Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6360
- 6379)
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.[23]
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.[24]
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.
23 Crossrail Ref: P73, Map Location of Petitioner-18-19
Long Lane Mintel International Group Ltd Petitioner No 5 (LONDLB-503-001). Back
24
Crossrail Ref: P73, Environmental Statement Farringdon/Barbican
Station Crossrail Proposals (LINEWD-ES56-011). Back
| 
