Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7540
- 7559)
7540. Obviously there is another time for design,
and I would ask the Committee to bear that in mind for our interest.
Also in relation to that, perhaps we would be considered for whatever
colour this is on the coloured diagram in terms of compensation.
Our property is and properties are nearer to the railway than
those that are there do not seem to be considered for all that.
(Mr Berryman) I think others would be better
qualified in being asked to give evidence at that point.
7541. Chairman: Just one thing, I know
it is unusual for a Committee, there was mention about a power
source which was there which is open at the moment, and I hope
we can pass on that information so that the area where children
are getting through near to the lines can be dealt with.
(Mr Berryman) That is news to me, as you probably
realise, and I will make sure Network Rail are informed of that.
7542. Mr Taylor: I do not have any re-examination
of Mr Berryman. I was proposing also to call Mr Thornely-Taylor
to deal very briefly with the noise and vibration aspects.
The witness withdrew
Mr Thornely-Taylor, recalled
Examined by Mr Taylor
7543. Mr Taylor: Again, Mr Thornely-Taylor
is well known to the Committee and has given evidence in relation
to noise matters previously. Mr Thornely-Taylor, can you indicate
to the Committee what assessment has been carried out of the likely
impact of the operation of the freight loop upon Mr and Mrs King's
property?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Mr and Mrs King's property
forms part of the assessment that has been made all along the
operating railway. Two kinds of assessment have been made: one
relates to airborne noise from the operation of the railway using
the statutory method of calculation called "calculation of
railway lines". This predicts the existing and future noise
levels due to the operation of the railway with and without Crossrail.
Some baseline noise measurements were also made in that area.
This showed there would not be a change to constitute a significant
effect using the methodology of environmental statement. The second
calculation related to the change in vibration. Mr King mentioned
there is existing vibration from the railway and that calls into
play the assessment criterion that there would be a significant
effect if the vibration dose value increased by 40 per cent in
this area, though there would be a small increase, it would not
be above that level and, therefore, does not produce a significant
effect using the methodologies in the environmental statement.
7544. If we turn to page five in the Petitioner's
response document and look at paragraph six for a moment.[5]
That refers to consideration of whether or not Mr and Mrs King
would be likely to be eligible under the noise insulation regulations
of 1996. Can you explain what has been done with regard to those
regulations?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it is
another facet of the same process. The calculation of railway
noise procedure is instituted primarily for the purpose of discovering
whether or not a house is eligible for statutory noise insulation
and that assessment comes out of the same results I have referred
to and the conclusion is there would be no eligibility for noise
insulation according to those statutory provisions.
7545. Chairman: There was an offer for
tests to be carried out at the Petitioner's property, would you
be able to arrange that?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) It certainly could be
done, sir. It would show a smaller effect from the Crossrail proposals
probably than the assumptions done in the environmental statement
because I get the impression from Mr King's evidence there was
more existing vibration there than one might expect he was indicating,
more vibration at the front of the house than at the back. Since
the procedure for assessing significance of vibration when there
is vibration is to look at the percentage change in the future
compared with now, that would produce a smaller percentage change
than has been assumed.
7546. Mr King?
Cross-examined by Mr King
7547. Mr King: Sir, this may not be a
question for you, but what if subsequently the vibration value
increases by more than 40 per cent in reality? What is outcome
of that for me?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) There is a general approach
to the commitments which have been given in this House that are
broadly covered by the information papers on operational noise
and vibration. If there was an error made, then clearly steps
would have to be taken to put that right; if there was no error
made, then there is a small possibility of some geotechnical feature
in the area which causes unpredictable vibration, but it is unlikely
that would be different in the future compared with the present
situation. If there is a slightly greater amount of vibration
at that address than one might expect, then there will be a slightly
greater vibration than one might expect and there is no way that
the railway operator can deal with the problem which is outside
the railway line.
7548. Chairman: Thank you.
The witness withdrew
7549. Mr Taylor: Sir, I shall make a
brief proposal on Mr and Mrs King's Petition?
7550. Chairman: On the matter of compensation
between one dwelling and the rest, might you re-examine that and
give us a note at some point?
7551. Mr Taylor: I was going to touch
on compensation in the proposal briefly. In short, the new freight
loop has to be provided to allow for the continued operation of
the Great Eastern mainline and the connection to it. If it is
not provided, timetable delays will be caused. Alternatives have
been investigated; there are very few locations between Shenfield
and Stratford where a new loop could be provided. The old railway
yard was partly investigated was too short to provide the loop,
the area around the Ilford depot is very constrained and surrounded
by housing industrial units. The new loop cannot be constructed
within the existing railway corridor at Ilford, so it requires
a position beyond the railway boundary. By contrast the proposed
loop would run on disused railway land and the line within the
current railway boundary would not require the acquisition of
land outside the railway boundary. The impact of the new loop
was assessed in the environmental statement produced by the Promoters,
and that concludes the changes to the railway infrastructure and
operations during the operation of the freight loop will not give
rise to significant increases in noise or vibration at the Petitioner's
property. The potential impact of electromagnetic field associated
with the overhead electrifications is being examined and that
is set out in the RD. Again no significant impacts would arise.
No additional lighting is proposed in association with the freight
loop. So far as compensation is concerned, if a claim does arise
under the national compensation code, then obviously compensation
will be payable. Claims for compensation relating to the reduction
of the value of land arising from physical factors caused by the
use of public works, and that includes noise and vibration, may
be made under part 1 of the Land and Compensation Act. If a claim
arises under part 1 of the Land and Compensation Act, because
of the operation of the freight, then Mr and Mrs King may be able
to make a claim under those provisions. That is my proposal in
closing.
7552. Mr King: Just finally to say, sir,
if the Committee does choose to allow this to proceed the scheduled
works that applies to this freight loop is detailed and takes
into consideration all the points I have raised in terms of reducing
the environmental impact and security and lighting et cetera.
7553. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
Mr King. We will now move on to the Petition from the London Borough
of Greenwich. Mr Elvin?
The Petition of London Borough of Greenwich.
Mr Tim Jones appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
7554. Mr Elvin: Sir, the Committee has
next the Petition from the London Borough of Greenwich which is
scheduled for a number of days. Sir, there a number of issues
including some smaller issues; the principal issues which arise
in Greenwich's case are as follows. The main one is whether or
not there should be a Crossrail station at Woolwich. There is
no station proposed in the Bill scheme and none proposed by the
Secretary of State. I will come back and explain the Secretary
of State's position to you in a moment, because there has been
an exchange of correspondence with Mr Raynsford over this in the
last few days. You ought to see the letter, which I will show
you in a moment.
7555. There is also a subsidiary issue about
implications for public transport, car parking and the like and
highways at Abbey Wood, which is the terminus of Crossrail within
the scheme and the Bill. There is no issue with Greenwich over
the appropriateness of Crossrail generally; they support it, nor
is there an issue raised by Greenwich, although there will be
by Bexley next week about whether Crossrail could be extended
beyond that point, but that is for a future occasion. It is Woolwich
and, to a lesser extent, Abbey Wood which the Petition focuses
on.
7556. There are some smaller issues, but I will
not trouble you with those at the moment. It would help the Committee
by using the environmental statement on what is currently proposed
to run through Greenwich. If we can start with the key, this is
from volume 4B of the environmental statement. This is the key
plan and effectively the area that the Committee are concerned
with runs from SE5 where Crossrail comes into the borough and
runs to SE8, the border lines of SE7 and SE8.[6]
Perhaps we can look at those in a little more detail. SE5 (i),
please.[7]
You will see here the Crossrail line, the dotted line, showing
the tunnels coming under the Thames from the London Borough of
Newham and they go just to the north side of Woolwich town centre
and through the area shown in yellow, which is conservation area
which is the Woolwich Arsenal, partly listed buildings and partly
a major site for regeneration and redevelopment. The line then
continues to the east. If we could go to SE 5(ii), you will see
just below the bottom yellow box which says "visual amenity"
a small green box showing the proposed DLR station.[8]
That station is under construction at the moment and proposed
to be open in 2009.
7557. Perhaps if I could focus in on the DLR
and just to the right of that, you will see the main lines of
Woolwich Arsenal station. You can see that at the bottom left-hand
corner of the screen. If we could then move further to the southeast,
SE 6(i), please.[9]
The line then runs through Plumstead and emerges from the Plumstead
Portal in about the centre of the screen and then going further
east SE 7(i), you will see at the far right just crossing the
borough boundaries between Greenwich and Bexley, which is shown
by the dotted pink-purple line at the far right of the screen,
the Abbey Wood station.[10]
This is currently there as a mainline station. It is proposed
to rebuild the station with Crossrail platforms so interchange
between passengers at Abbey Wood between main line and Crossrail
is simply achieved by walking across the platform at the new station.
The rest is shown on the Bexley side in SE 8(i), that is effectively
the Bexley side.[11]
The Abbey Wood station straddles the borough boundary, so there
are also issues on Abbey Wood which Greenwich raises and there
are also issues raised by Bexley next week.
7558. If I could then show the Committee where
it is said that a Crossrail station should be, or rather at the
location where the Crossrail station would be if Greenwich's suggestions
were met. Perhaps we could look at the Promoter's exhibits at
page 106 and 107, please.[12]
7559. You see via an aerial photograph the Woolwich
Arsenal area in the upper part of the photograph, the Crossrail
tunnels coming from Newham and the Thames and the location where
a Crossrail station would have to be if there were to be a Crossrail
station in Greenwich is shown in yellow with a station entrance
on the south side of the A206 which is shown to the bottom of
that.
5 Crossrail Ref: P76, Chadwell Heath Freight Loop,
Promoter's Response, p5 (REDBLB-10202-005). Back
6
Crossrail Ref: Crossrail Ref: P77, Environmental Statement, South
Eastern Route Section-Key Plan (LINEWD-ES17-107). Back
7
Crossrail Ref: Crossrail Ref: P77, Environmental Statement, Arsenal
Way Shaft, Key Environmental Features (LINEWD-ES17-117). Back
8
Crossrail Ref: Crossrail Ref: P77, Environmental Statement, Arsenal
Way Shaft, Project Works and Impacts (LINEWD-ES17-118). Back
9
Crossrail Ref: Crossrail Ref: P77, Environmental Statement, Plumstead
Portal, Key Environmental Features (LINEWD-ES17-119). Back
10
Crossrail Ref: Crossrail Ref: P77, Environmental Statement, Church
Manorway Bridge , Key Environmental Features (LINEWD-ES17-123). Back
11
Crossrail Ref: Crossrail Ref: P77, Environmental Statement, Abbey
Wood Station, Key Environmental Features (LINEWD-ES17-125). Back
12
Crossrail Ref: Crossrail Ref: P77, Proposed Woolwich Station,
Crossrail proposals, aerial photograph (GRCHLB-3604-106). Back
| 
