to specify trigger levels at this stage or whether it should be done at some later stage? (Dr Ireland) I will. The establishment of a trigger level needs to make reference to ambient background levels and background concentrations because the trigger value clearly needs to refer to dust arising from the site that you wish to control. So the trigger value will be established by reference to the data from the preconstruction monitoring in the market and from the London area monitoring sites. One simple reason for this is that whichever trigger level you set - and I think the reference was made to Sod's Law earlier - is that Sod's Law raises that at some point in the past that trigger level has already been breached due to sub-Saharan desert dust flying over or someone standing under the monitor smoking a cigarette or someone dropping a bag of cement or some such activity. So really you need to be aware of background monitoring to make sure that you can exclude external factors, such as the sub-Saharan desert. The precise value of the trigger level will be dependent on the background levels and variations observed during the monitoring. However, a trigger value - and the witness this morning suggested 0.25 milligrams per cubic metre - does represent a practical reference point for further investigation, so we are in agreement there. However, in addition to the numeric value of the trigger value, the trigger value needs to be defined in terms of particle size and averaging period. The background monitoring data are available for PM10 and that is a particulate matter with a mean diameter of less than ten microns. This represents to me a suitable particle size to refer to because we can compare the monitoring on the site with background data and hence be assured that any breach of the trigger value is due to local circumstances, not due to regional or even global effects. With reference to the averaging period, this is really dependent on the consequent action that may be required should the trigger value be breached. 3972. In terms of the point that was made this morning by the witness for the Market Traders, namely that he was concerned about the relevance of background levels, do you agree with him that background levels are not relevant to the setting of trigger levels? (Dr Ireland) As I said, I think they are relevant because it would be unfair on the Promoter if the operations had to be ceased, on a worst case scenario, due to a dust cloud passing over London with the trigger value being breached, hence you do need to make reference to background levels in such circumstances. 3973. We went through this morning with the witness that there are two levels of protection. There is the dust management plan which is to be consulted with the market traders. There is also the formal dust suppression approval process which requires the approval of the local authority under Schedule 7 of the Bill but so far as the dust management plan is concerned, how would you see the trigger levels as operating in terms of the practical steps depending on what levels were set and how they were set? (Dr Ireland) Clearly the precise actions to be taken if the trigger levels are breached are detailed in the dust management plan, but I will try and give you some examples. If the trigger value is breached for a period of 15 minutes - and 15 minutes really represents the shortest averaging period that we can practically work with - an initial investigation by the site manager would be warranted by inspection of the activities on and off the worksite and reference to the background concentrations elsewhere in London. So you can imagine the trigger value being breached, an alarm going off, and the site manager sticking his or her head out of his Portacabin, seeing if there is anything on site perhaps looking around the site and then with reference to background concentrations elsewhere in London. So if it turns out that the episode is a one-off event - a bag of cement dropped on to the floor - that episode would need to be recorded because the monitoring data would show that it was in breach and we need to explain why. But if the trigger level then continues to be breached we would then need to look at further controls or activities on the site, if the cause is identified to be on the site, with activation of additional suppression measures. 3974. Thank you and does it follow that this has to be a slow or a lengthy process if you are investigating the cause of specific levels in terms of dust emissions being registered? (Dr Ireland) Well, I would suggest that it would take probably 15 or 20 minutes or half an hour once the initial trigger level has been breached to investigate around the site whether there is a particular dust-generating activity that needs to be controlled, so it is a matter of less than an hour or an hour rather than a day or a week or a year. 3975. Right and this is the question of monitoring in case problems arise. In general terms, how stringent will be the methods of controlling dust, as is common ground this will justify Tier 3 mitigation, which is the highest levels of protection from dust emissions that is provided, and it is tailor-made to suit the specific proposals and the specific site? Can you give the Committee just some feel for the level of protection that Tier 3 affords so that they can gauge the likelihood of problems arising, whether the monitoring really is belt and braces or whether it is something that is likely to be indicating problems on a regular basis? (Dr Ireland) The method of monitoring and the opportunity for an instant response and the methods of controlling dust once you have identified the source, excuse the expression, are not rocket science. It is basically wet suppression or asking people to be a bit more careful with their activities is what it is about really. And with the method of monitoring that allows instant response then I believe the dust management process would be sufficient to prevent dust leaving the site. 3976. MR ELVIN: Thank you very much.
Cross-examined by MR DINGEMANS 3977. MR DINGEMANS: You mentioned PM10. That is particles which are very small, less than ten microns in diameter, and we are likely to be concerned with particles which are much larger; is that right? (Dr Ireland) No, there is almost a direct relationship between what is referred to as total suspended particulates, that is the total fraction of particulate and particulate matter, with a diameter of less than ten micron PM10. The advantage of using PM10 as a metric is that we can make reference to background monitoring data. 3978. The figure that was proposed by Mr Curson of 22.5 micrograms, that is something that is effectively standard in operation in London construction projects; is that right? (Dr Ireland) I think it was 0.25 milligrams. 3979. Sorry, 0.25 milligrams. (Dr Ireland) Yes, it is referred to in the draft Code of Practice, as I indicated earlier, which seems a practical reference point for further investigation. In other words, it seems a good moment to start with. 3980. And his concern with you taking, as it were, background levels and then monitoring from that and setting trigger methods based on pre-construction monitoring is that you might have absurdly high levels if you wait for your dust cloud over London or your person dropping a bag of cement? (Dr Ireland) The concern this morning was that if we were to use the background monitoring to then set a threshold above the background, rather than an absolute trigger value - the idea of an absolute trigger value is a practical way forward so I agree with the witness there - but the reason for having background monitoring is to establish whether the trigger value has been breached due to activities beyond the control of the worksite. I think it is only fair that is also taken into consideration. 3981. As far as the trigger level is concerned, no-one is going to ask the poor Committee to decide what an appropriate trigger level should be, but what we are asking the Committee for is to enable us to be involved in the agreement of the trigger level. So far the Promoter has said that the Traders' Association expert can be consulted. Is there any reason why his agreement should not be required and if there is a dispute about that then going off to some independent expert? (Dr Ireland) I guess I am here to provide technical evidence and I will stick to dust, if that is okay. 3982. In terms of an undertaking to cease work if the trigger levels are exceeded, you are aware that the market is extremely sensitive in relation to dust issues? (Dr Ireland) I can understand a genuine cause for concern in relation to dust, but I think at this stage without knowing the concentrations of particulates in the area to this level of detail and also within the market itself, it would be difficult to say how sensitive it is. 3983. But did you read or hear the evidence of Mr Smith on 31 January to the effect that the market would be closed if relevant environmental limits were breached? (Dr Ireland) As far as I am aware, there are no environmental elements relating to dust and to meat in trading places. 3984. And in relation to that, what the Petitioner is seeking is simply that the nominated undertaker ceases work as soon as it is safe to do so in circumstances where the market has had to stop work. Is there anything you can assist us with from an expert point of view on that? (Dr Ireland) I think it depends for what reason the market has had to cease operations. I can think of all sorts of different situations why the market might have to cease operations which may or may not be related to dust in the worksite. 3985. But if it is dust from the worksite? (Dr Ireland) I believe the dust management plan would include sufficient measures to prevent that occurring. 3986. Suppose, unhappily, the dust has escaped and the nominated undertaker continues to work, the market is closed; in those circumstances can you see any sensible reason why the nominated undertaker should continue to work? (Dr Ireland) I would have to understand why the market was being closed. 3987. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you very much. 3988. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr Elvin? Re-examined by MR ELVIN 3989. MR ELVIN: Can I understand this, Dr Ireland, if a trigger level is exceeded, does it follow that the dust deposition that has been recorded comes from the construction works? (Dr Ireland) No, that is right; it could be from a variety of different sources. 3990. And from what you know of the area of Smithfield, are there other activities in the area which could generate dust? (Dr Ireland) Clearly. 3991. I just wanted some idea as to whether it would be reasonable to have a trigger level that required work to cease, regardless of the cause of the dust deposition, without investigating it first? (Dr Ireland) I think that would be completely unreasonable. 3992. Do you have a copy of the Buro Happold report, which is A46? (Dr Ireland) I do. 3993. This was Mr Curson's report. I did not take this up with him because he did not seem to be raising it, but now it has been raised, could we go to page 16, please. Can we just zoom in on the first two paragraphs, please. We see the reference to the trigger level and you have explained to the Committee why you do not think that is appropriate. He then refers in the next paragraph to what should happen if it is exceeded. Does he suggest that activity at the construction site should cease? (Dr Ireland) No, he does not. 3994. Do you have any comments on what he says about what one should do if the trigger levels are exceeded? (Dr Ireland) I read this and it seemed to be a very reasonable and practical approach based on experience. 3995. MR ELVIN: Thank you very much. Sir, does the Committee have any questions of the witness? 3996. SIR PETER SOULSBY: No.
The witness withdrew 3997. MR ELVIN: Sir, can I deal with a number of matters some of which Mr Dingemans has already touched upon in terms of additional assurances. 3998. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think that would be very helpful. 3999. MR ELVIN: Sir, can I ask you to pick up A43 which are the undertakings from the Promoter, or for it to go on the screen at least. We need to see number 5. This is not the precise form in which the assurance has been given. That was in a document delivered on 9 February, sir. Can I just confirm this. This relates to access to Buyers Walk and in respect of the assurance we gave in writing on 9 February can I just make it clear that our assurance includes this: that the nominated undertaker will be required to maintain public access to the Buyers Walk entrance at the eastern end of the market in Lindsey Street. For the record, we are making that clear. 4000. Can I also deal with the structural impacts issue. This is paragraph 22 of A43. Again, this is not verbatim of the wording that has been used in the Department's letter but this is about consultation, and can I make it clear that the Promoter is prepared to offer an assurance to consult the SMTA on proposals for any strengthening works to be undertaken in the east basement including the relevant method statements. It is the method statements upon which clarification was sought. We will extend the assurance to include that as well. I also said to Mr Dingemans that I would publicly state the position with regard to the crossover. As you will be aware, the crossover was an issue which the City of London has put to one side while these issues were looked at and an additional provision is promoted. Sir, the position is that it is highly likely that the crossover will not be an issue. I suggest with the Association, as with others who have raised this issue, that that matter simply be put into abeyance until that matter is dealt with rather than troubling the Committee with it now. 4001. There are also two matters that I need to clarify. Can I clarify the position on the 50 per cent of the basement car park issue. Our undertaking is to retain 50 per cent of the space in the basement car park. Until we agree the total number of spaces with the Association it is not possible to agree the precise number of spaces that will be retained. I hope I can give you figures as to whether there is capacity or there is a small loss. You have some idea of the range already, but I hope to give you the accurate figures if they can be agreed. 4002. Secondly, Mr Berryman said he thought we had given an undertaking to keep the market open. Sir, can I correct that. That was not quite the situation. The situation is that we have said to the City, and we will incorporate within the heritage deed giving approval for work under the heritage deed, the City will be able to take into account the impact on the operation of the market. In other words, the City can refuse to approve work if it is likely to lead to the closure of the market and is not going to be restricted simply to heritage-based considerations such as the listing of the building and such other matters but the closure of the market will also be a material consideration but they must consider all relevant matters including the effect on Crossrail. So the City will be in the position of the independent adjudicator. It will weigh the heritage issues and it will weigh the market issues, but it will also weigh the countervailing issues and reach a decision, as it must do in the public interest. So, sir, that is the position on that and I hope that has clarified the position. 4003. Sir, you mentioned half an hour ago before I called Dr Ireland my closing submissions. Might I ask you to stand over the closing until first thing tomorrow morning because Mr Dingemans has raised a number of legal submissions on compensation and human rights which I would like to think about overnight and respond to you crisply tomorrow morning hopefully, if it would help, by a short note. 4004. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I would certainly be minded to accede to that request. It seems an eminently sensible one. I was aware that we have gone into considerable detail on other issues Mr Dingemans has raised. Of course that very big issue has not yet been adequately explored. Perhaps the suggestion you make will enable us to do that properly. I think we would expect an oral statement tomorrow morning on that. I see nods from my colleagues on that, which is not to say something in writing might not also be very helpful. 4005. MR ELVIN: What I will do is make the statement orally but have a written version of it, if that would help the Committee and the Committee Clerk. I also, like Mr Dingemans, will promise not to get too involved in issues. I think there is a limit to which we can try your patience on detailed legal matters, particularly in an area such as compensation but I will do my best to emulate Mr Dingemans' account of it this morning. 4006. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Thank you very much indeed, which leaves us where now? Is there absolutely nothing more for this afternoon? 4007. MR ELVIN: You have heard all the evidence. 4008. MR DINGEMANS: What I would like to do, if that is all right, is after my learned friend has made his submissions to the Committee respond in the normal form. Overnight I very much hope that the documents that I produced as A43, which was the undertakings which have been begin, we will tidy up to incorporate what has been clarified today and also, I hope, produce a crisp list of the outstanding undertakings that divide my learned friend and me so that we can concentrate the detailed submissions which are not the legal ones on those remaining issues. 4009. MR ELVIN: I do not know whether again this is something that will assist the Committee. We had done our own version of the undertakings and what we have done is got a document which lists all the requirements that the Market Traders' Association have suggested they needed and we have put in where we have responded what we have given. Would it help the Committee to have a copy of that for the record if I refer to it in closing? 4010. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think that would be very helpful, if it is sufficiently up-to-date given what has been said today. 4011. MR ELVIN: It will be updated to take account of what I have said today. Could I also say - and I am not sure whether I should be apologetic about this or not given how efficiently the issues have been dealt with today - that it will mean that the business for the week concludes short tomorrow and, as I understand it, there is nothing else in the timetable. 4012. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I think that is our anticipation, in which case it would be convenient now for the Committee to stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning
|