|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 837-xxiii HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the DAY TWENTY-THREE Thursday 30 March 2006 Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Mr Brian Binley Kelvin Hopkins Mrs Siān C James Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger Sir Peter Soulsby
Ordered: That Counsel and Parties be called in. 6157. CHAIRMAN: I cannot see Mrs Ennals here. Do you know whether she is coming? 6158. MS LIEVEN: Sir, she was not certain last night. She had a long conversation with Mr Berryman. He said he would write to her to confirm various points and she said she would go away and check whether she was content with that. The fact that she is not here would indicate that she was content. I do not mean that she withdraws her petition and her points, but that she had no further questions for Mr Berryman. 6159. CHAIRMAN: She is perfectly aware that she is expected to be here this morning and if she does arrive there are still submissions. I think we should proceed with your case. 6160.
MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much. In
the hope of speeding things up - the Committee will be aware that we have a
very full day today - I have typed a note.
It is not wildly comprehensive, but it covers the main points, and at the
end 6161. CHAIRMAN: That document is A69. 6162.
MS LIEVEN: Sir, the first topic I cover is the terminus at Shenfield, which is set
out in IPA7. I am not going to repeat
that. For those present at the
Committee on Tuesday and in the transcript I summarised the case for
terminating at Shenfield. I would wish
to stress that there are benefits to people using Shenfield, as I 6163.
There was extensive cross-examination yesterday on: Why can we not stop
at Stratford? And:
Why do we not have a feasibility study on it?
On matters which, in the view of Mr 6164. Turning to what we are doing at Shenfield, Mr Berryman explained yesterday why we need the extra platform and why the additional track works are needed to segregate Crossrail and I do not think I need to say any more about that. 6165.
I am conscious that Mrs Ennals is now here. Mr Berryman, as I explained yesterday, is not available
today. I do have Mr Walters, Mr
Berryman's assistant 6166. CHAIRMAN: I would prefer to proceed. Mrs Ennals can bring up questions in her summing up. 6167. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman has set out why we are doing what we are doing at Shenfield. There was an issue raised on Tuesday about alternative sidings. As I made clear on Tuesday, those alternative sidings are at the wrong level and involve crossing other lines and are therefore operationally unacceptable. 6168.
Turning to the impact of noise, which is a matter of great concern to a
number of the individual Petitioners 6169. So far as the mitigation is concerned, mitigation at receptors is explained in IPD9 and is, in effect, the noise and vibration mitigation scheme. It is important to say publicly that the Promoter does not shy away from the fact that there will be an impact on residents in Shenfield as a result of these works, but I would like to stress the point Mr Thornley-Taylor made yesterday: there is a difference between audible noise and noise which falls within that which requires to be mitigated through the policy set out in D9.
6170. I would also like to
emphasise, as has been said throughout in other petitions, that experience
shows that the assessment carried out in the ES is likely to have been
pessimistic and noise impacts will almost certainly be significantly less than
those
6171. As far as
operational noise is concerned, the assessment shows there will be no material
increase, and that entirely accords with what one would expect from
6172. . There is the Construction Code which is set out in IPD1. 6173. On visual impact and privacy, the ES accepts that there will be some properties in Shenfield where Petitioners are likely to experience an adverse impact on visual amenity. Most of these are temporary. There is a small number, where the Embankment will come closer to them, where there will be some impact on visual amenity but these are houses with relatively long gardens and trees at the end. 6174. Impact on businesses and shopping is closely related to parking and I will go through that in slightly more detail. On short stay, pay-and-display parking for shoppers it is our submission that the Council's position is highly inconsistent. On the one hand they say they are deeply concerned about Shenfield town centre and the viability of the shopping. The Promoter has carried out two parking surveys to establish the use of those two car parks by shoppers, and the evidence quite clearly shows that, for the time the Friars Avenue car park is used for Crossrail, there is sufficient space in the Hunter Avenue pay-and-display car park for the shoppers who currently go to Shenfield, so long as the Council restrict the grant of parking permits for one year to office workers; in particular the workers of one business. Therefore, there is no need for there to be any adverse effect on the retail sector of Shenfield at all. 6175. The inconsistency is that, on the other hand, the Council refused to say that they will not grant those 55 permits, thus going contrary to their own perfectly clear parking policies in the local plan which give priority to short-term users through management of car parks, and which seek to control and even reduce long-stay parking and contrary to the Council's own stated concern. I would suggest, sir, that the essence of the Council's argument is that Crossrail should provide a car park in the Green Belt for a local business. That is contrary to local and national policy on parking and land use and a plainly inappropriate use of the Green Belt and it is difficult to see that such a development would justify the grant of planning permission. If the Council truly believes it is essential to replicate current parking provision for local business, they can do that by relaxing on-street parking controls for just one year. I would suggest, with respect to the good people of Shenfield, that that is hardly a major sacrifice for local residents. 6176. As to commuter parking, the Petitioners have expressed concern that commuters will be unable to park in the Network Rail car park and will park outside residential properties instead. In reality, that is simply not a significant problem. The Promoter is committed to taking an absolute maximum of 50 per cent of the Hunter Avenue commuter car park and believes it will be able to reduce that to 35 per cent or even less. That means there will a relatively small number of displaced commuters, and surveys show there is capacity in the Mount Avenue car park and, if necessary, capacity in the Brentwood car park. Yes, sir, that may involve some inconvenience to the people who have to drive to Brentwood and take the slower train for something in the region of a year, perhaps a bit more, but it is impossible - it is an important point to stress to the Committee - to build Crossrail without there being some inconvenience to some people for a relatively short time. 6177. Finally on parking, we have offered to enter into discussions with the relevant train operating company, Network Rail, and the council to facilitate the efficient use of the remaining car park space. 6178. On traffic and congestion, I have two points to make: the relevant amount of construction traffic in Shenfield is relatively low. There was a lot of reference to disturbance which had already taken place when the council closed the Alexander Road bridge for structural works for a period. We are not closing any roads in Shenfield and it is likely that the level of traffic impediment will be much lower than a road closure such as that. 6179. Impact on the character of Shenfield is really closely related to the car parking issue, but can I stress that there will be no impact outside the temporary construction period. There is no long-term impact on Shenfield from this scheme, save the beneficial effect of the increased train service. 6180. As far as compensation is concerned, obviously this is a matter of great concern to individuals. We completely understand that and have done our best to give them full information, but we do urge on the Committee, as I know we already have - and as I think this Committee has suggested the case for - that there is a fair and principled regime for compensating people set out in the National Compensation Code, and it would be wrong in principle to depart from that on individual cases, thus creating real unfairness between people who are impacted at different locations or on different projects. There is, importantly, in relation to Shenfield's particular concern, a hardship policy which Mr Smith has explained to you. 6181. In relation to trees, we have said we will do all the work in accordance with the British Standard. Where trees are to be removed, we will, where appropriate, provide replacements. 6182. Disabled access was perhaps left slightly hanging in the air yesterday. Shenfield Station is fully accessible already. Brentwood, the other station, has been designated as one of the stations to receive funding through the Access for All funding package which was announced the other day by the Department of Transport, and that will provide funding to improve accessibility at Brentwood. 6183. Sir, I hope I have covered the main points. As I say, there are short comments at the end of the notes on individual Petitioners where they have raised specific points. 6184. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6185. MR STOKER: Sir, may I deal with two outstanding matters. As of last night, we endeavoured to contact the company in relation to whom it had been suggested their season tickets would be taken away. I have received a letter from the Chairman which I would like to put before the Committee, if I may. It is addressed to the Committee. 6186. CHAIRMAN: Can we list that as A71. 6187. MR STOKER: I am told that a copy, signed by the Managing Director, should be here within the hour. It reads: "Our Managing Director, Peter Townsend, spoke to you last week and was horrified to hear about the proposal by Crossrail for the Council to take back 55 season tickets they let us purchase from the Hunter Avenue and Priors Avenue car parks. This will cause us a very major problem with finding alternative car parking spaces in the area, even to the point where we may have to look for new premises outside the Shenfield area. There are approximately 150 staff members of Burrows and we feel we have financially contributed to the local economy in various ways. Burrows have 30 parking spaces that are attached to the building and we are horrified that Burrows have been singled out. I believe you are petitioning the Parliamentary Select Committee. Could you please bring our strong views to their attention." 6188. That is the letter. I will not say any more about that, but there is a copy signed by the Managing Director which I think will be here in the hour. 6189. CHAIRMAN: Could I point out that it is a bit late in the day. If the local authority were so concerned about this matter, then perhaps they should have paid more attention to some of the businesses in their area. There seems to be a large range of information to the general public in the Brentwood area but not to businesses. 6190. MR STOKER: Yes. I accept that criticism, although things have moved in the last few days. It is clear this one firm was singled out and we have tried to contact them. 6191. There is one other housekeeping matter. We identified a copy of Railways for All which hopefully has been sent to your Clerk. If I could flag up paragraph 3.6 at page 10. 6192. CHAIRMAN: For the record, that is A70. 6193. MR STOKER: I am grateful. That is the section dealing with train operating companies - Crossrail will become that when they take over the metro service from One Rail - and it indicates the obligation on the operating companies who are responsible for the station environment and making sure those who are disabled have access to it. 6194. Could I briefly respond to my learned friend's notes of submissions - only the two parts directed at my case. On the terminus at Shenfield, if I could draw attention to paragraph 4 on page 1, which I think fairly lists the benefits, there are enormous benefits to London from the project. Of course it is our case that the benefits are to London - and not to Brentwood Borough Council's area, in particular Shenfield. 6195. Also, at paragraph 6, there is the puzzling suggestion that it is not really necessary in a billion pound scheme such as this to have feasibility studies because it is simple enough for the experienced engineer to apply a commonsense test. I think that is quite an astonishing point to make and I will develop that in a moment. 6196. If I could go to the car parking part, you will see that they have pinned their colours to the mast in respect of the 55 permits. This is really the opportunity they say for unlocking this issue. One has the letter from the company and I will deal with that in a moment. 6197. As far as paragraph 24 is concerned, this question of the Green Belt seems to be a wholly new point. You will remember yesterday that I called Mr Boynton, who is a senior planner. He was not cross-examined about planning issues. He said that this was perfectly possible as an alternative in the Green Belt and there was no cross-examination of that witness at all, so I am puzzled by that point. 6198. One then sees the rest of that - which seems to be a thrust of, "Well, if people park on the street, the residents of Brentwood borough will just have to put up with that as an inconvenience" - and, in my submission, that is not mitigation. 6199. Turning to my closing submissions - and I did ask for one document to be put up, appendix 4 of Mr Boynton's appendices - I would like to make six points. The first point is that the north-eastern limb of Crossrail is part of the project that, in my submission, essentially benefits London and the suburbs. The other branches of the project self-evidently have other matters justifying them. When one thinks about where the growth is, there is the area out to the west in the Thames corridor. There is substantial growth there: it goes to Heathrow. When one goes to the east, it goes down into the North Kent area, where, of course, under the Thames Gateway provisions, there is major growth. But, when it goes to Shenfield, that is not a growth area. There is no indication of growth at Shenfield. 6200. The benefits flow essentially for London. It is clear in my submission from volume 1 of the Environmental Statement that the benefits in fact can be specifically related to Stratford and the Central London tube and rail stations where there is increased capacity. There is nothing about Shenfield at all. Also, in table 7.3 of the Environmental Statement, it shows that Stratford, Ilford and Romford gain on the question of accessibility to people who do not have a car - the benefits seem to be focused there. It is all about London. 6201. My second point is that the benefits to Shenfield, in my submission, are fairly minimal. It is telling that with the comprehensive consultation exercise that has been carried out over a number of years now, it has still been a matter of concern to my clients as to understand those benefits, and we found them listed for the first time yesterday in Ms Lieven's note which was handed in during the course of cross-examination. 6202. The third point is: Why then has Shenfield been selected? It appears that the plans that have been drawn up over time have simply been predicated on the basis that it will terminate at Shenfield. Trying to grapple with what that means: in my submission, it is an untested assumption that has been there for many years, perhaps a decade. 6203. The fourth point is that it is claimed that the Shenfield option is the least expensive one but we do not have a proper cost-comparison exercise in the public domain which would enable us to test that proposition. 6204. The fifth point is that Mr Berryman, as the expert - and no doubt he has assisted in the production of the information paper A7 - has come to a decision which involves the quite astonishing contention yesterday, when he was pressed, that it was a matter of common sense. It is not common sense at all. It is a technical, complex issue involving multimillion pound/billion pound project and the information should be in the public domain in our submission. 6205. Finally, my sixth point. When one looks therefore, at the question of whether a credible case for Shenfield has been advanced, the highest it is put before this Committee is that it is a matter of commonsense. I submit that is woefully inadequate for demonstrating this particular point. There should be proper feasibility studies that we can analyse to demonstrate the point, providing credible evidence, and it is conspicuous by its absence. 6206. I then turn to the mitigation of Crossrail works within the context of what I have asked to be put up: table 18.2. I opened our case on this basis and I close our case on this basis: there will be a loss of two car parks. It is described by Crossrail as a significant impact and they have committed no mitigation to it. In my submission, that is an astonishing situation in which to find oneself.
6207. I would make nine points. First of all, it is common ground between us, without any reservation, that the consequence of taking these car parks is significant. 6208. The second point is that, with those car parks adjacent to the town centre, that is clearly correct, but taking those car parks for some 21 months will, in my submission, jeopardise and undermine the viability of that centre's trade. 6209. The third point is that the Crossrail development takes those car parks, it gets the benefits, and they have said that they have committed no mitigation in the Environmental Statement. In my submission, this is an abdication of a point of principle, that: if you develop a project like this, if you take the benefit, you should mitigate the consequences. They are significant and they should be mitigated. 6210. Fourthly, if one asks oneself as to the consequences of what is being proposed, one has a situation where these car parks will be out of order for up to 21 months, with a common period of both impacted for 12 months. In my submission that is justifiably significant. 6211. My fifth point is: What do they suggest? They do nothing. It is for the borough council to contact one thriving local company that has been singled out to take back their 55 season tickets and deal with it in this way. In my submission, this is not a responsible approach to mitigation. 6212. The sixth point is that Crossrail have not approached this company. This is the point they have worked up. It is the key to it. They have not contacted Burrows and assessed the impact. As I understand it, all they have done, with the greatest respect to them, is flown over the area in a helicopter, taken an aerial photograph and done parking surveys on the three days. That is a summation of it. 6213. In my submission, what you have in terms of evidence is Mr Brimley having talked to the company, assessing the impact that would take and explaining how the strategy has been set in terms of the balance of the provision of car park between short-stay and season ticket, and you now have the letter which underpins that point. 6214. The eighth point is to withdraw those season tickets, which would lead to a situation where there will be impact on a local firm and parking on the roads. This is nothing more, in my respectful submission, than indifference by Crossrail as the Promoter. In my submission it is not a responsible approach. 6215. The ninth point is this: a temporary car park has been discussed in the past. At one stage it was on the table and we would ask for the strong recommendation from this Committee that this matter be looked at and addressed properly. It is not satisfactory to have a significant impact but with no committed mitigation is wrong in principle. 6216. Unless I can assist further, sir, those are my closing submissions. 6217. CHAIRMAN: We have received a letter from the Managing Director. We will list that as A72. 6218. MR STOKER: Thank you, sir. 6219. MR WELFARE: Sir, your Committee has heard extensively from residents and myself over the last two days on the issue of the terminus at Shenfield and the issue of the consequence for the area and for individual residents of the works and operation of Crossrail. Residents in Shenfield, whom I represent - and I am sure that is true of others who were here in person - are grateful to have had the opportunity to put those views before you. The basic issue for residents is that the case for Shenfield has not been made, nor even attempted to be made at any serious level in Parliament and before the public. I think I can say that the Promoters have been trying in the last few days to plug that gap. There is no transparency about the decisions leading to the proposals which have come before your Committee in relation to Shenfield. The case, even now, essentially amounts to a negative one: it cannot be done elsewhere on the line without greater cost. Yet even that argument, as my learned friend Mr Stoker has said, is not costed, nor, indeed, is the justification for a line east of Liverpool Street or Stratford seriously set out. 6220. The residents whom I represent, and those who have come in person, have said from the outset that, if Crossrail ends in Shenfield, they will continue to use the fast line to Liverpool Street or Stratford, changing at one of those two stations on to Crossrail if they wish to use Crossrail, for the simple reason that it is much quicker. Ms Lieven in her submissions and Mr Berryman in his evidence yesterday have now accepted that the estimates for extra passenger use for Crossrail - an extra three per cent at Shenfield - bear that out. The residents say there is little or no benefit to them. While the factor that Crossrail avoids changing to each of the destinations on the route was brought in, the key factor from their point of view was the speed of service, and they say that they will continue to use the fast service and change accordingly. 6221. Sir, the case has not been made in a way that has been documented or tested in the public domain. Proceedings in the last two days have established, as Mr Stoker has said, that there is no feasibility study of possible termination anywhere west of Shenfield, and Crossrail have confirmed that to you as well as in correspondence. There are no firm estimates of the cost of the alternatives, be that Stratford or the other major stations along the route; therefore, there is no ability to compare the respective costs of those different options or to assess the package as a whole. Nor is there any assessment of the needs of Shenfield as a whole and the impact on it as a community, beyond the isolated references to which the Promoters have drawn attention in the Environmental Statement which reflect one or two factors but not the community as a whole. 6222. From that, no convincing conclusion is possible in the absence of such an analysis. The assertion that Stratford cannot provide a service alternative is not supported with any evidence beyond the bald assertion in document A7 which has been repeated again today. Indeed, the official estimate of the cost of the works if they were to be underground at Stratford - assisted, one understands, by Mr Berryman's personal estimate - grew in the course of your proceedings from three to four hundred million to five hundred million. That gives an idea of the sort of basis upon which these decisions are being taken. Mr Berryman told you yesterday - and seemed pleased with the fact - that they were, as he put it, "high level" decisions: there has been a longstanding assumption that the terminus would be there. That assumption did not appear to be one which needed, in his view, justification to the public or justification to your Committee beyond the simple assertion. We say that it is simply not sufficient, as has happened again today, to state that view without supporting evidence which can be assessed by residents, and, more particularly, by yourselves and your committee and Parliament as a whole. 6223. Sir, we say the case for the terminus at Shenfield has properly yet to be made in a way which can be tested in Parliament. Attempts by my learned friend Ms Lieven to produce a positive case for it, with all due respect, show how thin it is. 6224. In relation to issues of mitigation, to which residents drew attention in areas of concern, Ms Lieven has responded to a number of those in her paper which is now with you. Perhaps I may just pick up a couple of points from that. In paragraph 16 of her note, she states that the assessment of it is that the operation of Crossrail at Shenfield will not give rise to any significant increase in noise levels; in other words, in the future, once the thing has been built. Residents doubt that. They doubt that because of the frequency and the scale of the trains. It is simply an unproven assertion at the moment and it is something that is causing them concern. However, if there is an assurance there, that is something of which residents can take note. 6225. In relation to construction noise, Ms Lieven draws attention to the role of Brentwood Borough Council in controlling working hours, monitoring and noise mitigation. Those are undoubtedly desirable developments from the point of view of residents and they will look to those with interest. 6226. In relation to visual impact, privacy and loss of amenity, Crossrail accept that some properties of Petitioners will experience an adverse effect. They envisage a particular problem over the removal in the long-term of vegetation. Those are the people who may suffer visually in the long run from the development of Shenfield Station. Nothing that I have heard - unless I have missed it - has met the residents' demand that, if trees and other vegetation are taken away, mature replacements should be put in - those which can give them some benefit in the immediate or ensuing two or three years, rather than waiting the many years that they may take to grow. 6227. In relation to the impact on business and shops, the statement is - Ms Lieven said with force this morning - that the impacts in terms of business and particularly parking in Shenfield would be temporary and there would be no long-term negative impact. We do not know that. Residents are unconvinced that parking problems will not continue simply because of the presence of a terminus in their area, particularly if the predictions for passenger ridership prove wrong. In fact, the long-term effect in terms of the town centre could well be a loss of business in the short term, during the construction phase, from which the town does not recover to the same level. 6228. An assessment of that, and any serious analysis of what may happen in response to that, has not been put before you. Instead, we have the two proposals from Crossrail in relation to parking. One is that Burrows - the firm to whom my learned friend Mr Stoker has referred and you have now seen their letter - should lose their parking permits; the other is that parking should be released on to the residential streets. To the Promoters this appears to be a solution, in that they can simply subtract that problem from the numbers that they are otherwise facing, but there is no proposal, as my learned friend Mr Stoker has said, for Crossrail itself to match its take, if you like, with provision itself in terms of parking. 6229. In relation to the impact on the character of Shenfield, the Promoter does accept there will be a significant cumulative impact (paragraph 32 of Ms Lieven's note) on the community of Shenfield. It takes the view that those impacts, virtually all of them, are temporary and that the area will not permanently lose the character of which residents have spoken. There will be more traffic; there will be the sight lines and visual impacts I have spoken of; there will be less parking in the short term and we do not know what will happen in the long term; and there will be long-term effects of the temporary disruption, as I have said. The problem to which the residents are trying to point is that they have an area of great character, the impact on which is uncertain and the long-term effect on which is uncertain. It simply is difficult to see how the Promoter can, with such conviction, make a statement that there will be no long-term impact on the character of Shenfield when none of us can know. 6230. There is a statement - and I am not sure if Ms Lieven referred to it - to the effect that there would be some impact on retail services while the construction was going on, but that will be scheduled to minimise the impact (paragraph 34 of her statement) and residents will note that as well. 6231. On the issue of blight and the value of houses, Mr Smith explained that blight rules themselves do not apply and therefore we are talking about the hardship policy that Crossrail put forward. 6232. Much was made, incidentally, of the panel system that will administer the hardship policy, and the role of an independent panel member. So there is no confusion about this, the decision in such matters is made by the Secretary of State. There is a process of appeal, but the Secretary of State has said that he expects that to apply only when material circumstances have changed since the application. So it is a very narrow ground of appeal and one which will not apply in most instances. 6233. Mr Smith accepted in cross-examination, in response to me, that the hardship policy will not apply in a number of cases that I sought to outline in cross-examination. Reference has been made (Ms Lieven's note, paragraph 37) to Mr and Mrs Wood, and the possible inability of Mrs Wood to continue teaching music. In response to me, Mr Smith accepted that Mrs Wood might not qualify under the hardship scheme. Depending on the circumstances, it would be a matter of judgment as to how many pupils she had lost and the degree of hardship suffered, and therefore its effect on whether or not they would be obliged to go elsewhere. 6234. The point about hardship policy is that those who are worried about the value of their house have some comfort, provided they have lost more than 15 per cent of the value of their house, if they are compelled to move. That does nothing, for example, for the elderly residents who have petitioned your Committee, sir; for example, Mr and Mrs Watt, Petitioners 257, who are aged 80 and 77 respectively and were looking to sell their house to realise some of its value to provide for their old age. They are not compelled to move; they wish to move. Nor is a young family that wants a better house compelled to move, but they have now had to face suffering that the loss of value that this development will bring to them. Nor, indeed, have the elderly - and there are quite a number of elderly petitioners who petitioned you, reflecting the nature of the area of Brentwood, where a quarter of the people are elderly - in terms of what their successors may inherit, been put in a position where they can at least be sure about what they will be passing on. 6235. As I say, the possibility of the involvement of Brentwood Borough Council is something residents will welcome in things like flexible working hours and the other elements of the hours of operation and we will see how they work out in practice. 6236. I need not trouble you further, other than to underline that the residents who appear before you are looking to this Committee with a sense of great importance to them of what they have brought before you and I trust, from the way you have responded to what they have had to say, that you appreciate the importance of the submissions I have put before you. 6237. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jardine, would you like to sum up? 6238. MR JARDINE: If I may, sir. 6239. Crossrail have sought to say that the hardship scheme is in place now. In my questioning of Mr Smith, with indeed some help from him yesterday morning, I demonstrated the fact that in the case of existing ill-health that is not always the case and the hardship scheme does not come into play until nine months before work commences in the facility concerned. I do not think that is just. In that particular case I hope that Crossrail will change their position, or that your Committee may be empowered to have words with them in that respect. 6240. During my presentation two days ago and again in my questioning of Mr Berryman yesterday evening, I attempted to show that there are alternatives available. I may not have perfected my case, in view of my lack of expertise, but there are other places where sidings can go, such as White Gates or the other side of the Southend loop line, adjacent to White Gates, where access can be sought by means of a temporary track and less disruption to Shenfield town centre. 6241. I also believe that better use could be made of the existing sidings and the existing track arrangements at Shenfield Station - what are known as the eastern sidings, the present eastern sidings. I do not think they have sufficiently taken on board these options and I think they have too easily discounted them. I do hope that perhaps further consideration can be given to other options which will result in less disruption perhaps to the entire Shenfield area or certainly into a considerable part of it, the Hunter Avenue section, for example. 6242. That is really all I wanted to say. Thank you very much. 6243. CHAIRMAN: Just for the record, Mr Jardine, I do not think you should be worried: you presented the case very well and you should be quite pleased with it. 6244. MR JARDINE: Thank you very much. 6245. CHAIRMAN: Mrs Ennals, would you like to summarise? 6246. MRS ENNALS: Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, we thank you and have greatly appreciated the opportunity to ask questions. Lat night Mr Berryman told us that it was intended to place only single story Portakabins on the Hunter Avenue worksite for the purpose of providing approximately 20 people with toilet, rest and cloakroom facilities. Mr Berryman said there was no intention to provide canteen facilities. At present the final layout of the site has not been decided so our queries as to placement remain unresolved. 6247. If the worksite is placed at the eastern end of Hunter Avenue we would respectfully request that the Portakabin housing toilet facilities be sited away from 69 Hunter Avenue. We asked if it would be possible to place the worksite at the western end of the season ticket car park, thus providing a buffer, with parked season ticket cars at the eastern end of the car park and providing some protection for houses at the eastern end. There is already a buffer between the maisonettes at the western end provided by the short-stay car park. 6248. We understand that the Promoter wishes to lay track at night, during some weekends, and we would ask, please, that the residents of properties backing on to the railway embankment be forewarned when this is to take place. We would ask for an undertaking that the Promoter would take all possible actions to mitigate the unsocial effects of the proposed works on affected residents and we would appreciate an undertaking by the Promoter to keep affected residents informed and consulted. 6249. We would also ask for an undertaking that the car park will be reinstated as it at present stands, without two entrances and exists. We do have general inquiries or queries which we have already made and agree with the points previously made. 6250. Thank you. 6251. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mrs Ennals. My remarks earlier to your colleague Mr Jardine apply to yourself. Thank you very much for your presentation to the Committee. 6252. We will now move on to Ms Meldal-Johnsen.
The Petition of Ms Meldal-Johnsen, Mrs Alison Human and Mr Antoine Lurot
MR HUMAN appeared as Agent.
MS MELDAL-JOHNSEN appeared in person. 6253. CHAIRMAN: Ms Meldal-Johnsen, would you like to begin? I understand that you are a little bit nervous, but you are probably the most seasoned professional in parliamentary affairs. 6254. MS MELDAL-JOHNSEN: But I am not used to doing much talking, sir. Sir, my name is Ingrid Meldal-Johnsen and I am speaking today not only for myself, but also on behalf of my neighbours, fellow Petitioners, Mrs Alison Human and her husband who has been appointed her agent, and Mr Antoine Lurot. I gather that the Committee has already heard from several Petitioners in person. I hope that I do not do or say anything that I should not before you, but I hope that you will bear with me if I do. 6255. We are all residents of Bathurst Mews in W2, which is just between Paddington and Hyde Park. All three of our properties will be affected by the Bill in the same way. Each of us owns the freehold of our houses, though Mr Lurot has acquired his since we lodged our Petition. At that time he was the leaseholder. 6256. The Bill will enable the compulsory acquisition of the subsoil and under-surface of the land consisting of our properties to the extent that it lies more than nine metres below the surface and this is because the eastbound tunnel will be directly beneath us. Our Petition raised a number of concerns about the Bill. The two main issues we are worried about are settlement or other structural damage caused to our properties during construction and noise and vibration where our main concern is really the noise levels in our homes when trains are passing in the tunnel beneath during the operational phase of the project. 6257. We have been in correspondence with Crossrail since about this time last year and we met with them to discuss our concerns on 7 February and have since exchanged further letters with them. I am sure you will be pleased to hear that, through a combination of the contents of the Promoter's Response Document and what was said at our meeting on 7 February, Crossrail have put our minds at rest on some of the issues, including settlement. We have decided that we are not concerned enough about some of the other issues to bring them to your attention today. The upshot is that it is noise and vibration that is our remaining concern. This was addressed at paragraphs 8 to 10 of our Petition. 6258. The main issue that we would like to raise with you is that we do not think that the Bill and the surrounding framework of controls provide us with sufficient right of redress if the noise significance criterion that will apply to our properties is exceeded once the project is up and running. We have, therefore, been asking Crossrail for a contractual undertaking that the significant threshold will not be exceeded. 6259. It is worth mentioning at this point that Mrs Human owned her house during the life of the previous incarnation of this project. At that time what was then Crossrail had agreed in principle to give her and various other residents of the Mews an undertaking on noise and other matters. The undertaking was never signed as it was still under negotiation when the project collapsed. We have put before you today a copy of what was the latest draft of that undertaking for your reference. 6260. I should also mention in passing the other documents that we have tabled before the Committee. These are three letters that we wrote to Crossrail before submitting our Petition. I do not intend to refer to them specifically, but the reason we wanted to make them available to you is because you may have noticed that Crossrail included their letters to us in Appendix C of their Response Document and we thought it unhelpful for the Committee only to have one side of that particular story before them. 6261. Turning to what we see as the key issue, it is: what rights of redress will we have if the noise threshold is exceeded? The Environmental Statement sets out that the level that Crossrail has adopted as the threshold of significance for groundborne noise in residential properties is 40dBLAmaxS and it says that this will be adopted as the performance specification for the railway. The Environmental Statement assessment is based on a set of assumptions that various mitigation measures will be taken. We were told at paragraph 9 on page 37 of our Response Document that the nominated undertaker will be required to design a permanent track support system so that the level of noise does not in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances exceed the significance criterion. 6262. So far, that all sounds good, but what causes us difficulty is the following: that various Crossrail papers, including the Promoter's Response Document, make it absolutely clear that the adoption of mitigation measures is only likely to result with the criterion for the performance specification not being breached, and there is no guarantee, and that is found at paragraph 11 on page 7 of our Response Document. 6263. The question that arises is: what rights do we have if, once the railway is up and running, it turns out that the noise level in our properties exceeds 40? It seems to us that that could happen as a result of one or two things: firstly, that the noise levels might exceed 40 because the mitigation measures are not taken or fully complied with; and, secondly, it might happen even where they are taken, but, once the train operation commences, they prove to be not enough to bring the noise in the tunnels down below 40. 6264. In the first situation where mitigation measures are not taken, Crossrail have told us in a letter of 22 February from Winckworth's that the Secretary of State would be required to take action to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. We understand from a further letter from Winckworth's of 24 March that the basis of this requirement is the fact that Information Paper D10 on groundborne noise and vibration, which sets out the obligation on the nominated undertaker to take mitigation measures, will be included in the register of commitments and undertakings, and, with Information Paper D3 on compliance of undertakings and assurances, we understand that the Secretary of State will take those steps he considers reasonable and necessary to ensure compliance with all the relevant undertakings. 6265. It is the nature of this undertaking by the Secretary of State which causes us concern. We understand fully why the Secretary of State can only undertake to take steps that are reasonable rather than all steps, but we also do not find it hard to imagine a scenario where it could rightly be concluded by him that it would not be reasonable for action to be required to be taken by the nominated undertaker to put the mitigation measures in place further down the time-line of the project. We can see that if, for example, what was required involved substantial reconstruction of the tunnel, it could well be that the Secretary of State would think it unreasonable to require Crossrail to do that. It may also be reasonable that we would not have a personal right of enforcement in those circumstances, but what we think is wholly unfair is that we would not have a claim for compensation against Crossrail. 6266. The second scenario I mentioned is one where the mitigation measures are taken, but the noise levels are still too high, that is, Crossrail has misjudged the effects of the railway and/or mitigation measures. In that situation, there appears to be nothing for us to rely on at all. There is no undertaking by the Secretary of State or anyone else that the threshold will not be exceeded. We understand we would have no right of enforcement or to claim compensation against the nominated undertaker and nor would the Secretary of State even be obliged to consider doing anything. 6267. We think it is unjust that we will not have the right to claim compensation and, if you will bear with me, I will try and explain why. The Committee of course know that the compensation settlement we will receive on compulsory acquisition of our subsoil will be governed by the National Compensation Code. It is with some relief that I say that I have not had an occasion in my life to become even anything vaguely approaching an expert on that Code, but we have looked into it to see what effect it will have on us. We asked Crossrail in our last letter to confirm that we have understood the position correctly, but Winckworth's reply of 24 March unfortunately did not cover the point. Therefore, if I may, I would like briefly to set out what we understand our position to be. 6268. The compensation settlement will be determined, and this is the crucial point for us, at the time of compulsory acquisition. This will of course be a significant amount of time before the railway is functioning. The compensation we will receive will consist of two elements. The first is the market value of the subsoil and, given that we are talking about subsoil, it is not surprising that we have been told that we can expect the market value to be nominal. The second element is compensation for severance and injurious affection caused by the presence or operation of the railway. We understand, and we get this from ODPM's Compulsory Purchase and Compensation booklet, that injurious affection includes loss of amenity due to noise and vibration, et cetera, as a result of the use of, in this case, the railway. That is at paragraph 2.36 of that booklet. Therefore, to the extent that the operation of the railway causes loss of amenity due to noise, we should be compensated for it. 6269. We asked Crossrail at our meeting how compensation for noise was assessed and calculated at the time of compulsory acquisition which is many years before the project is up and running and so many years before the actual occurrence of any injurious affection. What we were told was that this would be done on the basis of the information in the Environmental Statement. In other words, in calculating the compensation, the same assumptions, and I stress that they are just assumptions, albeit expert ones, will be made as were made to determine the mitigation measures and the resulting noise level predictions. That, we respectfully submit, is circular. Given that the Environmental Statement predicts that the noise in our properties will be below the significance criterion, it will be seen that compensation for injurious affection will also be nominal. 6270. The point was also made by Crossrail when we met with them that the compensation settlement is full and final, so there is no opportunity if their assumptions turn out to be incorrect to revisit it, say, ten years down the line or whatever it will be once the railway opens. 6271. Therefore, it seems to us that there is a gap in the provision made by the Bill. To our minds, the Compensation Code recognises the principle that those subject to compulsory acquisition should have a right to be compensated for injurious affection arising out of the relevant project, but, because of the nature of this project and the fact that the compensation settlement is determined at a time when the real, rather than projected, extent of injurious affection cannot yet be known, we will not have the benefit of that right. That seems manifestly unfair to us. 6272. It is for this reason that we have asked Crossrail to give us an undertaking that the noise caused in our properties by the operation of the project will not exceed the significance criterion. Without such an undertaking, we do not seem to have a right of compensation and that is a right which we think the Compensation Code recognises. I think I am correct in saying, in fact I think I heard this earlier this morning, that the Promoter of the Bill has been keen in these proceedings to impress upon the Committee that the principles in the Compensation Code should not be put up for debate on this project, but we respectfully submit to you that that is not what we are doing in making this case. 6273. To put it in a slightly different way, without an undertaking of this sort from Crossrail, we are in effect being required to take the risk that the experts acting for Crossrail, who have formulated the predictions and determined the mitigation measures required to meet them, have done their calculations correctly and we think that is unjust and that that risk should be properly borne by the Promoter. 6274. We think it is also worth pointing out that we do not really see the difference in principle between what we are asking for on noise and what Crossrail are already offering in relation to settlement. The position on settlement, simply put, is that, if there is physical damage to our properties during the construction phase, Crossrail will make it right and compensate us. That is not based on the predicted levels of settlement included in the Environmental Statement today, but on actual damage resulting from construction then, and we are unsure why noise is not receiving the same treatment. 6275. There is another point which we would like to ask you to have in your minds when you consider whether what we are asking for is reasonable. I am sure that, if you have not already, the Committee will at some stage be hearing complaints about the depreciation in value of properties along the proposed route as a result of the fear and uncertainty about the project and the effect it will have, and property values will remain that way at least until construction is complete and the trains are running. I am not sure we have actually put them to the test on it, but I doubt that Crossrail would disagree that our houses are worth less today than they would be if no one had ever thought of Crossrail or had put it somewhere else, and they will stay that way for some time until the real effects of the project are known. Mr Lurot, who is a fellow Petitioner, is also the Chairman of Lurot Brown(?) Estate Agents which specialises in mews houses in central London. He has 35 years' experience in this area and tells us that buyers are already being put off by the Crossrail project and the unknowns it brings with it. Buyers are harder to come by and are expecting large discounts, and will continue to do so in the long run-up to Crossrail becoming a reality. 6276. At the point that the construction of the railway is completed or, in any event, soon afterwards, the real effect of the trains running beneath the properties will be known and so will be quantifiable and we can expect the value of the properties to adjust accordingly, but should any of us want to sell our properties during the very long run-up from today until completion, we will be adversely impacted by the downwards effect on property values caused by the fear factor. 6277. There is obviously no provision for any compensation for that depreciation in the value of our homes and we understand the reasons for that and have thought better than to ask the Committee for compensation for the current loss in value, but we respectfully suggest, when considering whether what we are asking for in relation to noise is reasonable or not, that the Committee might like to take into account not only the effect on our daily life if the noise threshold is exceeded should we be living in the Mews when construction is completed, but also the financial disadvantage we will be in should we want, or need, to sell before completion. An undertaking on noise either in the Bill or on a contractual basis would, we believe, help us to combat the fear factor that buyers have in the run-up to the railway's operation, should we decide to sell in that period. 6278. Crossrail keep telling us that we do not need to worry and that the railway will be built in accordance with the Environmental Statement and that the noise levels will be below the threshold, or at least are likely to be. On that assertion, we do not see why giving such an undertaking should trouble them. In fact their reluctance even to discuss it with us would give a cynical man cause for concern about the levels of confidence that they have in their calculations and predictions on noise. They are clearly more confident that they have got it right on settlement. 6279. There is only one other point on noise which we would like to raise, but you can breathe a sigh of relief because I shall be very brief. The noise threshold for residential properties is currently set at 40dBLAmaxS. We have spoken to Graham King at Westminster City Council who, I think, has already appeared before you, and we gather that not only Westminster but other local authorities have raised, or intended to raise, the issue with the Committee as to whether that is the appropriate level. We strongly support the local authorities in their assertions that 40 is too high, and we mention it so that our support for the authorities' position is on the record. 6280. Sir, that brings what we wanted to say to the Committee to a close. To sum up, we think that the Bill and the surrounding documents offer insufficient protection to us in relation to noise. For the reasons I have explained, and will not rehearse, we think that it is unfair that, as subjects of compulsory acquisition notices, we have no right of compensation against Crossrail where the noise threshold, whatever it may be, is exceeded. The Bill makes provision for such compensation and that is why we have been asking Crossrail for an undertaking on the point. We think that an undertaking that the noise levels in our properties will not exceed the residential threshold, whether that turns out to be 40 or something lower, would redress the current imbalance and produce a fair result. We, therefore, ask the Committee to consider the points on our behalf. Sir, thank you to you and the rest of the Committee for bearing with me and I shall be more than happy to answer any questions. 6281. CHAIRMAN: Mr Human, do you wish to add to that submission or are you content? 6282. MR HUMAN: Thank you, sir, I have nothing to add. 6283. CHAIRMAN: Mr Taylor? 6284. MR TAYLOR: Sir, the Committee has already heard from Mr Thornley-Taylor with regard to the way in which the commitment set out in Information Paper D10 operates. I do not know whether you wish me to call him to deal with those matters again or whether you prefer me just to move on to make submissions in response. 6285. CHAIRMAN: We are well aware of the points which have already been made to the Committee, but that does not mean you should not address the points in the Petition which have been made. 6286. MR TAYLOR: Well, I will certainly address those in submission, if I may, now. Information Paper D10 provides a commitment that the nominated undertaker will be required to design the track support system so that the level of groundborne noise near the centre of any noise-sensitive room is predicted in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances not to exceed 40dBLAmaxS in respect of residential properties. That commitment does not mean that the level of groundborne noise within the Petitioners' properties will be as high as 40dBLAmaxS; indeed Mr Thornley-Taylor has explained to the Committee on Day 8, paragraph 2,351 that that 40dBLAmaxS level is not a target. In fact the actual noise within properties will vary across the project. The commitment has been designed so that any uncertainty in the model will be taken into account in the design process, as you will recall. Mr Thornley-Taylor has modelled that the likely impact on the Petitioners' properties will be a noise level of 28dBLAmaxS, as set out in the letter to the Petitioners that Ms Meldal-Johnsen has already referred to, dated 24 March 2006, which I believe is before you. Now, that level, the likely level that Mr Thornley-Taylor has identified, is below the level of protection offered to sound-recording studios. 6287. The project has identified that the standard track form which uses resilient base-plates will be used and the rail will be continuously welded, and that is explained in Information Paper D10, paragraph 2.8. In 1994, Mrs Human was provided with a draft undertaking which was never concluded and I think it just may be of interest to look at clause 4(a) of page 5 of that draft undertaking for a moment to see what was being offered then so that we can compare it with what is being offered now. If we look at the bottom of the page, here we can see that the undertaking was that: in the construction and maintenance of the authorised works, and in working the railway comprised therein, "the Company shall...employ all means which are reasonably practicable (i) to minimise noise and vibration to and within the protected property by inclusion beneath the protected property of a permanent, resilient track with continuous welded rail designed to the specified noise and vibration aims", so it is a resilient base-plate with continuously welded rail. 6288. If we can turn on in the document, I think, to a later page which is the definition of the 'specified noise and vibration aims', which I think is page 7, we can see at (ii) on this page: "the term 'specified noise and vibration aims' shall mean (1) for noise inside any building forming part of the protected property - a level of noise not exceeding a maximum sound level of 40dB(A) caused by a vibration transmitted through the ground due to the passage of one train". So it can be seen that that is exactly the same commitment as is provided by Information Paper D10, a resilient base-plate with continuously welded rail and a design aim of 40dB(A) as a maximum. 6289. So far as enforceability is concerned, the Secretary of State has given an undertaking that he will take such steps as he considers are reasonable and necessary to secure compliance with the environmental minimum requirements, and you will remember that that commitment was given by Mr Elvin on the first day. The environmental minimum requirements include a commitment in Information Paper D10. The enforcement of the EMR has already been explained to the Committee by Mr Anderson on Day 13, paragraphs 3,922 to 3,924 and by Mr Elvin on Day 14, at paragraphs 4,024 and following. The environmental minimum requirements will be a contractual requirement imposed on the nominated undertaker by the Secretary of State and that is a model which has been used successfully on the CTRL scheme. 6290. My learned friend is asking me to make the additional point that, in the light of that, we do not anticipate that there will be any reasonable prospect of the 40dB(A) level being exceeded. If that were to occur, then the National Compensation Code provides a mechanism for compensation in a manner which has been set by Parliament for a number of years, and we say that is sufficient to deal with the concerns that the Petitioners have raised. 6291. CHAIRMAN: Just for clarity, the Petition which was being negotiated at the time, you are saying that more than meets the criteria contained in all of that? 6292. MR TAYLOR: We are saying that we are offering exactly the same undertaking, albeit it is not an undertaking offered personally to the Petitioners, but it is offered by the Secretary of State through Parliament through the process that I have just explained, so there is no difference between what was being offered then and that which is being offered now. Indeed Mr Thornley-Taylor has calculated what the likely impact will be and it is likely to be significantly below the 40 level simply on the basis of, as I understand it, using the standard track form, even without the introduction of floating slab tracks. 6293. CHAIRMAN: I understand what you are saying, but they have come to you and said, "Can we start from there with that as the basis?", which is the major plank of their Petition, saying, "We want this as a minimum", and what you are saying is, "We are reaching that by the undertaking given by the Secretary of State"? 6294. MR TAYLOR: Yes. 6295. CHAIRMAN: Can you not then provide a letter of comfort which will say that in relation to that? Indeed, if you will give me just a second, I will call the Petitioner back to see if they are satisfied with that undertaking. 6296. MS MELDAL-JOHNSEN: Thank you for the opportunity to say a few more words, sir. There are actually a couple of points I would like to make in response to that. Firstly, in case Mr Taylor misunderstood us on the question of 40 and 28, in terms of what we are asking for from an undertaking, we know that the actual predicted level of noise in our properties is much lower than the residential property threshold significance, and it is only an undertaking at the significance level we are looking for, be it 40 or, if the Committee decides to bring that down after they have heard from noise experts to, 35 or whatever it may be, so I hope there was no misunderstanding on that. 6297. Secondly, whilst we can see Mr Taylor's point, that the substance of the undertaking before you, the draft one, and that of the one given by the Secretary of State are similar, there are two things I would like to say. The first is that it makes a difference for us to have something personal which you can wave under a prospective purchaser's nose as it gives them more comfort and puts us in a stronger position should we need to sell before completion. The second thing is that I do recognise that what we are asking the Committee for goes beyond what is in that draft undertaking, which is a right of compensation where, even though all measures are taken as they are supposed to be, as set out in the Environmental Statement, nevertheless, because Crossrail have miscalculated and got things wrong, the noise levels are exceeded. Mr Taylor has mentioned that that is something that the National Compensation Code provides for, but, on our understanding, which I set out to you earlier, it does not so provide. We have asked Crossrail about this on several occasions, including in our last letter, and I asked them to confirm in advance of today's proceedings that our understanding of that is correct because I did not want to waste your time. We have not yet been told how under the National Compensation Code we could make a claim given those circumstances, and I would appreciate hearing that. 6298. CHAIRMAN: Mr Taylor, would you care to respond to those points? 6299. MR TAYLOR: The key point here is the nature of the undertaking that has been provided and that is to design this railway to a level which will ensure there will be no significant impact on the Petitioners' properties, and that is what is given in the commitment in IPD10. You have heard the evidence on that and you have heard evidence about whether 40, 30 or 35 is the right level and I am not going to trawl over that matter again. 6300. So far as the enforceability of that commitment is concerned, the point is quite a straightforward one and it is this: that it is far easier for the Secretary of State to enforce the particular undertaking that has been given than for lots of individual Petitioners. The process of enforcement has been explained to you and I have provided you with references to Mr Anderson's evidence and to Mr Elvin's submissions on that particular point. If the Committee feel it appropriate, I have got instructions that the Promoter is happy to write a confirmatory letter to the Petitioners, explaining the point that I explained before with regard to the comparability between the undertaking offered in 1994 and what is offered now. The real issue here is what we have identified as a 'route-wide design criterion' and we do not feel it is appropriate to alter the route-wide criterion to cater for particular Petitioners because the level is set at a level which is appropriate for all residential properties. 6301. So far as the compensation issue is concerned, I am not going to take up the Committee's time going into the details of injurious affection ---- 6302. CHAIRMAN: Mr Taylor, I find it odd that you are willing to give the undertaking by the Secretary of State, but you are not willing to give a personal undertaking. It is bizarre really when all the Petitioner is asking for is basically thatø but I am grateful that you have offered to write a comfort letter now, explaining the position, but that is not quite the same. 6303. The second point was on the aspect of blight, or should I say value from problems which may affect them. I just wondered, because you have not replied to the request from the Petitioners as yet, if you would give a commitment here for ongoing attempts to try and find a solution, and whether it is successful or not is down at the end of the day to the Promoter and the Petitioners themselves, but that the door continues to be open until we get to the end of this? 6304. MR TAYLOR: Sir, I am happy to say this: as you know, the Promoter's position is that the National Compensation Code is sufficient to deal with matters of compensation and insofar as that needs further explanation for the Petitioners, we are happy to have those discussions and to continue those discussions. 6305. CHAIRMAN: That I am grateful for. 6306. MR TAYLOR: My learned friend helpfully reminds me that of course the hardship policy set out in the Information Papers which are before the Committee applies to these Petitioners as much as anybody else as well, and there is always that as a fall-back to take into account, and I am sure the Committee will bear that in mind. 6307. CHAIRMAN: I understand the case on the hardship point, but that is not quite the same as the question of blight. I just ask that you continue and the door always remains open until this Committee finalises its decision. I think one or two valid points are being made for letters to be exchanged. Whether or not you can come to an agreement is largely down to yourselves, but, as I say, I think the Committee would find it helpful if you could proceed along those lines. I think we have got to the end of your Petition, Ms Meldal-Johnsen, and the response and I thank you both very much for attending.
The Petition of Mr Leo Walters.
The Petitioner appeared in person. 6308. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to explain to the other people present that the reason why Mr Walters has been shunted up the list is because he has an important event later on today which he has to attend, so we have reversed the order, so to speak, to help him in that respect. 6309. MR WALTERS: Chairman, thank you for that. I actually have to leave at 4.30. 6310. CHAIRMAN: My understanding is that you will not still be going at 4.30! 6311. MR WALTERS: No, I do not think so, no. Chairman, members of the Committee, I have been involved in this project probably since about 1992 as a resident of Mayfair, and I was the former Chairman of the Residents' Association. The first thing I would like to point out to you, sir, is that this same Crossrail route was rejected on 10 May, as you probably know, sir, in 1994 by the Opposed Bill Committee of the House of Commons of both parties, Labour and Conservative, and chaired by Tony Marlow. I attended a lot of those hearings. There were 33 days of hearings when all the evidence was heard for and against and it was rejected. That was at the time when the estimated bill for Crossrail was £2.4 billion. 6312. Now, sir, the main reason for the rejection, as I recall, was that the scheme even then, which was this scheme, which was conceived in the mid-1980s was already out of date and passenger demand had in fact reduced by some 18 per cent since 1988 when it was conceived, so even at that time, 11 years ago, in 1994, passenger demand was 25 per cent below that forecast for that year by the Central London Rail Study on which Crossrail was based. 6313. Another reason, sir, why in 1994 it was rejected was that this Crossrail route did not meet modern requirements of the 21st Century for a strategic route across London, similar to the RER in Paris. For example, there was no interchange with the rail link to St Pancras. I am not a rail expert, sir, but it seems so non-strategic, this particular route. The forecast for employment, which was the main passenger demand factor in 1994, showed that Westminster and the City of London could expect at that time an increase of only 8 per cent between 1994 and 2011. 6314. Another reason was that the economics of the project were poor, even at £2.4 billion, with a benefit:cost ratio between 1.22:1 by the Promoters and 0.76:1 by the Petitioners. I mention these figures, sir, because I actually attended, as I said, a lot of these hearings. The substance of evidence favoured the Petitioners' position. Financial returns to any private sector party appeared highly marginal at the time and uncertain, and the Government's requirement at that time, as far as I can make out, with a major private participation was that at least 45 per cent would be unlikely to be achieved. The benefit:cost ratio of improving the existing system was far higher. 6315. The final reason on the rejection in 1994 was that only about 15 per cent of passengers, of traffic, was estimated to benefit from Crossrail. This left 85 per cent to benefit from improvements to the existing network, which was in an appalling condition and still mainly is, and unfunded. 6316. The latest estimate for Crossrail is, I believe, sir, £16 billion. I heard it in the House of Commons from Alistair Darling, and I believe it has even gone up since then to £20 billion. I think we all know what happens to building cost estimates. I was involved in the development of the air terminal at Kennedy Airport and I know from personal experience how these estimates can increase. Was it not the Scottish Parliament, for example, which was estimated at £40 million and landed up with a bill of over £400 million? 6317. On another point, sir, when considering the cost estimates, the fact, and this is since 1994, that Great Britain has won the Olympic bid surely would have an enormous effect on building costs if these were done simultaneously. I believe that the former Chief Executive of the Cross London Rail Link, Mr Haste, who quit last May has said that Crossrail should not be commenced until after the Olympic Games. 6318. Another factor, sir, since 1994 is terrorism in central London and, in particular, for the proposed lorry routes either side of the American Embassy in Upper Grosvenor Street and Upper Brooke Street which is causing great concern to the Embassy. You have seen the Embassy personally, sir, and they have expressed their concern, and also to their residential neighbours, together with the general public and tourists in that part of London. 6319. Another point, and this is, I think, a cardinal point: does it make sense to spend billions and billions of pounds on a non-strategic route across London simply to bring more people into an already crowded Oxford Street and Bond Street? It is far better to spend less money on improving the existing Underground system. We also know that Oxford Street is already overcrowded, so what is the point in bring in all those extra people there? 6320. Another point, sir, is that the rejection of this present Crossrail route in 1994, some 11 years ago, it appears from my limited experience, and I am not a rail expert, that the Promoter has never seriously looked at alternative routes, and I really feel that, sir, that they really have not, from all the information I have had and so on. They have obstinately kept to the present route which, as stated previously, is dated as long ago as the 1980s. There is, as I understand it, a much better strategic alternative, the Crossrail northern interchange route, the CNIR, with Channel Tunnel rail links to St Pancras and King's Cross, on which others will give evidence in detail, I suspect. This becomes even more attractive with the current massive redevelopment proposals in the King's Cross area, only approved, I believe, by Camden Council last week. Part of the CNIR includes what is known as the 'Wigmore alignment' on which others will give evidence today, sir. 6321. As members of the Committee will know, the development of employment lies not in the West End because it is already done in the West End and you cannot build high-rise buildings in the West End and the Mayfair Conservation Area, it has already been done there, but north of Euston and the Marylebone Road you can build high-rise buildings and that is where we suggest the link is. High-rise buildings are not feasible for the majority of, as I have already said, the West End and the Mayfair Conservation Area. 6322. Sir, there are real concerns, and I have left this to last, within the Mayfair Conservation Area of the dangers of settlement to hundreds and hundreds of Listed and un-Listed buildings, together with the major disruption that will be caused right in the heart of London for anything up to ten years. Can you imagine any situation right at the heart of the West End of London with all this going on, with lorries going backwards and forwards, and all the things already described to you. 6323. Finally, sir, it is interesting to note that the Grosvenor Estate Petitioners, although they support, as we all do, the east-west rail link, they do not support necessarily this particular route. Thank you, sir. 6324. CHAIRMAN: Can I just say briefly that your points 1 to 6 are really not within the jurisdiction of this Committee. What you are intimating in all of those sections is the possibility of us actually looking at this to see if there is a case against Crossrail, but that is not within our remit at all. This House has decided that there shall be a Crossrail and it is just a matter for this Committee to report the best way forward for that, so I let you go on to make your point, but it is only from point 7 onwards really where you make your case for your objection on a reasonable basis. 6325. MR WALTERS: I am obliged, sir. 6326. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould? 6327. MR MOULD: Of course the difference between the early 1990s and now is that then it was a Private Bill which was promoted to this House and now we are concerned with a hybrid Bill and, as you have just indicated, that means that the principle of the Bill has the support of the House of Commons. 6328. CHAIRMAN: And indeed we are obligated to go in that particular direction. 6329. MR MOULD: Precisely, sir. Lest there be any doubt, we have explained in opening statement from Mr Elvin the very substantial transport, planning and economic benefits that will flow from Crossrail and, as this Committee has already heard from the City of London and indeed from the Confederation of British Industry, in relation to those matters this Bill enjoys the very clear support of the local and wider business community. 6330. Sir, you are going to hear later from the Residents' Association of Mayfair in relation to the proposed northern line along Marylebone Road, which I think was touched on by the Petitioner. I am not going to anticipate the hearing of that petition, it seems appropriate if I were to leave that, that is a matter to be dealt with later in the day. Suffice to say, as you will hear, the case against that alternative is a very powerful one. 6331. Sir, turning to the one matter that was raised which relates to local issues, firstly the question of security. Sir, you will not be surprised to hear that the Promoter is very alive to the need to ensure that security issues - the question of terrorism was raised - are taken into account properly and appropriately during the construction phase and that measures are taken to ensure that the prospect of those with the fairest motive seeking to take advantage of Crossrail are controlled and guarded against as appropriate. 6332. Sir, I refer you simply to the proposed Crossrail Construction Code. You will recall that that is before the Committee attached to information paper D1 and one of the provisions of that document relating to public access and highways is a general requirement that, amongst other things, the Promoter and the nominated undertaker prepare traffic management plans which are produced and implemented, prepared in consultation with highway and traffic authorities and with - this is the important point - the emergency services and obviously that will enable concerns about risks associated with lorry routes. I think the particular concern raised by this Petitioner is lorry routing through the northern section of Mayfair in the vicinity of the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square. That is something that will plainly be taken into account within the embrace of that group requirement of the code and appropriate consultation and appropriate measures taken to ensure that the routes are not such as to give rise to risk to the security of the Embassy and indeed wider security issues wherever they may arise within the construction area of the route. I hope that gives the Committee sufficient comfort to know that that point is taken into account. 6333. Finally, as to the question of the impact of the construction phase on the Mayfair conservation area and the area of Mayfair generally. We make the point repeatedly, of course we accept that the construction of a major railway project such as Crossrail is going to have impact on the environment and impact on local people whilst the work is being carried out. It is precisely for that reason that the Promoter is taking all reasonable practical measures to ensure that that impact is limited and to provide appropriate package of mitigation. You have heard a great deal about that already and you will, I fear, hear more about it as the weeks of this Committee sitting go on, it is right that you should do. 6334. In relation to settlement, you will have heard from Professor Mair, who has provided you with a presentation on day 8 of the Committee, he explains how the settlement process works and unless there is any more you would like to hear from me now on that, I simply remind you of that and refer you to that and raise that point on the record. Suffice to say that settlement has been taken into account in great detail and will continue to be so through the document process as the design moves towards its detailed stage and to implementation.
6335. Finally, in relation to disruption, again we have given a range of commitments about dealing with noise, disturbance, air quality, dust, all those things that were touched on by the Petitioner, the Construction Code deals with those in detail, we have explained how the mitigation packages work, unless there is anything else I can help you with on that at this stage I would not propose to do more than simply remind you that those matters are in place. 6336. CHAIRMAN: The matters raised in Mr Alder's address in relation to Mayfair we will deal with as one of the petitions later in the day. 6337. MR MOULD: As I understand it, it is possible that those matters may be raised. If they are raised more specifically and in greater detail then we will deal with those more specifically in greater detail as appropriate at that time, but given that they were raised, I hope I do not do any disservice to the Petitioner saying they were raised at a relatively high level in his address, I hope that a relatively high level of response I have given is sufficient for your purposes. 6338. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. I am now going to adjourn the Committee until 11.50. After a short adjournment 6339. CHAIRMAN: I am going to change the order of business, I am going to deal with firstly Mr George Iacobescu and others and we are going to deal with that first and then go on to Mintel afterwards. I understand speaking on behalf of Mr Iacobescu is Ramon Greene.
MR TIMOTHY MOULD appeared on behalf of the Promoter.
The Petition of George Iacobescu, CBE and others.
MR RAMON GREENE appeared in person.
6340. MR GREENE: Mr Chairman, I do speak for the Grosvenor Mayfair residents and the Chancery Neighbours, Chancery being the American Embassy, and I therefore speak for several hundred residents in the area. 6341. I would like to deal with the question that previous Petitioners have already talked about clearly in the disturbance of the traffic going down Upper Brook Street and Upper Grosvenor Street in order to access the Bond Street Station. We have heard from previous Petitioners the possibility of an alternative route and we come up with the alternative of not having Bond Street Station. If Bond Street Station itself was eliminated, which is only to bring people into Oxford Street. You see we approve of Crossrail, we think that crossing the capital is very important for both business and the capital itself, but the route is the one we are complaining about particularly. 6342. Upper Brook Street is, by definition, built on a brook and the subsoil is sand. There are going to be between 190 and 250 lorries a day passing down that street. The disturbance, the vibration, the environmental damage will be enormous to the residents who live there and likewise going back down Upper Grosvenor Street and so our concern is for that and, of course, the value, the blight, that we suffer at this very moment. It is impossible to dispose, to sell houses in that street today with the forecast of Crossrail. 6343. What I want to bring your attention to specifically is the terrorism threat. We have been negotiating with the American Embassy and Westminster City Council for the last four years to remove the concrete blocks and the wire netting that surround the Chancery, which is the American Embassy and there is a current planning approval which will be completed by a one in six agreement as we speak which allows hydraulic bollards to go up and down in Upper Brook Street and Upper Grosvenor Street, closing those streets off as and when the Metropolitan Police decide that there is a terrorist threat. Whether they know before or after the event we have to wait and see. Unfortunately our lives are at stake while we wait and see. To date they have never been able to know when there is a terrorist threat, terrorists do not seem to advise them early enough. 6344. The question that has to be asked of Crossrail is that if you have got circa 200 lorries a day going down Upper Brook Street and Upper Grosvenor Street and you close those streets by order of the Metropolitan Police, then how are you going to deal with the problem. 6345. In my discussion with Crossrail their answer was, "That is a problem for Westminster". Whichever way they send the traffic is the way we will send the traffic. The main arteries of Mayfair are Upper Brook Street and Upper Grosvenor Street and therefore we will use them until we are told that we cannot use them. That seems to me to be totally inadequate. 6346. If you remove Bond Street Station, then you do not need to have that problem and that should be noted and I think it should be considered as a very important aspect of Crossrail. 6347. In all other respects, Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with the total lack of compensation that previous petitioners have talked about because our houses, as I said, are built on sand. This is an 18th century preservation order area. Our houses shake now and we are talking about some of the most valuable properties in England with each house costing millions. If those claims under the present Compensation Act come to Crossrail they will be rejected. That is entirely unfair on the residents and I think the compensation clauses should be seriously looked at, they are just totally inadequate. 6348. I do not think, other than that, I have more to say except to invite you to look at the terrorist threat. May I just say, it was mentioned earlier, that the police, of course, in other construction projects not as big as this have interviewed all the lorry drivers and checked all the lorries and done everything to make sure that there is security. Of course we agree with all that, but what is to stop a suicide bomber dubbing up another lorry and just joining the queue? No one would ever notice another lorry coming by. The traffic will be backed up. Every time there is a pedestrian crossing the traffic is backed right up past our roads and a bomb could go off. 6349. I remind you that the American Embassy is one of six major targets in the world. This House is one of them, but this House is protected by hundreds of feet from the road; our house is seven metres from a lorry and there is nothing to stop a suicide bomber coming along with a lorry and blowing himself up and us to pieces. The women who live in the street are ill from the anxiety and the worry and what we are looking at is another 200 lorries a day coming by. 6350. We are not objecting to the traffic, we are objecting to the terrorism act, we are objecting to the vibration, we are objecting to the possibility that we will never sell our houses, that we will never be able to move away and those of us who would like to retire and go elsewhere cannot, we are locked into our properties, it is entirely unfair and we would like the Committee to look at it seriously. 6351. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Greene. Can I just say that terrorism is not within the remit of this Committee to deal with, but certainly traffic and compensation and disturbance is and we will take your Petition and your statement into account. Counsel? 6352. MR MOULD: Sir, can I ask Mr Anderson just to respond briefly on the lorry routing aspect of this.
MR DAVID ANDERSON, sworn Examined by MR MOULD
6353. Mr Anderson, first of all the suggestion has been made that the proposed lorry routes, taking in as they do at the present time a route along Upper Brook Street, that that is what is perceived to be an unjustifiable proposal in relation to Crossrail, that could be avoided by the removal from the scheme of Bond Street Station. Can you just summarise, very briefly, please, to the Committee and for the Petitioners' benefit, the benefits of a provision of a station at Bond Street as part of the Crossrail scheme? (Mr Anderson): Yes. The first method would be for a direct service to the West End area which is obviously a major employment retail centre. Secondly, Bond Street is currently served by the Central Line and whilst needing the benefits of Crossrail it will lead to congestion on the Central Line. Obviously by serving the stations currently served by the Central Line it enables us to relieve the Central Line in that way. Thirdly, and related to that point, if there was no station at Bond Street Crossrail would run from Paddington right through to Tottenham Court Road which would be quite a lengthy gap in the service in the centre of London. There would be a question mark as well as to whether Tottenham Court Road could actually cope. It is the most extensively used Crossrail station on our forecast, it would be the busiest Crossrail station and we would have to look very carefully if there was no station at Bond Street at the extra demands placed upon it. Finally, the station at Bond Street does provide the opportunity for interchange, particularly with the Jubilee Line running north/south. 6354. Can we turn, please, to the question of lorry routing? I just want to be clear about the location of the Petitioner's properties in relation to the line of the route. We see the eastbound and westbound tunnels to the north, just in the north of Lees Place, crossing over at Park Street and going towards North Audley Street there, do we not, Mr Anderson? (Mr Anderson): Yes. 6355. And then to the south of that on the north and south side of Upper Brook Street respectively, we can see shaded there the Petitioners' properties? (Mr Anderson): Yes. 6356. They are somewhat distant from the line of the route? (Mr Anderson): Yes. 6357. Can we then go to the lorry route, please? We have here the transport and access arrangements that were assessed for the purposes of the environmental stage of the project in relation to Bond Street Station. Can you just take us through the current proposed routing arrangements for lorries, please, in the vicinity of Brook Street, Grosvenor Square and the northern sector of Mayfair? (Mr Anderson): There are two work sites there, one for the Davies Street end of Bond Street Station and one for the Hanover Square end. Clearly Park Lane itself is a major traffic artery through the area and we have a circulatory system shown for lorries there. Upper Brook Street would take lorries from Park Lane, down through Davies Street and Hanover Square. Grosvenor Street would allow them to egress from the area. 6358. I think I am correctly showing the northern side of Upper Grosvenor Square going into Brook Street and Upper Brook Street, past the Petitioners' properties with the arrow? (Mr Anderson): Yes. 6359. Insofar as the road hierarchy is concerned, can you just explain what the status of the roads is, please? (Mr Anderson): Upper Brook Street is a local distributor road, undefined as such, and these roads that are generally used to distribute traffic through an area, they are generally well signed local routes, 'bus routes, or routes which carry reasonably high volumes of traffic. 6360. And Mr Greene raised the concern about the impact of lorries in terms of vibration impact on properties on the north and south side of Brook Street. Can you give an idea, please of the character, level of traffic on Upper Brook Street, have we carried out surveys to measure that? (Mr Anderson): We based our assessment on a survey undertaken in 2003 and that shows over 10,000 vehicles during the working day, including a number of police vehicles. 6361. Can you give us a figure for the number of heavy lorries shown on that survey passing down Brook Street? (Mr Anderson): It was 240. 6362. 240 during the working day. Have we an idea of how many heavy goods vehicles would be used that street during the construction phase of Crossrail? (Mr Anderson): Yes, during the peak of the construction, it would be up to 90. 6363. And what role does the Westminster City Council have to play under Schedule 7 to the Crossrail Bill in relation to the determination and control of lorry routing during the construction phase? (Mr Anderson): Lorry routing is one of the matters set out in Schedule 7 as being for later determination by the planning authority and that would be undertaken in consultation with the police and emergency services. 6364. Does that embrace consideration of alternatives in deciding whether on further detailed analysis the route shown in the environment statement merits some revision or refinement? (Mr Anderson): Yes, it does, and indeed matters which may arise between now and the construction stage. 6365. As things stand at the present time this is the route, in consultation with the City Council, which has been proposed and assessed as being appropriate to serve the Bond Street work site? (Mr Anderson): That is correct, yes. 6366. In relation to the petition presented by the previous petitioner, I said little to the Committee about the involvement of the emergency services in consideration of traffic management and lorry routes from the security perspective and I referred to a paragraph in the Construction Code. Did I get that right? (Mr Anderson): Yes, you did. 6367. CHAIRMAN: Mr Greene, do you want to ask any questions of the witness? 6368. MR GREENE: No.
(The witness withdrew) 6369. MR MOULD: Not really very much to say by way of closing, I am not going to repeat what has just been said to you by Mr Anderson, but perhaps I ought to touch, just briefly, on the question of compensation in deference to the Petitioners' concerns. 6370. As you know, our case to you is that the statutory provisions which we describe as the national compensation code, ought properly to he applied to Crossrail as they do to any other scheme of public works. Under those statutory provisions compensation is available in principle to those who have no land taken from them as a result of the works, but only in certain circumstances and it would be necessary for them to show that the works have been carried out in a way which was consistent with all reasonable care, but that some private proprietary rate of theirs had, nevertheless, been interfered with and the obvious example of that is in relation to access, if someone's access is impeded or obstructed as a result of the carrying out of the works and there may be a right of compensation. You heard that from Mr Elvin, I think, earlier in the proceedings. I make that point just to illustrate why it is most unlikely that any right of compensation would arise in relation to these Petitioners given where they are located in relation to the works. Most of them, one might expect, that they would suffer and I understand their concerns on this square is that there may be some additional disturbance as a result of an increased number of HGV vehicles along the route. That would not be the subject of a legitimate compensation claim on the part of these Petitioners. 6371. Sir, the other concern that was raised, not I think in relation to these particular properties, but more generally in relation to residents of Mayfair, was the question of the impact of the works in relation to settlement and so forth, I think you heard Mr Greene make that point. On a number of occasions I have explained that we have a process in relation to settlement and that process is, put shortly, designed to ensure that the impact of the scheme in terms of ground movements and so forth, such that it is, is controlled, mitigated and thereby any significant damage is avoided, although if any damages does occur it is remedied and that responsibility is with the Promoter. The reason why that scheme is in place, just to tie it in to the legal framework is that if you carry out works which have a potential to undermine somebody's land and it does so, you plainly have a right of redress in law and you would be able to claim compensation for any damage that flowed from that activity. That explains why we have a settlement policy and a settlement process in the way that we do, it is designed precisely to control and, where possible, to avoid that kind of damage occurring. 6372. I hope that is helpful, I am sorry if that is repeating what has been said before, but it is in deference to the Petitioner just to explain where we are. 6373. CHAIRMAN: Mr Greene, would you like to say anything further? 6374. MR GREENE: Yes, if I may. That argument was just slightly fallacious. The compensation claim on the basis of vibration that we are talking about has been based on what we understand as party wall awards, so that if a house adjoining another house were being demolished, then you would take the position of the current house, its condition and it would be photographed and it would be enumerated in writing as to exactly its condition, so that if the condition changes with the demolition of the adjoining property, then you could judge what was before or just after. 6375. Here we have a situation where hundreds of lorries are going down a complete street and unless Crossrail are prepared to take the condition of every property they pass they will then argue that how do we know the recourse for settlement, how we do know that all the traffic that was before did not cause the settlement and so we are going to have tremendous arguments? How do you prove that Crossrail caused the settlement problem, with the exception of under Green Street where you are actually tunnelling where it becomes obvious? Therefore, all those where we have traffic, unless Crossrail are prepared to take a standard of condition of each property, we will be unable to prove our compensation loss and they will simply use it as a defence and we will receive nothing, added to which, of course, you have got the obvious planning blight, because on every search it will say Crossrail and what is going on and you will not be able to sell your property and they ignore planning blight and therefore values. That is it, Mr Chairman. 6376. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. We will then move on to the next Petition which is Mintel International Group.
MR REUBEN TAYLOR appeared on behalf of the Promoter.
The Petition of the Mintel International Group Limited.
MR CLIVE NEWBERRY QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
SHARPE PRTICHARD appeared as Agent. 6377. MR TAYLOR: Sir, if I can introduce this Petition briefly. Mintel International Group Limited owns the freehold property at 18-19 Long Lane in the City of London, you can see that on the plan that is being brought up on the screen. The property is outside of the building, but it is adjacent to the limits of the proposed Lindsey Street Ticket Hall at Farringdon Station. The Committee has already heard a lot about the Lindsey Street works. 6378. The property is to the south of the proposed running rails and to the east of the platforms of the proposed Farringdon Station. At this point the track level would be some 32.3 metres below ground. The property also adjoins Hayne Street, which you can see on the diagram in front of you, which is proposed to be stopped up at one end. 6379. The Petitioner provides consumer media market research services and it is primarily concerned that the noise, vibration and noise effects of construction activity of the Lindsey Street work site and issues relating to access and power supply interruption potential are such that it wishes to re-locate operation permanently and it seeks an undertaking that the costs of such re-location should be paid by the Promoter. 6380. Undertakings have been offered by the Promoter relating to the mitigation of all of those matters because it has been accepted that Mintel are a special case because of the particular proximity of their building to the work site and the substandard nature of the existing attenuation by the single glazing on the property. 6381. The mechanism that has been offered, if I may summarise it briefly just to paint the picture, is that the Promoter has offered an undertaking to carry out the works in the Lindsey Street work site in a manner that will mitigate the omission of noise and vibration as far as reasonably practicable. It has offered a noise and vibration mitigation package that will be based upon noise limits that will be identified at a point in the future, taking into account a number of factors, including the particular usage of the site at that particular time and the more detailed information that would be available at that stage in relation to the design of the project. 6382. The basic purpose of the undertakings is to identify a mitigation package which would then be introduced to ensure that the noise and vibration from the construction would not significantly affect business operation of the premises and it is really the extent to which, as I understand, that that mitigation package addresses their concerns is the matter at issue before the Committee today. I think if that is sufficient I will sit down and hand you over to my learned friend. 6383. MR NEWBERRY: Sir, one of the key factors in this matter you have got to look at is proximity. The building owned or occupied by Mintel is five metres from the works that you have just heard about and, without being too precise about it, I suspect five metres is about where the stenographer is, so that gives you an idea of how close the works are and the period of time which those works will take place is of the order of four and a half years, so you are concentrating on what we regard as a sensitive office user being at that level of proximity for that amount of time and we regard that as a serious state of affairs. 6384. The company, you will hear from the company shortly, is a world leader, it is not just a market research company, it is a world leader in its field, but that work requires a quiet environment as the name "research" implies. The work they do involves detailed analysis and is highly demanding to meet their clients which are of an international variety. Sir, the work that goes on in what is just described broadly as offices is not only work of a highly demanding nature, but it is also carried on from time to time in various languages, because the clients are international, the staff are bilingual, many of them, and therefore there are contractual negotiations concerned the content of report all carried on in this building at one and the same time, so I will be asking you to find in due course that we do have a noise sensitive, vibration sensitive user in this building which is not to be brushed aside by simply saying it is an office user; it is an office user, but it is a very sensitive one. 6385. The work contemplated, you probably heard before, it obviously involves the demolition of the building opposite, Hayne Street, as well as extensive construction involving banks of escalators and then subsequently a three to five storey building, so a long construction period and also doubling up, as I understand it, as work site. 6386. Sir, so far as noise is concerned, the outside noise level, I understand it, the figures are between 80 and 85 LAeQ and that is noisy. The internal level currently is of the order of 60/63 and when we have that external noise level Mr Griffiths will be telling you in due course that the noise climate within the building is unacceptable, unless there is some form of double glazing we have doubts as to whether or not, if there were glazing, it could actually bring it down below the relevant standard. 6387. So far as vibration is concerned, the figures you will be hearing are 1.5-7 millimetres per second and those are the Crossrail's own figures. Mr Griffiths will tell you in due course that he has actually been in a building where work was going on relatively nearby which achieved three, that is under half what is contemplated here, and he will tell you that that is frightening and that the building work was ordered to be stopped, so on Crossrail's own figures they are contemplating levels which are over twice what my witness will tell you was a very disturbing and frightening level and it is accepted, as I understand it in Crossrail's specialist report, that the threshold of significance for screening purposes may be exceeded at the building on Hayne Street, so they are accepting they are going to exceed it. 6388. We do not feel that what Mr Taylor has indicated to you as a package actually meets the problem. We are sufficiently open-minded to be persuaded, but our current position is that we do not think that a packet that is being offered will get below a level which is acceptable both in terms of the building and those that work within it. 6389. In addition you heard about Hayne Street and I have indicated that is five metres wide and you have just heard that it is going to be closed from one end. You will see, in due course, that on Hayne Street is where deliveries take place to Mintel. There are a considerable number of packages that come into Mintel on a daily basis and we have concern over two areas. First of all, if there is going to be work carried on of demolition et cetera, we cannot see how Hayne Street is going to be kept open or, if it is, how we are going to get our delivery traffic down it. Secondly, Hayne Street provides the emergency exit point from the basement of the building and we are concerned that the level of activity contemplated on the site opposite that there may well be difficulties getting out of the building, particularly for those that may be mobility impaired. 6390. It is on that basis that we say that four and a half years of constant activity involving high levels of both noise and vibration, we do not feel that a noise sensitive user should be exposed to that for that period and we think that the best way forward is to re-locate us at an early stage. 6391. Can I just correct Mr Taylor? We wish we were the freeholders, but we are not, we have a leasehold interest which may, in the context of re-location of course, represent less of a bill but, having said that, we do recognise that the request for re-location does involve public expense and we take that into account in considering whether or not we should be asking for it and we feel, in the circumstances, the impact on a world-class business is sufficiently adverse to ask you to recommend that. 6392. MR NEWBERRY: Against that background can I call Mr Jason Thomson who is the company representative?
MR JASON THOMSON, sworn Examined by MR NEWBERRY 6393.
Just before we start going through your presentation, Mr Thomson, can
you tell the C (Mr Thomson) My name is Jason Thomson and I am Director of IT at Mintel. I graduated from Newcastle University with a Master of Engineers degree in Microelectronics and Software Engineering. I then went on to work for British Telecom and from there I went on to work for Reuters, and in 1997 I joined Mintel as Director of IT. I have been a member of the executive team since that time. When I joined there were 70 people in the offices in Long Lane. There are now considerably more. In my position as IT Director I have overseen from an IT perspective four expansions overseas in America and several expansions in our office in Long Lane. 6394. Just looking at your presentation, can you take us through these points? 6395. CHAIRMAN: For the record, this is A74. 6396.
MR NEWBERRY: Just take the C (Mr Thomson) Mintel International are a global provider of market research. We cover 98 per cent of consumer markets. A consumer market is an industry where the businesses are selling to consumers, so things like toothpaste, shoes, cars, credit cards, bank accounts, insurance. In any business transaction between a business and a consumer we cover 98 per cent of those industries. We have global coverage in some of the products and services that we provide. We have offices in London, Chicago, Sydney and Shanghai. The Shanghai office is a relatively new office. We opened that earlier this year. There are only two people there at the moment but we are anticipating significant growth there. We have over 400 directly employed staff at Mintel. In addition to that we have a network of field associates around the world whom we sub-contract to do surveys for us, to do audits, to pick up products from supermarkets and so on. We also have a team of freelance experts, freelance writers, that we use to help us with our report writing. We have repeatedly been voted a business superbrand by peers within the business community, and if I can just read you the criteria for being voted a business superbrand, "A business superbrand has established the finest reputation in its field. It offers customers significant emotional and/or tangible advantages over its competitors which consciously or subconsciously customers want, recognise and are confident about investing in". We consider that we offer tangible benefits rather than just emotional benefits. We are the first market research company to be awarded this. To give you an idea of the other people who have been given these awards, they are people like IBM, KPMG, Microsoft - Microsoft are on the opposite page to us. We have a daily presence in the press. Yesterday there was an article on the BBC website talking about exploitation of immigrants in domestic help, and they used some of our research to back up that report. They took some information from our British Lifestyles Report 2005, and that report told them that one in ten households in the UK have some form of domestic help, whether it is gardeners, cleaners, things like that, and that the market is worth three billion pounds. Another article that you may have seen recently, which has been extensively covered in the press, is about the Impact of Terrorism and Natural Disasters Report that we put out a couple of weeks ago, and the thing that people were picking up there was that two-thirds of Britons, two-thirds of consumers in the UK, are not deterred by terrorism from travelling abroad. That is the kind of information that we provide. We were given an award by the British and American Business Council for our work in Chicago and they gave us an award in 2004 for "our enviable customer focus and innovation" and our ability to provide a unique overview of a market's dynamics and prospects. We were numbered six in last year's Marketing magazine's league table of research companies in the UK and we are still experiencing significant growth, so we are a very successful company. 6397. Just on that point about significant growth and its relevance to the impact of Crossrail, what is your average level of expansion in terms of staff? (Mr Thomson) It depends on which location. In the US we are expanding more quickly than we are in the UK because it is a bigger market and our focus for making money is in the US. In the UK it is currently running at approximately five to ten per cent a year. 6398. You have 400 directly employed staff? (Mr Thomson) Yes. There are 200 employed in the UK. 6399. So you are looking at adding between 20 and 30 jobs a year? (Mr Thomson) Worldwide, yes. 6400. The next presentation tells us what you do. You have indicated that to some extent already. Is there anything there you need to expand on? (Mr Thomson) If it is okay I will just colour in some of the things we do. One of the main things that we do is consumer market research, of course, on which we are considered consumer experts. We are renowned throughout the UK and the US for the information we provide on consumers, so if we do a recent report on make-up, for example, we will commission research, we will take that research in-house, and the research will tell us things like, in the case of make-up, that 17 per cent of women wear no make-up and 25 per cent of women are influenced by make-up that has not been tested on animals. We understand why people buy things, what they buy and so what influences what they buy. We then layer our analysis on top of that research so we add value to that research by providing analysis and insight. It is that analysis and insight that takes the real skill and experience that we bring to it. Another product that we have is the global new products database and that is a database of new products that have been launched throughout the world. We have field associates in 50 countries throughout the world monitoring supermarkets and retail outlets for new products that have been launched on the shelf. For example, we might pick up a new product in Japan. Someone has recently launched a curry-flavoured new toothpaste. In other places there have been things like banana-flavoured mayonnaise. We find these products, highlight them as innovative and put them on to our database. We have the packaging sent to us from these 50 countries throughout the world. We take pictures of the packaging from every angle, we take off the information from the packaging, we put it on to our database and then we deliver that to our customers over the web. 6401. CHAIRMAN: Mr Thomson, I understand it is very exciting but I think we have got the message of what you do. 6402. MR NEWBERRY: Can you supply us with cheap banana mayonnaise? (Mr Thomson) We may have some samples back at the office. 6403.
I think the C (Mr Thomson) Absolutely. We directly contribute to other companies' success. We help them to make business decisions that improve their competitiveness, help them to deliver products and services that consumers want. 6404. Do you ever concern yourselves as to when would be the optimum time to launch a particular product that you have identified? (Mr Thomson) Absolutely. We have a customer solutions arm that will work with clients on specific projects and those kinds of projects might well be working with them on new product development, on determining what to launch and when. 6405. Do you ever advise clients not to go ahead with a suggestion that they may have brought to your attention? (Mr Thomson) Absolutely. That is part of the new product development process. 6406. If we go over the page, it looks as though we get a rather more serious aspect here rather than banana flavoured toothpaste, because here you have indicated some of your clients. Just take us as briefly as you can through the significance of that type of work which you identify there because these are government contracts, it looks like. (Mr Thomson) Yes, that is right. These are just some examples of the work we do for government departments. We work with the Pesticides Safety Directorate and we have an ongoing project where we send out field associates to distributors throughout the country to pick up fruit and vegetables that are destined for schools. They pick up samples of the fruit and vegetables - tomatoes, carrots, bananas, apples - and they take those samples and send them off to the Central Science Laboratory. The Central Science Laboratory then tests those for pesticide residue to ensure that the food that we are sending into our schools is safe. We do other work for the PSD as well. 6407. CHAIRMAN: Mr Newberry, Can we draw this on a bit? What we really want to know is how Crossrail will affect Mintel and what you want us to do about it. I think it is all marvellous but we need to progress. 6408. MR NEWBERRY: Can we, before we focus on the Chairman's question, approach it in this way? In regard to the reports that you prepare, in terms of their complexity and length and the scholarship that may be required, how demanding is the preparation of the reports that you prepare? (Mr Thomson) It is hugely demanding. There are huge amounts of data that people have to process. They have a lot of multi-tasking to do. They bring lots of different people and processes together in order to prepare these reports. It requires a huge amount of concentration. 6409. In terms of the internal noise climate within your building at present, is it of an order whereby your work can be carried out efficiently? (Mr Thomson) At present it is. If I could clarify something you said in your opening remarks, I think you said that the current situation is 63 dBs. That was outside, was it? 6410. Yes. (Mr Thomson) Inside it is currently between 40 and 50. 6411. The thrust of what you are saying is that you need a quiet environment in order to carry out your research. (Mr Thomson) Absolutely. 6412.
If it were the case that there were internal noise levels which were
outside the standard that is currently enjoyed by you, what do you say to the C (Mr Thomson) It would certainly make it very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately prepare these reports because it does require huge concentration. It is not just the reports; it is every aspect of the things that we do which require a huge amount of concentration. As was said earlier, we have over 20 languages spoken by our people in our building, speaking to people from all over the world. There are 2,000 phone calls go on every day, one every 15 seconds on average. Often that is to far-off places with bad phone lines, so we need quiet in order to speak to our field associates and our clients in distant places as well. 6413. And in terms of this multilingual aspect of the company's work do those calls and conferences that you have involve discussion of technical matters? (Mr Thomson) Often, yes, technical matters, contracts, clarifications of work requested to fulfil contracts, a broad range of subjects. 6414. If the ability to hear accurately what was being said translated itself into an error in one of your reports what is the effect of that on your market reputation, particularly given you are a superbrand? (Mr Thomson) It would obviously be hugely detrimental to our market reputation, as indeed would be providing the wrong products to a client that requested them. Obviously, correctly carrying out the work that we have been contracted to do is important. If there is confusion or there are inaccuracies introduced by difficulty in working, concentrating on communicating, it will obviously have a detrimental effect on our business. 6415. Do you, in addition to work involving telephone conversations and research, also have a video studio in which presentations take place? (Mr Thomson) We have a board room - we call it a board room; it is a big meeting room - where we have audio-visual equipment in order to do presentations and so on. We also have a video-conferencing room that we use to liaise with our colleagues across the Atlantic, which is in constant use in the afternoon when they are awake, so yes, there are several meeting rooms. We have lots of facilities that we use to help us efficiently go about our business. 6416. I do not think we have a picture of it but where are the board room and the video-conference room in relation to Hayne Street? (Mr Thomson) They both overlook Hayne Street. I was going to come on to this later on, our building and the location. 6417. Perhaps we can look at number 12. (Mr Thomson) This is our video-conference room and the building you can see in the near foreground is the Hayne Street development, the Lindsey Street development. 6418.
To go back to the order in which we were dealing with this, you have put
some recent press coverage there; I think we can probably take that as
read. Then you go on to tell us a
little about your employees and again I think you have covered that. Number 7 deals with the location, and I just
want to ask you about Hayne Street. We
need also to have a finger in a couple of other pictures - number 19. Can you tell the C (Mr Thomson) Hayne Street is the street that separates us and the proposed development. It is approximately five metres wide. It is used for deliveries. It has the only ramp access. There is a side exit, a car park and at the side exit there is a ramp which facilitates accessibility. It is the only place we could put a ramp exit because the other entrance did not have enough space to do a shallow enough ramp. It is in constant use throughout the day by our sales people when they are going to meetings and the car park is in constant use throughout the day when our sales people are going to meetings and attending meetings at our offices. There is a fire escape in the car park as well. The side exit with the ramp is used for many deliveries throughout the day. We receive over 8,000 products through our doors every month for our floating products database. 6419. How do they deliver? Do they come by van down Hayne Street? (Mr Thomson) Yes. 6420. Looking at 19, that shows the parking area. Is where we see the cars where goods are delivered? (Mr Thomson) No. That is to the right of the picture where those gates are. You can see some metal gates. 6421. What do vans do? They come down it or up it? Which way do they come? (Mr Thomson) Normally they come down the street, so from the distance towards us as this picture is taken, and then they park up outside the car park and deliver their goods or collect their goods. Post is collected from there every day. 6422. And that is where the majority of your deliveries take place, is it? (Mr Thomson) Yes. 6423. If you cannot get your deliveries in through that route what happens in the real world? (Mr Thomson) In the real world we would obviously try and get them through some other route but the problem is that the only other practical route would be through reception and some of these deliveries are very bulky and there is nowhere to store things in reception. It is the main thoroughfare for people entering the building. It would make it very difficult indeed. 6424.
Could you indicate to the C (Mr Thomson) It is towards the back of the car park. You come out the fire door and then walk through the car park outside. 6425. If the road itself were obstructed what sorts of problems are you envisaging there, or if it was closed off? (Mr Thomson) If the road was closed off because of safety concerns, if it was closed off because it was not possible to walk down the road, then I do not know what position we would be in with respect to the fire regulations and so on. I suspect it would not be acceptable for the road to be closed off because of safety. 6426. Could you put up number 8 please? That is looking down Hayne Street. There we can see its width and the building to be demolished. On your own building there where is the video-conference room and board room on that elevation? It is first, second or third floor? (Mr Thomson) What you can see immediately in front of you with the big yellow Mintel sign is the reception, the main entrance. Immediately behind the reception and the main entrance is the board room. Immediately above the reception on the fourth floor is the video-conference room. 6427. Number 9 is the direction from which the van would come if it is delivering, is it? (Mr Thomson) That is correct. That is from the other end of the street. That is the direction from which the van would arrive. 6428. We can see the full extent of the building to be demolished. (Mr Thomson) Can I point out that everything you see there, apart from our building and the pub in the background, is going to be demolished as part of the Crossrail works. There is a small house that abuts our building and that is going to be demolished and everything else there to the right is being demolished. 6429. Is that the one with the blue shutters? (Mr Thomson) Yes, that is correct. 6430. Number 10. You identify the areas of concern that you have. They are listed: vibration, noise, access, power supply and dust. Technical evidence will follow but what is your concern abut vibration? (Mr Thomson) The levels of vibration which we have been given to understand are going to be prevalent, or at least prevalent for part of the process, are going to be so disruptive that it will be impossible to work in the office, as I have been led to understand. That will affect every part of the office, certainly in 18-19 Long Lane. My understanding is that desks would be jumping, things would be falling over, and it would be a very unpleasant and scary place to work. That is my understanding. We have some slides to illustrate some particular areas. I do not know if you want to look at them. 6431. What have you got in mind? (Mr Thomson) If you look at slide 11, these are the people who are gathering the information about the products that we collect. They need intense concentration in order to accurately enter data from these products, and also they take pictures of the products from multiple angles, and so they carefully line up products to take photos of them. With random vibrations occurring throughout the building we do not feel that it will be possible to take those pictures because they will be falling over. It will make it very difficult to do that. 6432. If we put up slide 14, you have had experience of a similar problem in your American offices? (Mr Thomson) Yes, that is right. 6433.
Tell the (Mr Thomson) In Chicago in early 2004 there was a smaller sized project to this undertaken on a building opposite a building we occupied in Chicago, so it was approximately 20 metres away from where we were. They demolished that building and then started reconstruction. It made it an almost impossible environment for our sales people to work in and for our people to concentrate. At one point there were polystyrene ceiling tiles falling from the ceiling and we were getting comments from the people we were speaking to on the phone asking where we were working, was there something wrong. In this particular instance we were fortunate in that we were already planning to relocate before the construction started, and in fact we managed to relocate two months after the disruption started, so in that case we were relocating because we were expanding; we were relocating because we were moving to different offices. 6434. You suffered the impact of vibration and so on? (Mr Thomson) Absolutely. 6435.
On the subject of vibration, you have told the C (Mr Thomson) This is our server room. This room contains over 40 computer systems that we use to run our business. It is the nerve centre of everything we do. Everything within Mintel worldwide relies on some of these servers and we have back-up power supplies, we have redundant systems to ensure that things do not go wrong, we have dual redundant air conditioning. We take great steps to ensure that nothing goes wrong with this. If we were to have a single failure of something in this room we could deal with it, but if we were to have multiple failures of systems in this room it would interrupt our business for a period of days or even weeks. 6436. CHAIRMAN: I think everybody has got the message that this company is going to be affected. What we need to know is what you want us to do, what you want us to consider. 6437. MR NEWBERRY: That will come from the technical witness, sir. I have got the point, sir. 6438. CHAIRMAN: It is just that we have been 58 minutes. 6439.
MR NEWBERRY: It is an important matter to them, sir. That is the reason it is taking the time. I just want you to explain to the C (Mr Thomson) That is correct. 6440. Have you got a definitive answer from your suppliers yet? (Mr Thomson) Our suppliers told us that they did not have any data on this kind of vibration, so they would not be able to tell us whether or not it was going to be affected. 6441. So it is an unanswered question in that area. All right. Finally, could you go to number 21? That is quite a graphic photograph because that shows the building to be demolished in relation to your roof terrace. Is that just a recreation area where the staff go and enjoy themselves? (Mr Thomson) Everyone can use that at lunchtime but we often hold informal internal and external meetings out on the roof terrace because it is a nice environment to work in. 6442. MR NEWBERRY: We will hear from Mr Griffiths as to what effect that will have on the matter. Thank you.
Cross-examined by MR TAYLOR 6443. Mr Thomson, the offices that you occupy are open-plan, as I understand it. Is that right? (Mr Thomson) That is correct. 6444. You mentioned in your evidence that there were a large number of phone calls made and presumably received during the day. (Mr Thomson) That is correct. 6445. We can see from page 41 of the documentation that you have presented, slide 17, four people face to face in the open-plan office, all of whom are on the phone. (Mr Thomson) Yes. 6446. That is a common occurrence, is it? (Mr Thomson) Yes, it is. Their job is to liaise with our field associates throughout the world, so they are managing 1,000 field associates throughout the world on various different jobs for our clients. 6447. And these people sitting within feet of one another are able to speak on the phone in various foreign languages notwithstanding that they might be speaking different foreign languages sitting feet apart from one another? (Mr Thomson) That is correct. 6448. And they can do their job with the phones ringing around them? (Mr Thomson) Yes. 6449. So far as dust is concerned, your premises are fully air-conditioned, are they not? (Mr Thomson) That is correct. 6450. And you are aware that you have been offered the tier three mitigation to be provided along with mitigative works? (Mr Thomson) That is my understanding, yes. 6451. And that represents the highest standard of dust control which can reasonably be achieved; do you understand that? (Mr Thomson) Yes, I do. 6452. And you understand that on the other side of the Lyndsey Street site there is Smithfield Meat Market? (Mr Thomson) Yes, I do. 6453. Can you explain why the commitment to tier three mitigation is not sufficient for your purposes? (Mr Thomson) I do not know whether it is insufficient. It is a serious concern of ours. We feel that it will make the terrace unusable and we have concerns about the dust, because inevitably there will be some dust, clogging up our air-conditioning units and our server. 6454.
So far as access to Hayne Street is concerned, have you seen the
information paper C7 that has been provided to the (Mr Thomson) I am not sure if I have seen that. 6455. Perhaps we can find that. I am looking for the first page of C7, paragraph 1.3 in particular. This indicates that where a highway is identified in the Bill which is to be affected, where powers are to be exercised in relation to that highway consent has to be obtained from the local highway authority and the nominated undertaker must ensure that pedestrians have reasonable access to any premises affected by the interference in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Bill, so that is one aspect of control in relation to pedestrian access to your premises, is it not? (Mr Thomson) Okay. 6456. If we look further down the page at paragraph 2.2, there is a commitment to provide a reasonable level of access to all property and land that will be maintained throughout the period of construction of Crossrail, although it may involve diversions, temporary traffic controls and the use of temporary footways and roadworks. Do you see that? (Mr Thomson) I do see that. 6457. You have been provided, have you not, with a commitment that reasonable access will be afforded to your property in so far as is practicable and reasonable throughout the construction period? (Mr Thomson) That is my understanding, yes. 6458. That relates to both pedestrian and vehicular access, does it not? (Mr Thomson) It would appear it does, yes. 6459. In relation to concerns about power supply, do you have a guarantee of power from your utility company 100 per cent of the time at present? (Mr Thomson) No, we do not. 6460.
You have described to the C (Mr Thomson) Yes. 6461. And you are aware, are you, of information paper D7, paragraph 1.3, in which the undertaker has set out the position in relation to maintenance of services, that there will be discussion with utility owners and operators during the development of the project and it will seek to develop and design construction arrangements to keep the disruption experienced to as low a level as is practicably possible? (Mr Thomson) I do understand that. The concern that we had was that we have had interruptions of our power supply before and we know that there is a very weak power infrastructure in this area, so we want an undertaking that they will do whatever is possible to mitigate the risk, whet is a very real risk and a very high risk, of interrupting our power. If our power is interrupted it will have a significant impact on our business. 6462. One last matter and it is about the growth of your business. I think you explained that there will be five to ten per cent new staff per year in the UK; is that right? (Mr Thomson) Yes, that is right. 6463. And you have 200 staff in the UK at present, all at the London office? (Mr Thomson) That is correct. 6464. Sp you are experiencing a growth of ten to 20 new jobs per year in the London office? (Mr Thomson) That is correct. 6465. So by 2008 there will be a further 20-40 jobs in the London office? (Mr Thomson) That is correct. 6466. You have acquired accommodation on the third and fourth floors of 13-17 Long Lane; is that correct? (Mr Thomson) That is right. 6467. When did you acquire those premises? (Mr Thomson) We acquired the first floor at some point in 2001 or 2002. I think at the same time we may have acquired the fourth floor but we were sub-letting it until 2005 when we moved one of our departments into there, freeing up lots of space in our existing building, and there has just been a tenant finish sub-letting the other part of the fourth floor and we are about to reorganise our offices there as well. We currently have space for approximately 50, 60, 70 people within the building. 6468. Which departments occupy 13-17 Long Lane? (Mr Thomson) 13-17 Long Lane is the research department. There was a picture that we had showing the research department on the third floor. From the third floor it overlooks the visual line of sight of the construction site. On the fourth floor there is our telesales department, our marketing department, and they similarly overlook the construction site. Into the new space that we have taken at the front of 13-17 Long Lane we will be moving our sales department. 6469. Is there a direct connection between 18-19 Long Lane and 13-17 Long Lane within the building? (Mr Thomson) Yes, there is, on the third floor. 6470. Is it the case that you are currently looking to relocate from the premises in Long Lane in any event? (Mr Thomson) No. 6471. There has been no consideration of that within the company at all? (Mr Thomson) Not at this stage. Our lease expires in 2011. We do not hold the freehold to the building at all. In 2011 we will examine our options. It is very disruptive when you move an office. Obviously, if Crossrail is still going ahead and it has not started at that point I suspect we may be moving, but if Crossrail is not going ahead or it is finished or whatever, then if we are able we will examine our options, and if we are able to we will take more space in 13-17 although I do know whether that would be possible. If we are not then we will relocate. 6472. MR TAYLOR: Thank you. I have gone past one o'clock. Those are all the questions I have. 6473. CHAIRMAN: We will reconvene at 2.30 pm.
After a short adjournment
Re-examined by MR NEWBERRY 6474. Concerning access, Mr Thomson, your attention was drawn to C7. I want to understand from the company's operational point of view, if Hayne Street is closed off at one end (that is, it becomes a cul-de-sac) and only pedestrian access is afforded, what is the effect on the ability to deliver goods to the firm, and any consequential effects if there is an inability to deliver to the firm? (Mr Thomson) It will make it very difficult to deliver goods to the firm. If we cannot get goods into the firm, then some of our services that we provide will suffer. If it proves impossible, if shipments go missing or things are misplaced, then it will cause us great difficulty.
MR NEWBERRY: Thank you very much.
The witness withdrew
MR JIM GRIFFITHS, Sworn Examined by MR NEWBERRY
6475. MR NEWBERRY: Mr Griffiths, would you be kind enough to introduce yourself to the Committee, please. (Mr Griffiths) Good afternoon. My name is Jim Griffiths. I am the Director of Acoustics for Capita Symonds Group. I am a fellow of the Institute of Acoustics. I am Chairman of the London Branch of the Institute. I have been practising acoustics and noise insulation for some 25 years. 6476. Could I ask for slide 9 to be put up. This sets out the plan, as it were, for the length of work. Could you take us through that very quickly. (Mr Griffiths) The only item that we are looking at specifically is nothing to do with the operation but to do with the demolition and construction. We have managed to obtain from the documents and some of the information we have been provided with in terms of the detailed noise predictions, the four areas of work which we understand are being undertaken on the site. The first is from June 2007 to about December 2007, about seven months of demolition. That is opposite the Mintel building, about five metres from the site. There will be tower cranes, excavators, hydraulic breakers - which is a big, noisy vibration producer: levels of that are typically 92 dBA at ten metres and that is a level that Crossrail have used - dumpers and spoil lorries. From December 2007 to August 2008 we have station box construction. As I understand it, they will be using piling rigs to pile and make, effectively, a wall within the site. That will be one pile next to each pile all the way through. That is going to take about nine months. Again, the tower cranes, there will be concrete mixers, lorries and so on. For the next seven months there will be underpinning, which is where they are taking some of the spoil away from the site. The site is going to be quite deep. I think there are three sets of escalators going down to the station. Then for 25 months we have the construction of the ticket hall and some tunnelling down to where the track is. It is quite an extensive period of demolition and construction. The site is also being used generally for a work site throughout the four and a half years. 6477. MR NEWBERRY: Could you go to slide ten, please. That puts these areas of work on a time chart, so to speak, with levels of LAeQ ten-hour on the vertical axis. Could you explain the significance of what we see between the two horizontal black lines? (Mr Griffiths) On the left axis, we have the LAeQ noise level, and that is the noise level over the ten hours. I am sure the Committee have heard of the ten-hour average. That is then done on a monthly basis. I do not think the people doing this work knew from day to day what was going on, so they took a monthly average. For each month, we have the LAeQ noise level, going from June right the way to December 2011. That is describing the four main activities along the bottom of the page. You can see the levels we have there, starting at the mobilisation levels at the site, going from 80, and then pretty well 85 for probably a year - sometimes going up to 87/88, then consistently above 80, then back to 85 - and carrying on just below 85. So there are considerably high noise levels at the faēade of the Mintel building. These are predictions on the second floor: the third and fourth floors are very similar. The ground floor and first floor levels are lower, because mitigation, as I understand it, has already been provided by shielding - which is the 3.5 metre hoarding. There are the typical noise levels for each stage. Typically, for eighteen months, we have levels of 85 and over. 6478. We will come on to what that means in practice in a moment. Could we put up slide 11, please. What are you trying to convey by that over and above the levels which you just told us about? (Mr Griffiths) Here I am trying to explain for the Committee what these levels mean. You may well have heard about the equal energy principle. The LAeQ is an average over ten hours, so you could have 88 for five hours and a lower level for the other five hours. It is very much an averaging process, so, when I am saying it might be 85 LAeQ from the predictions from Crossrail, it could have higher levels for shorter durations. 6479. Could we have slide 12, please. (Mr Griffiths) This is trying to explain exactly how bad these levels are. Being only five metres from a construction site is like being six metres from a lorry consistently for 18 months, continually exposed to those levels. It is like being next to a drill - and that is a typical drill breaker that you would see on the site. For the 18 months - and again these are Crossrail's figures - it would be at 85 or above. To put it in perspective, in the new Control of Noise at Work Regulations, which are coming out on 6 April, in terms of hearing damage for people at work, the lower level is 80, at which time you need to wear some sort of protection, and 85 is the level on a daily basis when you need to protect your hearing. So it is very significant levels that we are looking at here on a daily basis. 6480. This is an external level. (Mr Griffiths) This is the external level just one metre outside the faēade of the Mintel building and these predictions are those which have been produced by Crossrail. 6481. MR HOPKINS: As these are averages, the noise levels might be considerably higher than even those levels. For example, if you are pile driving, when it hits, that is an intense noise. (Mr Griffiths) Absolutely. 6482. Do these levels take account of that? Do they represent the peaks? (Mr Griffiths) These do not represent the peaks. The LAeQ is the average, although it does take into account the peaks. It is an energy average, but the peaks would probably be about 10 dBA above that if you are measuring the peak noise. 6483. So that is double - 10 dBA is double. (Mr Griffiths) Yes. But just for very short durations. The good thing about LAeQ is that it does at least take some of that energy into account more than just an arithmetic average. But if you are looking at the time level history, as I am talking now, the peaks would be probably 5 dBA to 10 dBA above these very high noise levels. 6484. MR NEWBERRY: Is that what is known as the LAmaxS. (Mr Griffiths) It is. Similarly, I think we have heard today about the LAmaxS for groundbourne noise, which is the standard 35/40 dBA argument which you have probably come across. 6485. To round that point off about the LAmaxS, if something is 10 dBA above 85, what does that mean in the real world? (Mr Griffiths) In subjective terms, just in terms of loudness - and we have to be a little bit careful about mixing units up - a 10 dBA change is a doubling of loudness, or a halving of loudness if you go down ten decibels. 6486. We go on then to slide 13. Does that add anything to what you have just said? (Mr Griffiths) Again, I am trying to convey as many different things as I can in terms of what these levels mean. In terms of Crossrail's Environmental Statement for housing - and obviously this is not housing but is a sensitive commercial development, as you have heard - if the LAeQ ten-hour is established at 85 for 18 months, that would trigger the rehousing threshold. There is a certain time limit. You have to be above it for so many days, but this exceeds it because it is above it for 18 months. In terms of the mitigation for sound insulation, which is 10 dBA below the 85, 75, throughout the whole four and a half years we are above the 75. Again, these are Crossrail's predictions. 6487. Would you look at slide 14. You then ask yourself, as it were, what these noise levels mean. (Mr Griffiths) Yes, now asking what they mean moving inside the building. British Standard BS8233 recommends for offices that a good environment would be about 40 dBA and 50 dBA would be a reasonable standard. It is called Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - it is a code of practice. The levels we currently measure - and I measured them with the consultant from Crossrail in those offices - is round about 48 dBA LAeQ . It varies from office to office, as you can imagine: in the quietest office, which was for video conferencing, it was about 45, and it went up to about 52 in other areas. The average environment was typically 48 dBA inside the office, as people were working: people on the phone, people having meetings. The existing glazing at the moment is a single glazed unit. You can open them, but they keep them closed because they have some mechanical ventilation there. With a single window, you get about 25 dBA reduction, but the current level in there is 48 dBA typically, as you move along the area. 6488. So 48 dBA is between the good and reasonable. (Mr Griffiths) Yes, it coincides with the standard as it exists. 6489. Would you put up slide 15, please. Having ascertained what the external levels are from the works, you then look at how they are going to impact on the building internally. (Mr Griffiths) That is correct. One of the predictions shows 88 dBA for one month. So if you take the level of 88 dBA with the 25 dBA reduction - which is the standard for a closed window, and the Crossrail scoping report says that 25 dBA is a reasonable reduction - you would get to a level of 63 dBA inside, and 63 dBA inside is 15 dBA off what is there at the present time. Also, it is some 13 dBA above the 50 dBA reasonable standard. So it is quite a considerable increase. Coming back to the 10 dBA change being a doubling of loudness, it would be a very significant obstruction inside the building. 6490. Could we go on to slide 16, please. That is from noise. Then you ask yourself the question: What do these noise levels mean? (Mr Griffiths) Yes. This is assuming we have added in secondary glazing. 6491. MR HOPKINS: There are different sorts of double glazing used for different effects. Narrow double glazing is for heat insulation but the secondary double glazing with a larger gap is for noise insulation. (Mr Griffiths) Yes, absolutely. 6492. Is that what exists at the moment? (Mr Griffiths) At the moment there is just one single pane with a reveal, so there is an area where you could put secondary glazing. I have one correction. I have 18 as the estimated sound level difference, and that should be 25, as it was in the previous slide. Could I apologise for that error. In essence, we have here 88 dBA outside. We can get a gap of about 130 millimetres - so quite a reasonable gap - and if you were to put a secondary pane in there, the levels would come down by about 34 dBA. There is a lot of debate about how much a window will give and it is based on the area of the window compared to the wall; how well it is sealed; the thickness and so on. This 34 dBA comes from PPG24, which is a noise and planning document, and it gives typical real-life values that are measured. It says, for road traffic noise, say, the typical reduction you would get from having secondary glazing. It is a pretty good average for what you would expect. The level then inside would come to 54 dBA, which is about 6 dBA above the existing level, and 4 dBA above the top end of the BS8233 level, which would be, again, the dominant source. We also need to remember that the soundscape would be quite different. It is not people talking; it is a drilling-type noise - which is a completely different type of noise - which will be the dominant noise in the room. The existing noise, as I say, is about 48 dBA. If we move even into the video conferencing room, which currently is 45 dBA - again, agreed measurements between myself and Crossrail - it is a very significant increase. 6493. MR NEWBERRY: On this window size, could you put up slide 14 again, please. There is a picture of one of the elevations of the building, showing the relationship and size of the glass windows to the brickwork. Looking at what you see there and your past experience, what is the practical effect of that type of construction of large areas of glass? (Mr Griffiths) The noise reduction of 34 dBA that I gave you was from a dwelling. With a dwelling you tend to get more wall around a window. The weakest link in the chain, as acoustics works, is the window. In an office, because there is less wall, the windows become less effective. As you see in the Mintel building, it is pretty well glazing all the way around, apart from a few columns and obviously the wall below, which is different from the situation in a dwelling where you would have brick at the sides, so it tends to give a slightly worse attenuation. That is confirmed in PPG24. 6494. My learned friend Mr Taylor looked at one of the photographs which Mr Thomson produced, you may recall, of people sitting at desks opposite one another, speaking on the telephone, and he seemed to be making the point that if you were sitting opposite someone who was on the telephone this was indicative that there would not be any problem because of that phenomena. Do you have any comment to make on that? (Mr Griffiths) The background measurements that we took were while people were in the room talking. They were not shouting in any way, they were just having a normal conversation on the phone, and the levels we recorded were the 48 dBA LAeQ, so we are pretty confident that is the sort of level you get in that particular office environment. 6495. Slide 17, please. (Mr Griffiths) That is all I have to say in respect of noise. I am now coming on to vibrations. These are predictions which Crossrail have produced themselves from construction noise or demolition noise. Vibration levels at the foundations of buildings closest to the site are predicted to be in the region of 1.5-7 millimetres per second at buildings on Hayne Street opposite the site - that is, the Mintel building. They are predicting levels of somewhere between 1.5-7 millimetres per second. That was in the Noise and Vibration Specialist Technical Report which was produced. The report also goes on to say that the threshold of significance of screening purposes may be exceeded at buildings on Hayne Street, so it is being recognised that they may be exceeding their threshold. 6496. That is the range they are predicting. (Mr Griffiths) This is at the foundation of the building. It is recognised in the British Standard BS5128 that, as you move up a building, especially on modern type buildings, you can get amplification of vibration from the foundations because the building actually moves. It is not uncommon to get an increase of somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 in vibration as you move up the building. 6497. MR HOPKINS: Can you explain to me what 1.5/7 millimetres per second means. Is that the speed of the movement? (Mr Griffiths) If you have some vibration, you get an amplitude change in displacement. This is measuring the amount of displacement and over a certain period of time. It is the peak of that displacement over a specific period. It is the rate of change of the displacement over a given period of time. It also has a vector value: it has a value telling you whether it is going vertically, horizontal or sideways. It is a criteria that is quite often used for building damage, whether you are likely to suffer any building damage, and it is something that is useful to use for construction vibration, because it is of that sort of nature which is very peaky - you know, a hydraulic breaker - and it has a good indication of measuring that type of vibration. There is another unit, VDV, which averages the energy over 16 hours, but it is not appropriate really for this type of assessment. 6498. There is another measurement, PPV. Can you explain what the difference is between MM/PPV and VDV? (Mr Griffiths) Millimetres per second is the peak particle velocity, is the peak of the wave, whereas VDV is an average, a bit like the LAeQ, energy over a 16-hour period. As the office is occupied only for eight or nine hours, the PPV is the most appropriate method to assess vibration for construction noise and demolition. 6499. Does one deal with the impact on people and one on buildings? (Mr Griffiths) Yes, the VDV is quite often used for people in buildings for a period of time, in particular residential, and the PPV is quite often used for building damage. In this case Crossrail have tried to look at the values given for VDV as to whether they are acceptable or not and converting them to PPV in particular for construction noise. 6500. We will try to put that into context. Would you put up slide 18, please. You then ask yourself the question: What do these vibration levels mean in the real world? (Mr Griffiths) It is similar to when I was running through noise and asking what it means: What does it mean in vibration terms? The threshold of human perception to vibration is somewhere between 0.14-0.3 millimetres per second. It does depend on the frequency of vibration but that is typically the range, so you start feeling some vibration at about those sorts of levels. I was involved when they were building the first Canary Wharf development. I was some 25 metres away in a building while they were piling - a different sort of technique from that which is being suggested here, drop piling. I was in a building at 3 millimetres per second and people were very frightened at that range. Just to give you a feel: things were jumping on the desks as it was dropping the pile. It is a frightening experience. You would not want to be here at 3 millimetres per second. This is trying to give you a graphic view of what these levels mean. Especially when you consider that 0.1-0.3 millimetres is your threshold, if you are going up a factor of ten more you would really be feeling that vibration and you would not be able to stand it for very long. 6501. In your practical experience, 3 millimetres per second is a frightening experience and what is contemplated here is 7 millimetres per second, so over twice what you have described in experience. (Mr Griffiths) The Crossrail predictions are saying somewhere between 1.5 and 7 millimetres per second - and that is at the foundations of the building, not even taking into account any possible amplification. 6502. In relation to this point about the vibration, if we could go back to slide 10, please, I want to understand where along the construction process, and for how long, what you are talking about there is likely to be experienced or could be experienced. Where is this level of vibration going to come from? (Mr Griffiths) We have asked some more detailed questions of Crossrail and they are saying it is at the early stage. It is difficult to give precise lengths of time. It would be in particular during the demolition of the site, whilst we have this hydraulic breaker. Also, you have oscillatory piling, which is probably one of the better methods for piling in terms of reducing vibration, but the make-up of the ground in this area is about six metres of gravel and then you have the London clay, so they would probably have to shake a casing in for about six metres and then they would use the oscillatory augur pile, which would be basically going into London clay. Being London clay, it just keeps itself, so that you can then use that as a hollow. There could well be some vibration from the oscillatory piling. Looking at the piling grid that I have seen over the last few days, some of the piling is much closer than five metres. Some of it is probably four and even a couple of metres from the building. 6503. The oscillatory piling, in so far as it involves turning the spindle, so to speak, that in itself, you think, would not generate these levels of vibration but getting to that position could. (Mr Griffiths) It can do. We have experience where you are putting a casing in, the initial part of the seven metres, when that is shaken into the ground. Then they augur inside that and bring out the spoil, and, once you go beyond that on the London clay, you should be able to drill out the London clay and it will keep itself. I am not a civil engineer but I have discussed this with our civil engineers and that is the sort of technique you could expect. 6504. To try to quantify this, the demolition of the site would take, what, of the order of seven months? (Mr Griffiths) Yes. It has to be said that there is a range here of 1.5 to 7 millimetres per second. Clearly, when they are the other side, further away from the site, the levels would be quite a lot lower, but there would be a period - and I think we are talking maybe of six weeks - while they will be pecking away at the three or four storey building opposite. The length of time, I think, is very much down to the detail. 6505. That is the framework time. (Mr Griffiths) It is the framework, and then they would move in or out of the building, and the levels, as you get further away, would generally decrease. 6506. If there were the problem that you have identified in relation to the piling, where in the timeframe on document 10 would that take place? (Mr Griffiths) It would generally be during the station box construction, while they were making a wall, effectively, around the site, so that that could be excavated to do all the work underground. 6507. That looks as though it is a four-month period - somewhere within that sort of period. (Mr Griffiths) Yes, and, again, some of the piles would be some distance away, at the other end of the site to the west, and the ones of most concern would be the ones that are within, say, four metres from the site. 6508. Could you go forward to slide 19. (Mr Griffiths) Again, this is looking to try to give the Committee a feel for what these levels mean. Crossrail produced a human response criteria in their scoping report, table 8.5. That gives a relationship of his VDV which I was telling you about, this vibration dose value, which is a low probability of starting to get complaints, and compare it to PPV, specifically because they realise that sometimes PPV is a better unit to use for construction, for example. They have produced what they call the threshold of significant impacts, again PPV, on the floor of the building. They are saying for office/retail/recreation 1.12 millimetres per second. As I say, that is the level where people's threshold is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3, and here we have what they are calling the threshold of significant impact as being 1.1. Of course the predictions they are saying is somewhere between 1.5 to 7 millimetres per second. 6509. What is the concern about 1.2 which translates into the VDV? (Mr Griffiths) The 1.12 is the threshold of significant impact as assessed by Crossrail. The levels that they are predicting are somewhere between 1.5 and 7 millimetres per second. 6510. Turn over to slide 20, please. (Mr Griffiths) Crossrail also have a building and structures' criteria in their scoping report, following on from that, table 8.6. Again, people are much more sensitive to vibration than compared to levels that are likely to damage a building. You would expect the levels for damaging a building to be much higher. Usually that is quite good, inasmuch as people would alert themselves before a building gets any structural damage because they would evacuate the building. There the vibration limits in that scoping report are saying that for standard buildings the peak particle velocity should not exceed 5 millimetres per second. That is also stated in BS5228, part 4, which is the construction vibration standard. The predicted levels there, as we have said before, are somewhere between 1.5-7 millimetres per second. I think 5 millimetres per second is quite a cautious approach. Quite often in standards we see levels much higher than that, but that is certainly the responsible approach that Crossrail have taken. 6511. When you experienced this figure of 3 millimetres per second to which you referred earlier, did the construction work that was causing that level of vibration continue or was it stopped? (Mr Griffiths) It had to be stopped immediately. I was working for a client, a publisher, and we then immediately contacted LDDC and the local authority, Tower Hamlets, and the work had to be stopped. The remedy at the time was to reduce the height of the hammer and various other techniques - working outside of office hours - to reduce the vibration. 6512. At 21 are your conclusions. Just take us through these. (Mr Griffiths) I would just really bring out the point from my first slides, that my conclusions really are that the distance to the Mintel building is 5 metres and it is a very important point. There is lots of mitigation that one might be able to look at here, lots of options, but with 5 metres, you cannot change the laws of physics and there is a high risk that there will be significant vibration and noise from the building site that is going to last for 41/2 years. The predicted construction noise is above Crossrail's trigger limit for the provision of sound insulation and that is for the entire 41/2-year period, the construction noise is above Crossrail's trigger level for rehousing for a period of about 18 months, again using Crossrail's figures, the vibration level is above Crossrail's acceptable limit for people working in offices, in their Scoping Report, and the vibration level is so high that it is predicted to be above Crossrail's building damage limit. I suppose, in short, it is too near the construction site for people to be there and it is going on for too long. It has excessive levels both in terms of noise and vibration next to what can be described as a 'sensitive building', and I think it is recognised that it is a sensitive building by Crossrail. I have to, from my client's point of view, give extreme caution in respect of the potential noise and vibration impact, and certainly relocation would be a very strong option on that basis. 6513. Mr Taylor may ask you about the offer that is going to be put forward by Crossrail. I would like to ask you about that against this background. The Committee has heard on many occasions various levels of dB which Crossrail are offering, 25dB for a recording studio, 30dB for this and 40dB for housing. Those figures are quite well known. Have Crossrail offered a figure to adhere to in relation to vibration? (Mr Griffiths) No, they have not. They have said they will be looking into it, but they have not come up with a figure that they say is acceptable. The only figure is in the Scoping Report which quotes the level of 1.12 as the threshold of significance, but that has not been put to me as, "This is what's going to be used for this building". We have an undertaking which says, "We will look at the category of the building. We will look at the use", and there are about seven or eight categories, but there is nothing specific, saying, "We will meet this level", or "We will meet this internal noise level as well for offices" because everything is geared around dwellings. Clearly if we said that this is a sensitive building, like a dwelling, then we would be reaching the standard for rehousing and, relocation would be an option, but at the moment it is just specifying that for dwellings. 6514. Do you have, as a professional, a figure which you say to the Committee they should recommend that Crossrail aim for in getting appropriate vibration levels? (Mr Griffiths) Well, I think probably a figure that has been used before is somewhere around 1 millimetre per second as the area where people will start to complain. That coincides fairly closely with the 1.12 millimetre per second which is put in Crossrail's Scoping Report, but it is something where I think we would need to look at the facts and look at what is actually going to be used on this site and at the moment it is quite early days. At the moment, as I say, oscillating piling is being proposed, but again it is not specified, so they could be using, if they wanted to, another type of piling. I have to look at the risks for my client and at the moment it is very open and, as we move down the line, I think it is something where it would be nice to have got agreement for this. 6515. Is that 1.2 a figure which should be aimed for or is it a figure which should be bettered? (Mr Griffiths) I think it should be bettered. 6516. Thank you. Cross-examined by MR TAYLOR 6517. MR TAYLOR: Mr Griffiths, can we turn up your slide 16 to start with. Here you set out the attenuation which might arise if secondary glazing is provided. (Mr Griffiths) That is correct, yes. 6518. We are interested to understand whether or not there is mitigation available which could be used to mitigate the impact upon the premises from noise and also from vibration, are we not? (Mr Griffiths) Absolutely. 6519. You identified that about a 34dB(A) reduction might be possible, and you quote that from PPG24, as I understand it. Is that right? (Mr Griffiths) That is correct. 6520. It is possible with modern insulation to provide greater attenuation than 34dB(A), is it not? (Mr Griffiths) Well, there are lots of test data available and you could certainly get probably 40. The problem is that a lot of that is laboratory tests and I think it is worth noting exactly what PPG24 says on that point. There they give a table of values for different windows. It says, "The table is intended to give an idea of the insulation likely to be achieved in practice, not under ideal conditions". Yes, I could get some test data which show that you can get levels greater than 40, but I also say that we have got this issue where it refers to the first of the tables and says: "Table 1 shows typical reductions in noise levels from common sources which would be expected from various types of windows fitted in brick/block walls in a dwelling. For other buildings, such as offices and schools, the proportion of glazing to brickwork may be greater and this will result in a lower noise reduction". So yes, you can get values, but in the real practical world probably 34 to 35, and 35 is a figure in fact which is given in Crossrail's mitigation report for secondary windows. 6521. The numbers that you have quoted from PPG24, those are for domestic properties with domestic thickness of glazing? (Mr Griffiths) That is correct, yes. 6522. It is possible, is it not, to provide a commercial premises with much thicker glazing, as assumed in PPG24? (Mr Griffiths) Yes, you could. 6523. And that would provide a greater amount of attenuation? (Mr Griffiths) It would provide greater than 34, but pulling back from that, you have got a larger area of glazing than in dwellings, so you have got the two really cancelling each other out. 6524. If 34 is applied, we can see that the internal noise of a building reduces to 54dB(A). Obviously if we get, say, another 3 or 4dB(A) attenuation, we could get down to 50 or 51. (Mr Griffiths) If you have another 3 or 4, absolutely right, yes. 6525. That is a possible amount of attenuation you would get then for a possible internal level to attain in this property, is it not? (Mr Griffiths) It is possible. Again I am going on the practicalities of someone installing windows, but certainly I would not completely rule it out. If I had to give a realistic figure from the data here, in practice with a large area it would probably be 34/35, figures which Crossrail put up, but yes, I think there is always a possibility that it could do better. 6526. If we turn to your slide 4 for a moment, you produce examples of noise levels, Mr Griffiths. (Mr Griffiths) Yes. 6527. If we look down your thermometer at 50 to 60, we see typical business offices, so the typical noise level in a business office is between 50 and 60dB(A)? (Mr Griffiths) Absolutely, yes. The point about that, and I think that shows it very clearly, is the Mintel situation because both the consultant from Crossrail and myself went and measured the noise in Mintel's offices and it was below the 50, so it is below what is a typical office because we measured typically 48dB(A) and, as I say, in the video-conferencing room it was 45, so it shows, I think, quite clearly that we have got quite a special case here. It is below what is a typical office, so we have got 48 and the predictions I am coming up with are 54, so a 6dB increase. 6528. Can we turn to slide 10 please. Here we have an indication of the forecast noise levels and, apart from a period above the 85dB line during construction of the station box, we see that the majority of the forecasts are below 85dB. (Mr Griffiths) Or at 85, yes. 6529. So, if one were to apply 40dB attenuation, one would get down to the 45dB(A) level? (Mr Griffiths) You certainly would, yes. 6530. If one had 37dB attenuation, one would get to around about 48? (Mr Griffiths) That is right. What we have got to remember, because these figures are the average ten hours, as I was describing, is that the figure which is actually used by Crossrail to project these averages is with a hydraulic breaker and the hydraulic breaker level is 92 at 10 metres. Now, the building, as we know, is only 5 metres away, so when they are breaking on that particular property, you will actually get a level of something like 96 to 98LAeq over short periods. 6531. Can we just have a look at the measurements which were undertaken by yourself and Mr Thornley-Taylor, and I have a table which I think you have produced? (Mr Griffiths) Yes. 6532. There are a whole load of numbers, all of which are very frightening, but we only need to look at a few by way of example. In a column headed, "LAeq 1 minute", if we look at the first figure in that column, ground floor boardroom talking, we see a dB level of 55.2. (Mr Griffiths) We do, yes. 6533. So in the boardroom in this building with somebody talking, the levels are at 55.2? (Mr Griffiths) Yes, they are in that case. 6534. If we come down to the third floor sales team figure, it is 54.7. Do you see that one? It is in the top section of the table. (Mr Griffiths) Yes, I do. 6535. We can keep going down the table to see the reading for first floor services from 18 minutes past 3 at 54.9, third floor sales at 55.3, research at 53.1. I put it to you that your identification of 48 is actually fairly low on the basis of the figures that were actually recorded by yourself and Mr Thornley-Taylor with each of the areas of the office. (Mr Griffiths) I am afraid I have to disagree. If we look at the fourth floor, video-conferencing, we have a level there of 45. You are picking the higher ones. We have got the fourth floor telesales with 48/49, on the third floor we have got 48/49, third floor research we have got 46, so the range I stated was between 45 and around 52 and this is with people occupying the building, so I think my 48 is reasonable. 6536. The video room, when you measured it, was not being used, was it? (Mr Griffiths) That was not being used, no, you are right. 6537. The only rooms where there is not a measurement that is above 48 are the fifth floor quiet room and the basement library. That is right, is it not? (Mr Griffiths) There is the fourth floor video-conferencing room. 6538. Which was not in use when it was measured. (Mr Griffiths) There was somebody in the room, but they were not actually using the video-conferencing facilities. The third floor research room is below 48 at 46.8. 6539. There is a measurement of 53 in relation to the third floor research room. (Mr Griffiths) But there is also 46.8. 6540. Well, the Committee has got the numbers, so I will not take time repeating them. (Mr Griffiths) And the first floor development IT is 47.8. 6541. The point I am going to put to you is that, on the basis of the attenuation that is achievable using mitigation, it is likely that a significant impact from airborne noise from construction can be avoided within this property? (Mr Griffiths) I am afraid I do not accept that. I think that the reality is that when you actually look at PPG24 and look at what you get in practice, a large area of glazing, and you saw that on the slide, you will practically get about 34/35, and indeed Crossrail's own figures in their Scoping Report talk about 34 as being a reasonable standard. 6542. Can we turn then to vibration, to your slide 17 please. There you are quoting from the specialist technical report on noise and vibration? (Mr Griffiths) Yes, I am. 6543. I think the passage that you are quoting from is in volume 4 at paragraph 2.3.11, which is at page 70. If we look at that, we can see that you have actually quoted partially from the paragraph, Mr Griffiths, because it begins: "Vibration levels due to the use of the hydraulic breaker have been predicted at the foundations of unattached buildings for the worst-case situation, but the breaker works at ground level at the boundary of the site closest to each receptor", and then it goes on to produce the figures you have used. (Mr Griffiths) Yes. 6544. So the figures represent the use of a hydraulic breaker, but where the breaker is operating at ground level at the boundary of the site closest to the receptor? (Mr Griffiths) Yes. 6545. So these figures do not relate to oscillatory bored piling, do they? (Mr Griffiths) They relate to the hydraulic breaking, yes, absolutely. 6546. It is right to say, is it not, in relation to bored piling that that is a low-vibration technique? (Mr Griffiths) Yes, it is. 6547. You would accept, would you not, that the use of that technique is not going to give rise to any significant vibration effect upon the Petitioner's premises? (Mr Griffiths) Well, my concern, as I stated during evidence, is that there are 6 or 7 metres of gravel which it has to get through and one tends to have to shake the casing in for that, otherwise everything just falls in, and there could well be some levels of vibration. I would not expect them to be anywhere near the 7, but they certainly could well be around the 1 millimetre or so because, looking at the piling plan, the piling is coming somewhere between 2 to 3 metres, maybe 4 metres, from the building. 6548. It is possible to programme that sort of work out of office hours, is it not? (Mr Griffiths) It could well be. 6549. In relation to the hydraulic breaker, have you seen the correspondence from Crossrail, explaining that the maximum use of that is likely to be two to three weeks? (Mr Griffiths) I did see a letter, but I thought it was saying more like six weeks, but again it was early days, I think, when we had the meeting at stage C on a Riva(?) contract. 6550. I will get Mr Thornley-Taylor to explain that. (Mr Griffiths) Thank you. 6551. So far as the use of a hydraulic breaker is concerned, there are alternative methods of breaking, are there not, the use of a cruncher, for example? (Mr Griffiths) You could use that, yes. 6552. And that would not be as noisy, would it, or as vibratory? (Mr Griffiths) I would have to check that. It probably would not be. 6553. There is also the possibility, is there not, of detaching continuity between buildings? We can see that from the page in front of us at 2.3.12 where you can use diamond sawing, for example, to alter the structure of continuity between buildings so as to mitigate vibration? (Mr Griffiths) You can do that, but, remember, the vibration will still come around in the ground. These vibration levels are opposite Hayne Street which is not directly attached anyway. 6554. The figures at 2.3.11 are figures produced, are they not, without taking into account that sort of mitigation? They are pre-mitigation figures, are they not? (Mr Griffiths) Yes, I am aware they are. 6555. So far as the undertakings are concerned, I would just like to draw the Committee's attention and your attention to what is proposed in relation to this particular Petitioner and noise vibration. It is section 4, 'Noise and Vibration'. Here we have the undertaking which is being proposed. At 4.1 there is a commitment "to carry out the works in a manner which will mitigate the emission of noise as far as reasonably practicable". In fact there is another undertaking which has been provided which is the same thing in relation to vibration. (Mr Griffiths) Absolutely, yes. 6556. Then we see at 4.2, "The Promoter will prepare a mitigation package in respect of noise generated and will assign appropriate noise limits in relation to the property and in identifying such limits factors to be considered will include our commitment to the following..." and then we see the criteria set out, yes? (Mr Griffiths) Yes, we see a number of factors there. 6557. And again a similar approach is adopted in relation to vibration? (Mr Griffiths) Absolutely, yes. 6558. It is sensible, is it not, to put off the identification of the noise limit to take into account, for example, change in the usage of rooms in the building in the future? (Mr Griffiths) Just as there is for noise, one would expect noise and vibration standards to be applied at this stage so that in my client's particular case we would be able to have some comfort to say that we will be achieving these values, just as we have 35 or 40dB(A), but that does not seem to be the case. What I am hearing, and what my client has been concerned about, all the time is, "There is a possibility we can do this". It says here that they will assign appropriate noise and vibration standards. It leaves an element of risk to my client in terms of noise and vibration. 6559. In the context of the commitment to mitigate the emission of noise and vibration as far as reasonably practicable, yes? (Mr Griffiths) Yes. 6560. It is also possible, is it not, to move around the uses which are undertaken by Mintel within their properties so that you might be able to put particularly noise-sensitive elements of the user into the property next door, which is 13 to 17, I think, Long Lane because that building has double glazing? That would be possible, would it not? (Mr Griffiths) It is not a question where you can move people. That is not for me, but I think it is probably for somebody from the operational side you will need to discuss that with as to whether people have to be near each other and so on. 6561. It is right to say, is it not, that there is a dispute resolution procedure included in the proposed undertaking? (Mr Griffiths) There is, yes. 6562. So if your client was unhappy with the package that came forward, they could take that to dispute resolution and the issues could be aired? (Mr Griffiths) They could be aired. I think the issue here is that at this stage Mintel are very concerned. They know they are only 5 metres away from the construction site, I have raised a risk and they do not want to be further down the line - we have heard that pun before! - when Crossrail is being built, for example, and they have then got very little chance of having a reasonable settlement, so that is a concern at that stage. 6563. You wrote a report for your client on noise and vibration impacts related to Crossrail dated 16 September 2005? (Mr Griffiths) Yes 6564. Am I right in saying that at no point in that report do you recommend that relocation is necessary? (Mr Griffiths) Yes, I think you are probably right. That was in our initial review of the documentation. 6565. I am not probably right, Mr Griffiths, I am right. (Mr Griffiths) I absolutely take your word for it. 6566. And if you had thought at that particular point that relocation was necessary, having reviewed the information provided, no doubt you would have recommended that to your client? (Mr Griffiths) The title of that report is, I think, a 'critique', so we were looking through what had been done and we were not necessarily giving recommendations, I do not think. 6567. Thank you very much indeed.
Re-examined by MR NEWBERRY 6568. MR NEWBERRY: Mr Griffiths, let's deal with the double glazing point first of all. You have put the figure of 34 in? (Mr Griffiths) Yes. 6569. That is the level of mitigation you expect, and you have indicated that there are difficulties in getting more than that because of the ratio of glass to brickwork in an elevation? (Mr Griffiths) Yes. 6570. Mr Taylor, for his part, said that you could do it, that it could be overcome. What is your judgment on the issue of whether you can increase noise attenuation by glass, having regard to what he said on the one hand and your view of the structure of the building and the relationship of glass to brickwork? (Mr Griffiths) My view is that there are two issues. One is the ratio of windows to walls and, as I say, on an office building, as we saw in the British Standard and in fact as PPG24 states, the more area of window you have got, the lower your attenuation. On the other hand, you could use thicker glass in commercial buildings which would bring it back up, so I think the two probably go hand in hand and probably the best you would get is around 35, and that is a figure which Crossrail have put in their mitigation package, that they would expect around 35. 6571. So this figure that you have used and Crossrail appear to agree with, ie, getting to the order of a 34/35dB reduction, have you any idea where this sudden change comes from, a jump from 34 to 40, which was being suggested to you? (Mr Griffiths) No. The only way I can see it is if you look at the manufacturer's data and the test data which are from a test laboratory say you can get levels of sound reduction of about 40dB or so reduction. The difference is the practicality, as I said before, the actual installation of when it is installed, the way it is installed and so on where inherently on the practical side you get less than that. 6572. From your understanding of the Crossrail documentation, notwithstanding what Mr Taylor has put to you, have you seen any Crossrail documentation which supports the contention that they can suddenly jump from 34 to 40? (Mr Griffiths) I have not seen any figure ---- 6573. Was any document shown to you? (Mr Griffiths) No, nothing to say 40. 6574. Let's look at the issue of vibration, if we may, and I wonder if that passage which Mr Taylor referred to could be put back up again. It was paragraph 2.3.11. That was talking about the vibration levels which you have used of a hydraulic breaker which are predicted to be in the region of 1.5 to 7. (Mr Griffiths) Yes. 6575. First of all, in relation to the cruncher which has been referred to, where does that figure in the range of 1.5 to 7? Is it under 1.5? (Mr Griffiths) No, I would not say it was under 1.5. At the end of the day, it is the impact of breaking a building and I have measured crunchers on a number of occasions and there is still a certain amount of impact. You would probably still have to use a hydraulic breaker maybe to start with and then a cruncher can then come in, so it would probably be lower, I would have thought, than 7, so it would be nearer 1.5 to 3. I would have to look at the figures which are available in the British Standard. 6576. Well, a figure was not put to you, but you think between 1.5 and 3? (Mr Griffiths) I would have thought so, but I would like to check that. 6577. Is that a figure, the 1.5 to 3, in terms of the occupier, in your judgment, that is acceptable? (Mr Griffiths) No, totally unacceptable, having witnessed 3 myself. 6578. I want to understand the inference that maybe being drawn from this passage which your attention has been drawn to. We know that at other times on the site a breaker is not being used, that that particular operation may have ceased, and you identified all the bits of kit which are being used throughout the 41/2 years. Is there anything to suggest that, when a breaker is not being used, the vibration levels will not be above 1.5 or is that the only time we need to be concerned about vibration? (Mr Griffiths) I would still have some concern over the oscillatory rotary piling. It is a good method, a better method for vibration, but when you are that close, within a few metres from a building and there is a piling grid, there has to be some risk just because they have to push the casing into the grid, and there must be, I do not know, 40 or 50 piles going along the building to make the wall. 6579. Perhaps we will explore with the other Mr Taylor what is meant by these various mitigation measures, but if this is to take place out of hours, is the consent of the local authority required for that? (Mr Griffiths): Yes, there will need to be consent of the local authority, yes. 6580. Is there residential accommodation in this area? (Mr Griffiths): There is, yes. 6581. Diamond sawing, can you just explain to me what that is? (Mr Griffiths): That would be like a circular type saw and that can cut through concrete bricks and so on. 6582. Is it a nice quiet operation? (Mr Griffiths): It is a very noisy operation. 6583. And is this usually in addition to a hydraulic breaker or in substitution for it? (Mr Griffiths): This would be in addition to the hydraulic breaker, this would cut/sever the two buildings. 6584. We have something that has been brought in now which is in addition to it and what are its vibration levels then? (Mr Griffiths): Its vibration levels are quite low, but it is making the noise of a diamond saw. 6585. Can you give the Committee an idea of the noise that is being promoted? (Mr Griffiths): Probably 10 metres, which is a standard yardstick, it would be at least 90 decibels and again I would have to look that up, but you are sawing into concrete or brick. I think anyone who does any D-I-Y with hand tools will know the sort of level that you can get out of that. 6586. Does 13-17 have double glazing? (Mr Griffiths): This is the second building? I think it does have double glazing, but it is thermal glazing, it is the narrower gap. 6587. I am told that it does not, but that is a matter of fact. (Mr Griffiths): I think part of it does have double glazing. 6588. And these offers that were being raised with you in relation to the undertaking. Are we anywhere closer to having a design standard to aid that in relation to vibration? (Mr Griffiths): No, I am not aware of any standard which, as I say, has to pose a risk to my client. 6589. Why is there this approach, in every other area that I have heard in my attendance here, design levels are being suggested, but in vibration none is being suggested, why is that? (Mr Griffiths): I really do not know. I mean when someone is predicting levels one and a half to seven millimetres per second, if you are really talking about seven millimetres per second people would be very, very frightened and to not have a standard when you are predicting those sort of levels, I think anyone would accept if you have got levels of seven millimetres per second no one in this room would be here. As I say it is a very frightening experience at that sort of level, so I am surprised there is not a value being installed for offices.
The witness withdrew 6590. MR TAYLOR: Sir, I have got Mr Thornley-Taylor here who can give evidence reflecting the points I have put in cross-examination if you would find that of assistance. 6591. CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr Taylor, we have heard such evidence before and I do not think there is any need to recall in that respect and I think we have heard enough today to cover noise to get a view on it. 6592. MR TAYLOR: In closing, can I just say a few words? We say that Mintel is not a particularly noise sensitive user. The levels of noise within their premises is similar to any office base use and in terms of being accepted as a special case because of the particular proximity of the Lindsey Street work site and the substandard nature of the attenuation provided by the premises, the Promoters offered an appropriate undertaking to carry out the works in a manner that will mitigate the influence of noise and vibration as far as reasonably practicable. It has offered a noise and vibration mitigation act which, based upon limits which would be identified, taking into account a number of factors, a mitigation act which can be identified which will ensure that the noise and vibration from the construction will not significantly affect the business operation of the premises. There are a number of mitigation techniques available that will ensure that airborne noise will not cause significant problems, for example, with the potential use of secondary glazing. 6593. When it comes to vibration it is piling and demolition work that is of particular concern, but the total duration of piling has been identified six weeks and I mention that on instructions. It is proposed to used oscillatory bore piling. This is a low vibration technique. With that piling technique significant vibration acts upon the Petitioner's property are unlikely. It is the use of the hydraulic breaker that is of particular concern in relation to vibration. This activity would only occur at the points closest to the Petitioner's property for a period of some two to three weeks in total, and again I put that figure on instructions. It may be possible to use alternative methods of demolition, for example, a cruncher to reduce this period significantly, but make it possible to limit vibration caused or emitted during particular hours of the day. It may be that works could be done to reduce the structural interface between the work site and the building. 6594. It is not appropriate at this stage to identify specific noise or vibration limits to apply at the Petitioner's property, these should be identified at the detailed design stage. In any event, these take into account a number of factors that are unknown at present, such as the particular use of particular rooms and the attenuation provided by the building within those rooms. Nor is it appropriate to identify the particular mitigation that needs to be adopted at this stage. The proposed undertaking will give rise to a dispute, a solution procedure will be invoked if it is unhappy with the measures adopted. 6595. As far as dust is concerned, the premises are already fully air conditioned, tier three dust mitigation is proposed for the Lindsey Street work site due to the proximity of the Smithfield Market. That involves the provision of a high standard of dust control needs to be achievable. 6596. So far as access is concerned, the policy with regard to retaining access during construction is set out in IPC7. The Bill contains a requirement to ensure that pedestrians have a reasonable access to any premises affected by the interference with the highway and that is C7, paragraph 1.43, schedule 3, paragraph 5 of the Bill. Paragraph 2.2 provides that a reasonable level of access will be maintained for both vehicles and pedestrians. The undertaking offered reflects this policy. The works affecting Hayne Street is to retain access to the car parks so far as practicable and again I am putting that on instructions. 6597. As far as power supply is concerned, the policy regarding maintenance of public utilities during construction is set out in information paper D7. The construction arrangements have been designed to keep disruption to as low a level as reasonably practicable, that is in information paper D7 paragraph 1.3. The undertaking offered does this. Indeed, bearing in mind that the Mintel Company has no guarantee of uninterrupted power and has arrangements in place to cater for this. 6598. In conclusion these undertakings will be sufficient to ensure that an appropriate environment can be retained during the construction activity that will enable the business to continue and there is no reasonable basis for requiring the Promoter to fund the permanent re-location. 6599. MR NEWBERRY: I would ask you to conclude that this is an operation which is a sensitive operation in terms of having to undertake detailed and painstaking research and therefore requires the appropriate environment. I therefore would ask you to conclude that it is such. 6600. So far as noise is concerned, we take the view that it would be difficult to attenuate the noise levels that are generated, you have seen the bar chart and we are looking at 80-85, very high levels of noise indeed. Mr Griffiths, practically experienced, is that you can achieve 34. That practical experience is borne out by Crossrail's own figures, not Mr Taylor's figures, but Crossrail's own figures, they correspond, and at the end of the day does not provide the appropriate level of technical attenuation. If you take an average through the building, which is what he has done, it is well over it, so it is not going to work on that particular point. 6601. So far as vibration is concerned, the document that Mr Taylor referred to specifically refers to a hydraulic breaker. I have not seen any document which indicates a switch of equipment, so on the assumption that the documentation that they are relying upon is correct, there is absolutely no doubt that that particular piece of equipment generates vibration levels that are not much short of horrific and to dismiss it that it is only going to be for two or three weeks, I find an interesting proposition. The building will effectively be sterilised. You cannot work or expect them to work when there is that level of vibration running through the building and I would also ask you to bear in mind that Mr Griffiths was unchallenged on the point that in buildings you get amplification, so the 7.5 is not the maximum here, he told you it can go to 2.5 above that because of this amplification feature. That building effectively would be incapable of use. On that premise alone this company should be re-located. What are they going to do for three weeks whilst this work is going on? They cannot work and they have either got to be temporarily re-located, and that is quite a detailed business re-locating a company of this size, or they have got to be compensated for the period of time when they cannot use their building, one or the other, and I would ask you to look at that issue. 6602. So far as the access is concerned, what we have learnt today is that Hayne Street is going to be shut off at one end, I am not sure which end, but effectively it is a cul-de-sac and that particular street is critical for deliveries to the company, you saw photographs where stuff has to be unloaded. I cannot get my mind round a major construction site and a major work site which has to utilise Hayne Street for the purposes of lorries and all the vehicles that are going to use that site, and I expect because it is a cul-de-sac park there, how it is possibly going to be run in a way which permits multiple deliveries to this site; they get 8,000 packages a week. If the vans cannot park there or the lorries cannot park there, they cannot get their packages into the business, unless they go to a reception and stack it all up there, which in itself is a hazard, so there is a major problem there. Secondly, the point of access, there is a major problem in relation to the emergency exit which I drew attention with Mr Thomson in-chief, you may remember. There has been no comment on that and no challenge to the point and so the issue there is a serious one, that there is every likelihood of the emergency exit being blocked by Crossrail's lorries and vans in a cul-de-sac and that seems to be a very potential serious matter. 6603. So far as dust is concerned, I notice the expression is that it is a tier three level and I thought what an appropriate expression, I can imagine many tears on the terrace while the dust is swimming around. I am sure they will make every effort to keep it as contained as best they can, but we have an open terrace five metres from a construction site. Commonsense dictates that area is going to be sterilised for large periods of time. 6604. So far as power supplies are concerned, it is not an answer to say they do not have a guaranteed power supply now. This is an additional problem and, as I understand it, and I put this on the record because I have spoken to Mr Taylor about it, what Mintel want of course is a continuous power supply i.e. not one that is disrupted by Crossrail. If there is going to be dislocation they would have to be notified about it and there has to be an alternative supply provided, so there is not a period of time when they cannot function, because as Mr Thomson was telling you if you do get the computers going down and the server is going down, effectively because it is wholly dependent upon the servers and computers, it cannot be rendered impotent for however long it is going to be without power because it takes a long time to get things back in operation. 6605. Sir, we feel that the combination of all these factors does warrant in this case, particularly because of the vibration and noise factors due to the proximity, and I doubt in your deliberations whether you are going to find a site closer to major construction work than this - it is separated by a mediaeval lane - you are not going to find, I suspect, much closer and in these very unusual circumstances, we feel that this world class company should not have to have this level of infliction upon it and it is better that they are re-located so that they can function as they are now and I would ask for a direction in that way. 6606. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed Mr Newberry. We will now move on to our next hearing which is the Residents' Association of Mayfair and St James and the Grosvenor Mayfair Residents' Association.
MS NATHALIE LIEVEN appeared on behalf of the Promoter.
The Petition of the Residents' Association of Mayfair and St James.
MR JOHN PUGH-SMITH appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
SHARPE PRTICHARD appeared as Agent. 6607. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I was not planning to make a proper opening on the Residents' Association of Mayfair petition for this reason that I understand them to be raising three points. The first is disruption, disturbance and security risks in the area. Security risks was dealt with this morning by Mr Mould dealing with one of the petitions this morning from Mayfair, so I am hoping, and obviously I need to hear what Mr Pugh-Smith and his witnesses say, but I do not think it likely I will need to call any evidence on that. 6608. The second issue, sir, is as to alternative routes. It might help everybody if I make the Promoter's position on this entirely clear now. The arguments about alternative routes, both through the West End and outside the central section, go to the principle of the Bill inasmuch as the stations are set out in the long title. We have set out in IPA1 why we selected this route and I am not intending at this stage to call any further evidence on that nor to cross-examine on it, I leave it to the Committee as to the degree you want to hear further evidence from us as to why, for example, we need a station at Tottenham Court Road. 6609. The third issue raised is the amount obviously of the compensation code. You have heard Mr Mould and I and Mr Elvin eloquently say again and again that it is the national compensation code which should be supported by this Committee and I am not sure the point is going to get any better by me saying it for the nineteenth time, so I am certainly not going to call any evidence on that. 6610. That is, I hope, a very brief outline of where we stand on this Petition. Obviously if other matters are raised that we have not predicted we may have to call evidence and I may have to say more, but at this stage that is our position. 6611. CHAIRMAN: I am grateful for that and on the latter part which is about compensation this Committee is well aware of the correctness of it and how you are approaching that, however the Petitioners have their right to make their case and we will listen to that and be mindful of it. 6612. MS LIEVEN: Of course, sir, and I am sure when we come to our ultimate closing some time in July or whenever it should happen to be, we may return to issues of the compensation code and deal with them comprehensively at that stage if there are any that we consider outstanding. 6613. MR PUGH-SMITH: Mr Chairman, good afternoon, contrary to a certain perception there is a large and vibrant local community within Mayfair and St James which comes from diverse socio-economic backgrounds. Indeed in the 2001 census there were some seven and a half thousand people living within that area which over 20 per cent were in social housing. Along with these many permanent residents and local businesses is a large transient and tourist population. 6614. Mr Chairman, the reason why I mention these matters is that the society, whom I represent, is concerned about the effects of this particular project upon the living conditions of those residents and indeed the local businesses that make that large and vibrant community. Indeed the residents have had to live with the effects of this project for more than 15 years now since the submission of the first Crossrail Bill and the uncertainty continues at the present time and likely to continue for some time in the future. 6615. As a result of this, the Society has promoted and continues to promote a consideration of alternative routes which have potential to cause less environmental harm. Mr Chairman, it is not the intention of the Society before this Committee to promote a specific alternative nor does it need to do so, but Mr Elvin explained to you on the first day that of course Parliament, as the decision maker, has to make the decision about the adequacy of the environmental statement as being promoted and what we wish to point out to you through our presentation is the inadequacy of that environmental statement when it comes to the consideration of alternatives and it is for that reason that we are proposing to call one of the leading rail experts in the country, Mr Michael Schabas, to explain why and I will come back to his evidence in a moment. 6616. I do not know to what extent, Mr Chairman, you have actually been advised about the significance of environmental impact assessment and could you just bear with me for a few minutes whilst I just explain some key principles. The first that it is one of the corner stones of European communicable on the protection of the environment. It is now seen by the courts not only as a technical means of assisting expert decision making, but also as an important guarantee of the democratic right of the public to inform about potential environmental consequences of decision which may affect them or their surroundings and understand those implications and how they may be avoided or mitigated and to participate in the process by expressing their own views. Not my words, but the words of Mr Justice Sullivan. 6617. Members of the Committee, proper assessment of the environmental impacts on projects and the need to actually comply with the European directive requires sufficient consideration of alternatives as a requirement not only on the directive, but also under the 1999 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and there is a requirement under those regulations, part 1 of schedule 4, for an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or client and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects and indeed part 2 of that same schedule contains the same wording. 6618. Mr Chairman, the reason why I mention those matters is because the way in which alternatives have been dealt with in the environmental statement we will be contending is insufficient for parliament to form a view of the route that is being promoted in this Bill is the correct route. There are no benefits to be obtained by seeking any variation to it, that is what is being suggested, we say to the contrary. 6619. So far as the witnesses I propose to call, hopefully starting this afternoon, Mr Chairman, will be first of all Mrs Marina Morrisson-Atwater who has lived in Mayfair for the last 37 years. She is a committee member of the Society and Chair of the Society's Crossrail Committee and she will explain the particular concerns which the members have. 6620. If time permits this afternoon, Mr Michael Schabas who has been an expert in the field of railway structure for the last 25 years, including planning and promoting the Jubilee Line extension on behalf of the Canary Wharf Developers, extensive work on the Channel Tunnel rail link and, as you will hear, being retained by the then Department of Transport to evaluate the 1992 Crossrail Bill and he will explain how the Promoters and their Agents have only superficially considered alternatives for the safeguarded route from Paddington to Liverpool Street, which is the sole section with which we are concerned. 6621. Finally, although I think this may be after the Easter recess, I will be calling Mr Norman Winbourne who has practised as a chartered surveyor for nearly 50 years. He has particular expertise in dealing with compensation claims arising from rail projects and his evidence will be from the focus of two areas, but again the context in which we put this matter before the Committee, firstly the inadequacies of the compensation system for those affected by the Crossrail scheme which is why alternatives need to be considered much more extensively in this instance and also, by way of example, the significant improvements that could be made to many London tube stations which would ease pressure on key central London interchanges which might well avoid the need to actually the Crossrail route in the position in which it is proposed at the present time. 6622. That is all I wish to say, Mr Chairman, by way of an opening statement. You will see that Mrs Morrisson-Atwater already sits at the witness table and, with your permission, I will call her. 6623. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the recall on the environmental statement. All the members of our Committee are well versed. 6624. MR PUGH-SMITH: Mr Chairman, we do have a number of exhibits which we will be referring to and some slides. If those could please be put before you and Mrs Morrisson-Atwater has only a very brief presentation which requires you to look at documentation, but they are there more for your assistance but they will also be put on the screen as well.
MRS MARINA MORRISSON ATWATER, sworn Examined by MR PUGH-SMITH 6625. Mrs Morrison Atwater, would you please give your name to the Committee and brief details about yourself? (Mrs Morrisson Atwater) My name is Marina Morrisson Atwater and I have lived in Mayfair for the last 37 years. I have been a committee member of the Residents' Society of Mayfair & St James' for the past three years (following the merger with the Residents' Association of Mayfair). I was previously a committee member of RAM for 15 years. I am Chair of the Society's Crossrail committee and I am also a member of the Society's council. 6626. Mrs Morrisson Atwater, could you briefly outline to the Committee the role of the society? (Mrs Morrisson Atwater) The Residents Society of Mayfair & St James' - which was known as the Residents Association of Mayfair - was established in 1974. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the Society for the remainder of my submission to the Committee. The Society is formed of a voluntary group of local residents who are concerned about preserving and enhancing the character of Mayfair & St James' and in particular its history, established tradition, architecture and buildings and environment affecting those who live, work and visit the area, thereby creating a balanced community. The Society currently represents a cross-section of approximately 1,000 residents and 200 business members. The Residents' Association of Mayfair (as the society was then known) played an active role in opposing the original Crossrail Bill running through Mayfair and we petitioned against the original Crossrail Bill and gave evidence before the House of Commons Opposed Bills Committee which was successful. That was in 1994. 6627. Mrs Morrisson Atwater, what I would like to do now is turn to the people who live and work in the area. Can we have slide number 3 please, which is a map? Can you tell us very briefly about where the various residents are to be found in relation to the proposed Crossrail route? (Mrs Morrisson Atwater) I just wanted to say one little thing, that most people who have never visited Mayfair think that the residents living in Mayfair are just a group of rich, well-to-do, privileged individuals. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a lot of people who live in social housing and you have them on the lines in pink which are the streets where social housing is very much in evidence. They are all concentrated south of Oxford Street along North Row, Balderton Street, George Yard, Lumley Street, Binney Street, Gilbert Street, Weighhouse Street, Providence Court, Brown Hart Gardens and Dukes Yard. All these streets lie above the proposed Crossrail tunnels and are situated close to Bond Street station. The residents of these properties will be severely affected by the proposed Crossrail Bill and the scheme of works should the scheme be approved. They will have to be relocated and they are very worried about it. They are losing all their facilities and they are very vulnerable residents, most of them, and will require protection and we want to stand up for them. There is also a very good state school in the area, St George's Hanover Square Primary School, which has 200 pupils. There is a medical centre in Weighhouse Street and the relocation of the Mayfair Medical Centre will mean that a large and vulnerable population will lose access to this facility. There is also something called the London Institute, which is an educational and cultural centre of excellence which benefits the whole community, and there are various art galleries and hundreds of people will need, again, as I said, to be relocated. There are also many beautiful buildings and three fragile churches which need protecting - St Mark's in North Audley Street, the Ukrainian Church in Duke Street and St George's in Hanover Square. 6628. MR PUGH-SMITH: What I would like to do now is to ask you to outline briefly the Society's concerns. 6629. CHAIRMAN: Before we do that, could I mention that this document is A76 for the record? 6630. MR PUGH-SMITH: Could we have up on the screen the two slides that summarise the specific matters that the Society wishes to seek protection for? (Mrs Morrisson Atwater) Because you have heard before about the American Embassy and all the things that concern us greatly and are all around us, our first point is proper security checks to be carried out on the drivers, the contractors, the builders and all the people that are going to be used on the scheme. We would also like an assurance that further environmental impact assessments will be carried out with respect to the properties located in all the streets which I have just mentioned. I will repeat them. They are the properties located in Binney Street, Gilbert Street, Green Street, St Anselms Place, Duraven Street, North Audley Street, Balderton Street, Brown Hart Gardens, Dukes Yard, George Yard, Upper Brook Street, Lumley Street and Duke Street. 6631. MR PUGH-SMITH: Chairman, we will provide a list. 6632. CHAIRMAN: A copy of the notes afterwards would be helpful. 6633. MR PUGH-SMITH: By all means. (Mrs Morrisson Atwater) We would like an undertaking from the Promoter to prepare a noise and vibration mitigation package to satisfy us as regards to noise, vibration, disruption and disturbance during the construction of Crossrail and the running of trains after the completion. We would also like an undertaking from the Promoter that the residents will be notified in advance when the time the boring machine is to pass under our properties. 6634. Slide number 5. (Mrs Morrisson Atwater) We would like an undertaking that the Promoter will contact affected residents to ensure that they will receive the appropriate protection provided for in the settlement deed. We would also like an undertaking from the Promoter that a small claims procedure will be incorporated into the Bill. 6635. Thank you very much, Mrs Morrisson Atwater. By way of concluding remarks, is there anything you want to say to the Committee about why the Society is so concerned and that is why it has been here? (Mrs Morrisson Atwater) Yes. One of our greatest worries was the fact that we find ourselves forced to fight a Bill for a scheme that is not funded. We just do not understand how long this will take or why we are being blighted for all these years for something for which there are no funds. 6636. MR PUGH-SMITH: Thank you very much, Mrs Morrisson Atwater. 6637. MS LIEVEN: I have no questions, sir. 6638. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to give a summary of your witness's evidence? 6639. MR PUGH-SMITH: That is very kind but I think we have said what we need to say.
The witness withdrew 6640. CHAIRMAN: And your next witness is going to take at least an hour? 6641. MR PUGH-SMITH: Indeed, sir. It is up to you whether you wish to start his evidence today. 6642. CHAIRMAN: I really do not think it is relevant to go any further this afternoon because we are not going to conclude the witness and I feel that if we start we will probably end up doing it all again when we return. What I am going to do is thank the shorthand writers for all the work that they have done and everybody else who is employed in some profession or other in this place. 6643. MS LIEVEN: Sir, can I just say thank you very much to the Committee for all your patience with the Promoters over this term. We look forward to seeing you again after Easter. 6644. CHAIRMAN: The Committee will next meet at 2.30 pm on 18 April in this room. In the meantime we hope that you have a pleasant, safe, healthy and enjoyable Easter.
|