Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9180
- 9199)
9180. At this meeting the residents raised a
number of objections. It was here in a room in the House of Commons.
A summary of those objections formed a petition six months later
which you will have seen and which has been responded to by Crossrail
six months on again in March of this year. Those core objections
are effectively what we are looking at and in many cases we really
do not think there have been satisfactory answers from Crossrail.
9181. At that first meeting there were three
alternative proposals suggested, two of them different road layouts
relating to access near the cul-de-sac and one which was to use
an existing road on the other side of the railway to effectively
have a level crossing. That diagram shows the long diagonal line
up the centre going north and north-west up the Arterial Road
and you can see at the top of the picture the dotted line of the
area of the cul-de-sac we are looking at. The triangle below the
dotted line shows on the other side of the railway how HGVs, concrete
mixers or whatever, could come around the other side of the railway
and access the site directly using the level crossing.
9182. Crossrail's response to this, which was
in the Promoter's Response Document, point 13, as with the other
two proposals, the comment on the level crossing was: "The
provision of a new level crossing to access the sidings from the
south side of the railway, as suggested in the third option, cannot
be justified. There are dangers associated with using level crossings,
and new level crossings are only permitted in exceptional circumstances."
Firstly, this is not a level crossing which would be used by the
public, it is a level crossing for a limited number of heavy goods
vehicles as used by Crossrail for a limited time. As to the idea
that they are only permitted in exceptional circumstances, surely
it could be argued that Crossrail itself is very much an exceptional
circumstance. To suggest that it is not safe, I can understand
there will be concerns over the use of a level crossing in these
circumstances but I do not know what the rail traffic is on that
line. Off-peak I believe it is something of the order of six trains
an hour, three trains in each direction, one train every 10 minutes.
9183. The solution that they want to implement
using the cul-de-sac consists of dealing with off-peak traffic,
1,500 cars per hour, which is one car every two seconds. Jill
and Frank have talked about the problems when you are turning
into the cul-de-sac of having to brake hard, and I have also experienced
this.[20]
You have to hit the brake lights to warn the traffic behind that
you are turning left. There is also a turning just beyond that,
which is a more major road, which traffic expects you to be taking.
When you indicate left they think that you are taking that left
turning into Belgrade Road. Obviously a very small per centage
of people are residents using the cul-de-sac. The procedure with
a traffic stream of 40mph is to slow down. What you can see on
screen here is the A127 off to the left with the pavement running
through and this is the entrance to the cul-de-sac.[21]
The stream of traffic coming at 40mph towards us in the photograph
has to brake hard to about 20mph while indicating left, come off
the brake lights to avoid the car behind hitting you and then
swing around the corner. This is sometimes not happening, as in
last week when someone finished up in the bushes.
9184. The idea that a concrete mixer could be
doing something similar I find quite horrifying. I do not know
how much a concrete mixer weighs but if it is six cubic metres
or something, a couple of tonnes per metre, you could be talking
about 15-20 tonnes of vehicle toppling over on whoever or whatever
is on the outside of that bend at the time.
9185. Ms Kemp: The proposed curve, the
width of the hairpin, is where you see the sign with the cross
on it approximately through the tree line.[22]
If you go to the next photograph you will see that curve.[23]
9186. Mr Pink: This is one from the inside
of the cul-de-sac. The previous photograph was taken from the
outside of the bend. One of the problems with widening the road—you
can see the width of the road there with the car parked on the
corner—although you can make the road wider by taking that
pavement and where the bollards are on the grass, widening on
that side, you are not in any way making it easier to take the
bend by taking the inside of the hairpin. That is not improving
the ability to take the turn from the outside by making the hairpin
even narrower on the inside. It could be a painted line in the
road and that is not going to affect a vehicle's turning circle,
especially at speed.
9187. Ms Kemp: Can I give you an idea
of size. From the pavement, the grass verge on the kerb edge,
where that sign is opposite the telegraph pole, that is approximately
25 feet and in proportion the concrete mixers are 27½ feet
long. We are talking about that kind of a hairpin to get that
kind of vehicle in there travelling down that road. On that picture
where the car is on the left, you cannot see over the bridge,
that is where it is blind, coming down on that path. They are
talking about doubling the width of the road down there because
it is too small, so we are effectively losing a lot of parking
spaces. We have been given four extra spaces but there are at
least 28 cars which can be using that road. The access to the
parking is going to be difficult when they are rebuilding the
whole road.
9188. Mr Binley: I think we can clearly
see the difficulties and we understand, the photographs are very
helpful. In the Promoter's response, and you may be coming on
to this, there is the possibility of another route. Can you just
explain to us on the map where that might be so we can see.
9189. Ms Kemp: What other route?
9190. Mr Binley: It says in the Promoter's
response: "There have been discussions with a property developer
with local land interests to see if an access to serve a proposed
residential development could be brought forward to also serve
as an access to the worksite. This could have both traffic and
environmental benefits but relies on the developer securing agreement
with the highway and planning authorities, particularly Transport
for London."[24]
9191. Ms Kemp: Yes, we did secure a developer.
9192. Mr Mould: We were aware that there
was the possibility that development might take place to the rear
of the properties on the cul-de-sac and to the south of those
properties and if that were to happen we would work with the developer
to try and find an alternative means of access to the worksite
which might enable us to avoid using, as we propose to do, the
cul-de-sac for concrete mixers and other small commercial vehicles.
That does depend on that development coming forward and we are
not aware that any progress has been made.
9193. Chairman: Have you liaised with
the local authorities in relation to the expectation of planning?
9194. Mr Mould: I do not think it is
even at that stage. This was an expression of interest by a developer.
I will take instructions on precisely where we have got to on
that. The position that I have been told so far is that possibility
is no more than that. What we are trying to do is put forward
a proposal which reflects the here and now, as it were, but we
are leaving open the possibility, as Mr Binley rightly says, that
if things change in terms of a third party developer's proposals
we may be able to buy into that and make alternative proposals.
9195. Ms Kemp: We came up with this proposal
last March saying we would try to find a developer who would buy
the last six houses. We did find a developer who was also going
to build seven flats across the green at the bottom part, the
land running alongside. Unfortunately, that has fallen through.
We were working with them for nearly a year but that has fallen
through. It is a bit difficult for us to say we will run around
and find other developers so that Crossrail can have easier access.
If we can, we can, but we went down this route purely as a proposal.
We did find a developer but nothing has come of it at the moment.
9196. Chairman: Thank you very much.
Is there anything else you wish to add?
9197. Mr Pink: If I could make one more
point which is expanding on the noise issue. In the Promoter's
response, paragraph 12, it says: "The assessment predicted
that there will be no significant noise and vibration or air quality
impacts arising from construction traffic as a result of Crossrail
works in the vicinity of Gidea Park stabling sidings". At
the moment you have traffic on the A127, as we have said, 1,500
vehicles per hour in each direction off-peak, and there is some
attenuation of noise and visual impact by that row of hawthorn
trees there which is useful for screening off the siding from
the residents to some degree. By my calculation the houses are
90 feet from the road. One of the figures I have seen for noise
levels is at 100 feet, and the houses are slightly more than that
but there are trees, noise levels from traffic are likely to be
about 50 decibels. To a pedestrian on the pavement, such as the
one in the picture, the noise level will be perhaps 70 decibels.
Many of the residents in this street are shift workers who need
to sleep during the day. Noise levels above 45 decibels can interfere
with people sleeping. I have not measured it but I suspect the
noise levels there are somewhat higher, although there is double
glazing and an element of people getting used to it.
9198. As I say, noise levels on the pavement
are 70 decibels and decibels is a logarithmic scale and every
time you add ten—50, 60, 70—it is four times as great,
it is doubling with each 10 decibels. So 70 decibels is four times
as great a noise level. On the figures from the Defra website,
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, heavy
goods vehicle noise on a pavement is 90 decibels. Where Crossrail
appear to be saying they see no significant change in noise, by
my calculation noise could be eight to sixteen times greater if
concrete mixers are hammering past people's front doors at one
every 20 minutes. If it is 12 a day per working day with a return
journey, 24 in eight hours or whatever, that is once every 20
minutes and that could have a serious adverse impact on residents.
9199. Ms Kemp: I am sorry, but we feel
as though we have not got much chance to go through everything
on this. If I could bring up two other points. When we are talking
about danger, the pavement running along up to the bridge is used
by schoolchildren from infants through to teenagers to at least
five different schools in the area. Also, it is the only access
route to Ardleigh Green shops for most of the residents, including
elderly people walking their dogs, et cetera. In the early part
of the morning between eight and nine that pavement is extremely
busy with everything from babies in pushchairs and toddlers up
to children of 14 and 15. The same is true at lunchtime for the
little ones and again in the late afternoon. That is going to
be twice the size it is. Everybody is used to that entrance. How
we are going to prepare safety for these children I do not know
because that will be quite a wide entrance for them to cross and
they will not necessarily see the concrete mixers coming up our
road and out. If a concrete mixer is trying to get into the road
and there are children there we can manage to stop, but if a concrete
mixer is travelling down there and there are children crossing
that is an aspect we do not want to think about at the moment.
20 Committee Ref: A107, Photograph of Southend Arterial
Road and turning to Belgrade Road (HAVGLB-35805-001). Back
21
Committee Ref: A107, Photograph of the entrance to Belgrade Road
(HAVGLB-35805-002). Back
22
Committee Ref: A107, Photograph of the entrance to Belgrade Road
(HAVGLB-35805-005). Back
23
Committee Ref: A107, Photograph of the entrance to Belgrade Road
(HAVGLB-35805-006). Back
24
Crossrail Ref: P87, Promoter's Response Document, Alternative
Access Arrangements (HAVGLB-35802-013). Back
| 
