House of Commons - Crossrail - First Special Report

Select Committee on Crossrail First Special Report

5 Petitioners requiring significant protection

Areas of Soho Sound Mitigation: Grand Central Sound Studios

77. The Committee was concerned that the building and use of Crossrail would seriously affect the sound studios in the area of Soho which are regarded as an international centre of excellence. The Committee accepted that the various sound studios in the Soho area were an exceptional example of British business, talent and ingenuity. The Committee wanted to ensure that such businesses were not seriously jeopardised by the construction or operations of Crossrail.

78. We therefore asked the Promoter to ensure that floating slab track was installed in all the tunnels in the Soho area. As before, we were clear that, should a better technology emerge before the construction of the tunnels takes place, it should be considered for use in substitute or addition to floating slab track. We wished to see floating slab track used as a minimum requirement for such tunnels.

79. We also insisted that every effort was made to provide these studios with sufficient sound proofing. Should Grand Central Sound Studios be affected by the tunnelling process, we expected that the Petitioners would be able to claim compensation under the terms set out in the Bill. We were not minded to increase the provision of compensation in this case, as we wished to ensure that the industry was protected in its current location. However, we agreed that Crossrail would need to take every reasonable mitigation measure to ensure that this important industry is able to continue working in its current location.

80. The Promoter accepted the Committee's decision, and agreed to instruct the nominated undertaker to install floating slab track as the permanent track support system in the Crossrail running tunnels in the Soho area[25]. The Promoter told us that Crossrail would mitigate potential groundborne noise impacts at the source of the noise. The Promoter argued that the provision of mitigation at the source would be sufficient to control the likely groundborne noise impacts for the sound recording studios concerned, including Grand Central Sound Studios. The resulting predicted reductions in groundborne noise levels indicates that there was no reason why the studios in Soho should not be able to continue working in their current location.

81. The Crossrail operational groundborne noise design criterion for sound recording studios was 30 dBL_Amax,S. With the standard trackform, the groundborne noise level at those studios that are near to the Crossrail running tunnels in the Soho area is predicted to be between 25 and 29 dBL_Amax,S. The installation of floating slab track is predicted to reduce the groundborne noise levels to between 10 and 18 dBL_Amax,S.

82. The Promoter therefore believed that the provision of floating slab track as the permanent track support system in the Crossrail running tunnels in the Soho area was the most effective mitigation measure that can be taken for these sound recording studios. The Committee accepted that the mitigation measures in place would be sufficient to protect the Soho Sound Industry.

Liverpool Street Station

83. Liverpool Street station is one of the Capital's major railway stations. It is also an extremely busy London Underground station in the north eastern corner of the City of London. It is the southern terminus of the Great Eastern Main Line, and is the main departure point from London to destinations in the East of England not served by the East Coast Main Line from King's Cross. One of seventeen stations managed by Network Rail, it also serves commuter services to parts of East London and Essex. It is said to be one of the busiest stations in the United Kingdom, with 123 million travellers each year, having exits to Bishopsgate, Liverpool Street and the Broadgate development.

84. The Crossrail scheme connects to Liverpool Street station, enabling passengers travelling from the east to access this transport hub. The Committee heard the petition of British Land who expressed their concern as follows: 'that at Liverpool Street Station, the Promoter is proposing to provide an inadequate ticket hall. Passengers alighting from Crossrail who choose to exit at the eastern ends of the Crossrail platforms underground will be disgorged into, and clash with, those entering and leaving the escalators which serve the Central Line underground in that part of Liverpool Street Station. They will clash with those entering and leaving the Metropolitan and Circle Line, the so-called 'sub-surface lines', as I think the experts call them. They will clash with National Rail passengers entering the ticket gates as Crossrail passengers and exiting London Underground Limited passengers leave the same gates. The gates themselves will remain seriously constrained'.[26]

85. The Committee was asked to consider a variety of issues at Liverpool Street Station. We were sympathetic to the argument for enhancing ticket hall facilities at the Station. The Committee asked the Promoter to find a way forward that was acceptable to both parties and in June 2006, all parties returned to update the Committee. The Promoter told the Committee that they had discussed a number of options with the City and British Land and had finally narrowed this down to five options. We should state that the options had unusual numbering due to the number of previous versions discarded by the Promoter and the Petitioners. The Committee was asked to consider options: 3b, 4c, 5a, 5b and 7a.

86. Option 3b focused on changing the gateline in the underground tickethall. Option 4c and both of the option 5s, involved moving the works to the east into the existing post office railway vaults. The work would enable an extension of the ticket hall into this area.[27]

87. Option 5a involved building escalators from the London Underground ticket hall directly up to the street. Option 5b would have involved the same work in the ticket hall as 4c, however, instead of putting escalators into the London Underground ticket hall, two escalators would be added onto the existing Network Rail escalators.

88. Option 7a would involve breaking through a wall into the existing sub-station and building an additional free-standing ticket hall extending up to surface level. It was not directly connected with ticket hall B.

89. We have carefully considered the final options presented to the Committee and asked the Promoter to amend the Bill to enable options 3b and 7a with the extended gate line, removing the necessary retail units, to come forward as an integral part of the Crossrail project at Liverpool Street station. We are not convinced that it was reasonable to pursue option 4c. Equally, we are not persuaded that the implementation of option 7a should be delayed.

90. The Promoter accepted the Committee's decision and brought forward an additional provision to enable options 3b and 7a to be constructed. This development will ensure that Liverpool Street station remains a functional transport hub and we are confident that it will help end years of over-crowding in this thriving station, giving London's commuters the space they so desperately need.

Spitalfields

91. The Committee heard a great deal of concern from the people in the Spitalfields area, especially those affected by the Hanbury Street shaft.

92. We were concerned that there has been a lack of clear information about the project in the area and we agree that a certain amount of action is necessary in the locality immediately. We were also concerned by local residents' claims that there were times when they have not been properly informed and were poorly advised during the consultation process. This had led to huge concern and distress in the local area about the extent of the Crossrail project. We have heard a great deal of evidence in Committee and we wanted to reassure the community that the scale of the works and the length of construction in the area have been largely overestimated by some residents.

LOCAL MONITORING BODY

93. We believe that the Crossrail project must revisit the problems in the Spitalfields area. We asked the Promoter to set up a monitoring body with Tower Hamlets Borough Council and representatives within the community, especially those from the local schools affected by the works. We expect this body to meet monthly in order to provide up-to-date information to local residents about the project.

94. The Promoter agreed and acted on the concerns of the Committee. However, we were told by Petitioners that the Promoter had not done enough to set up a sufficiently independent local panel. In subsequent evidence sessions, Jil Cove from the Spitalfields Community Association told us that the Association 'did welcome the Committee charging Crossrail with the task of establishing a Community Liaison Panel along with other community groups, and the Community Association at Spitalfields were keen to engage in a positive and fruitful dialogue through this panel'.[28]

95. It is now our understanding that an independent charity, Planning Aid, had stepped in to facilitate the first meeting of the Community Liaison Panel and as a result of this a panel made up of local people from the Spitalfields area has been nominated. We were delighted that this has taken place and place on record our thanks to Planning Aid for allowing this meeting to happen.

ONE STOP SHOP

96. We also recommended that Crossrail open up a one stop shop in the Spitalfields area for the duration of the works to enable local people to report concerns and help ensure that the works by the contractor meets with dust and noise requirements set out by the Promoter in the same way as has proved helpful in the Paddington area. In this respect, we would also like this one stop shop, working with appropriate Government agencies, to advertise how local individuals wishing to work on the project may apply for jobs connected with the project in Whitechapel and elsewhere.

SCHOOLS IN SPITALFIELDS

97. We were told that the Promoter had reached an agreement with Swanlea School regarding the hours the lorries in the area will operate. We insisted that this agreement must apply to any road which a school faces onto in the area. We were particularly concerned with access to Buxton Road and the traffic entering Valance Road. We wanted the Promoter to ensure that it employs staff to enforce access rules 24 hours a day.

98. We expect the safety and health of the children and local residents in that area to be the Promoter's first priority. The Promoter must provide a regular liaison meeting with each school to monitor these arrangements and to support the schools during the full period of the work. The Committee intended the Promoter to look at alternative proposals to avoid seeking access to their proposed worksite through the school premises.

99. The Promoter has accepted the Committee's decision that it should work with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Government departments, particularly the DfES, to ensure that the schools in the area are in no way disadvantaged by the works.

100. At our request, the Promoter agreed to work with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to develop a strategy for lorry routes that take into account the nearby sensitive uses, such as schools. Where a proposed Crossrail lorry route passes any entrance to a school that is not currently subject to heavy goods traffic, the Promoter will restrict the hours during which construction traffic will operate and/or introduce appropriate traffic management measures to be agreed with the Council. These measures will include a 30 minute prohibition of Crossrail construction traffic when pupils are arriving at school and a 30 minute prohibition when pupils are leaving. The exact hours will be agreed on a case by case basis for each school.[29]

HEALTH IN SPITALFIELDS

101. We were concerned that the large number of asthma sufferers and those with other respiratory illnesses in Spitalfields should be protected from the increased dust levels that would surround the Crossrail worksites which we understand to be amongst the highest indication of these particular illnesses in the UK. With this mind, we expected staff securing the roads to ensure that access is only given to lorries properly and securely covered.

102. The Promoter acknowledged our concern in relation to Buxton Street and traffic entering Valance Road and agreed to ensure that appropriate measures are taken in agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to control vehicular access on a 24 hour basis. We note that the Crossrail Construction Code will require all vehicles carrying loose or potentially dusty material to or from worksites to be fully sheeted. The Construction Code forms part of the Environmental Minimum Requirements that the Promoter will make binding on any nominated undertaker.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN SPITALFIELDS

103. We also heard a great deal of evidence about listed buildings in the Princelet Street area. We asked the Promoter to come back to the Committee in Autumn 2007 and demonstrate clearly that an individual assessment has been made of each listed and historic building in the area and that appropriate mitigation has been put in place.

104. We are happy to report that the Promoter has done a considerable amount of work to ensure that the settlement impacts of the works on all buildings, including listed and historic buildings, have been adequately assessed and appropriate mitigation put in place.

105. The Promoter confirmed that settlement assessment reports had been produced that considered every individual structure within the predicted zone of influence along the route. The results of this assessment process are reported in one of two ways, both of which are described below.

106. Listed buildings were those buildings which are on statutory lists of buildings of 'special architectural or historic interest' compiled by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, on advice from English Heritage. The Promoter confirmed that an individual report for all listed buildings in the Spitalfields area had been produced. An individual report was considered appropriate because these buildings are statutorily protected, and because they have been selected by English Heritage as being of national importance. The individual report included a heritage appraisal, which established a detailed understanding of the historic character and significance of the building concerned (in accordance with the criteria laid down in PPG15[30]) and in particular identified any features of particular architectural or historic interest or sensitivity (for example delicate plasterwork or fine stucco mouldings). Proposed mitigation in this area consists of monitoring and following best practice during tunnelling works to minimise the generation of ground movement at source. During the selection of mitigation measures , due regard was given, and will continue to be given, to the sensitivity of the particular features of the building which are of architectural or historic interest and the sensitivity of the structure of the building to ground movement. Further, these assessments, as explained to us in committee, will continue to be reviewed as the detailed design progresses.

107. All other buildings have been assessed in a series of settlement reports. Whilst presented in a different format from the listed building reports, they calculate settlement and building damage in the same way as the individual assessments. The Promoter confirmed that appropriate monitoring and mitigation for these buildings would also be provided.

108. We required the Promoter to monitor these buildings throughout the tunnelling process and for a minimum of seven years thereafter, following the completion of the process. Equally, we expect the Promoter to pay for the repair of any damage that occurs due to the tunnelling and associated works. These buildings must be repaired in a manner appropriate to the age of the building.

109. The Promoter agreed to continue monitoring in the Spitalfields area for a fixed seven year period after the tunnelling excavation works and to use the data obtained as a 'control case' to validate settlement trends across the scheme as far as it is practicable to do so. The Promoter also confirmed that under the settlement policy any material physical damage arising from ground settlement associated with the nominated undertaker's tunnelling works will be made good at no expense to those affected, and that, particularly in the case of listed buildings, repairs would be carried out to a standard and quality commensurate with the age and fabric of the building.

61 Princelet Street

110. We considered carefully the case put by the Petitioners who are the owners of flats within the building at 61 Princelet Street in Spitalfields: Alistair and Eleanor Ferguson, Ms Hamilton, Mr Collins and Ms Hatoum. We recognised that these people will be extraordinarily affected by the Hanbury Street shaft. We wanted the Promoter to take steps to ensure that these properties were compulsorily purchased and that Petitioners would be provided with individual letters of comfort guaranteeing that the flats would be bought before the work begins.

111. The Promoter accepted the Committee's judgement that the occupiers of the flats within 61 Princelet Street were likely to be extraordinarily affected by a shaft in Hanbury Street. The Promoter has now recognised the Committee's continuing concern over the level of comfort afforded to these Petitioners, and on a wholly exceptional basis, has offered the three 61 Princelet Street Petitioners - Eleanor Ferguson, Mona Hatoum and Gerald Collins, and Caroline Hamilton - a revised undertaking that gives them the same level of comfort as was given to EMI. The Promoter has agreed to purchase their properties at a time of their choosing from the date of Royal Assent until the construction of the Hanbury Street shaft has been completed. The Committee is grateful to the Promoter for providing this essential undertaking.

Old Oak Common Depot

112. The Committee has heard cases regarding the revised depot strategy detailed in the third set of Additional Provisions. The revised strategy proposes to relocate the main Crossrail depot from Romford to Old Oak Common in West London. The Committee has carefully reflected on the case of English, Welsh and Scottish Railway Limited (EWS) and has agreed that the depot should be located at Old Oak Common.[31] We wished to ensure that the necessary arrangements are in place to protect freight interests and, therefore, we accepted the undertaking offered by the Secretary of State that he would continue to work with EWS to try and find a way to retain as much as possible of EWS's activities at Old Oak Common, if so desired. We asked the Promoter to ensure that if the move to North Pole depot was necessary, that a turning facility would be provided to EWS, if so required.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

113. The Borough appeared before the Committee on 13 March 2006 to raise several issues. The Committee was satisfied with the response given by the Promoter. However, the Committee agreed that the existing Astro-Turf pitch at the Stepney Green worksite was a benefit to the local community and should be kept on a permanent basis if possible. We therefore strongly encouraged the two parties to liaise on this matter to find a solution.

Westbourne Park Villas Residents' Association

114. The Residents' Association had requested that Crossrail moved the concrete batching plant in their area. We did not find this necessary and we were content with the Promoter's response.

115. The Committee did accept that the Residents' Association had legitimate concerns about the Westbourne Park footbridge. We noted that Crossrail had followed the Committee's request to make the south side of the footbridge compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995. Whilst we accept that it was not Crossrail's responsibility to replace the entire bridge, we subsequently asked the Promoter to go further in making the current bridge accessible to those with restricted mobility. We asked the Promoter to develop sensible engineering design solutions and use mirrors and good lighting to enable those using the bridge to view oncoming persons. We also invited the Promoter to explore the use of a traffic light system and suitable signage to show people with restricted mobility if another wheelchair or pushchair user is approaching.

116. The Promoter agreed to require the nominated undertaker to provide appropriate lighting and, if their use was recommended by the relevant local Crime Prevention Officer, concave mirrors at appropriate points with a view to maximising sight lines so that, as far as reasonably practicable, those using the Westbourne Park footbridge would be able to see people approaching in the opposite direction. The Promoter also assured the Committee that if the access issue for people with restricted mobility could not be resolved to allow two wheelchairs to comfortably pass on the southern spans of the footbridge the Promoter would require the nominated undertaker to provide a signal system for the spans concerned that would be manually activated when someone with a wheelchair, pavement buggy or wide pushchair entered the footbridge in order to warn people approaching from the opposite direction.

Marriott Hotels and West India Quay Development Company (Eastern) Limited