Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9440
- 9459)
9440. Conclusion?
(Dr Bowers) In conclusion, therefore, on these
points, for the Borough to be persuaded that the GOMMMS conclusion
is robust in engineering terms, there is some further information
that is needed. Firstly, it needs to be clearly demonstrated that
the alignment considered through Woodseer Street, and by that
I mean the alignment in a final comparison, is one that is optimised
both in railway operational terms and also in terms of the interfaces
with the existing structures, so that would be an iteration beyond
Option 2, as we see it at the moment. Secondly, in the event that
such an optimised alignment still required the tunnels to pass
closer to Bishop Square than the base case, the precise implications
for the project need to be clarified. Thirdly, if the variation
in geological risk of depth is considered to be a dominant factor
in the choice of alignment, the extent to which this risk is worse
and the mitigation needed is greater for a Woodseer Street alignment
needs to be clearly demonstrated.
9441. Now you hand the baton over, as it were,
to Mr Turner who will now deal with the noise aspects of the same
GOMMMS analysis. Mr Turner, you first of all just give a short
description of the timing of the documentation which has been
provided by Crossrail.
(Mr Turner) Yes, as Mr Whalley has said, we
first got some information about the comparative study in the
middle of May and then last Thursday we received some information
which included details of the likely construction programme and
importantly an indication of the sort of noise sources that were
then likely to be needed in the construction of a new shaft at
Hanbury Street. My evidence is just to concentrate on one element
of this comparative study under the heading `Environment', and
perhaps I could have the next slide please.[12]
That is an extract from the comparative study showing the assessment
that was done regarding the relative noise and vibration impact
for the Hanbury Option compared to the Woodseer Option 2.
9442. We are looking at an extract from the
Promoter's GOMMMS analysis. Is that right?
(Mr Turner) That is correct, yes.
It can be seen that under the `Comments' section, there are broadly
two comments against Hanbury and two against Woodseer. The first
sentence against each option is in fact identical, saying that
the construction effects on residential properties will be much
greater than for operational noise and vibration. I would argue
that actually that is not the relevant point because it is the
same for both option and, therefore, we can put that to one side.
The second comment is that for Hanbury the noise and vibration
impacts on the Bishops Square development have been mitigated
in its design based upon the base case alignment, and that is
the principle that Dr Bowers was talking about just now, whereas
at Woodseer there is an increased risk of impact from noise and
vibration at the Bishops Square development, in particular, during
construction. Therefore, the scoring, which can be seen in the
last column, shows Woodseer as more adverse compared to Hanbury
and a justification of the points I have just outlined which of
course, regarding Bishops Square, was covered by Dr Bowers. Importantly,
as anticipated by Mr Whalley, there was no consideration that
appears to have been given in its assessment to the relative noise
impact during the construction phase of the shaft on those properties
located nearby. The next slide is a photograph looking towards
the Hanbury Street shaft probably in a westerly direction and
the light brown building is where the site is.[13]
The buildings to the left, the three-storey ones with the blue
heading, are the commercial properties with residential properties
above. The next slide shows a simple set of lines showing distances
from the new worksite with the revised proposal at 25, 50 and
100 metres from the boundary of the site.[14]
It can be seen that within 25 metres the line cuts through several
of the properties nearby.
9443. Let us just be clear of what the key is.
How do we identify residential property?
(Mr Turner) Residential properties
are broadly those in the yellowish colour, but, because of the
limitations of the technology, it misses the fact that immediately
to the south of Hanbury Street there are in fact residential properties
there and in fact I have been in one of those flats and looked
over what would be the Hanbury Street site.
9444. What is the relationship between those
flats and the construction site?
(Mr Turner) It is effectively down below their
window, where the site would be working. If we move to the next
slide, that is a picture of the corner of the Woodseer site, I
think, looking towards the north-west.[15]
Then the next slide is the equivalent diagram showing the Woodseer
site boundary and the 25, 50 and 100 metres distance.[16]
There you can see that within 25 metres, for example, it looks
as if there are possibly three properties in Woodseer Street itself
which fall within that distance, but certainly further away from
the site than those properties we were talking about just now
in Hanbury Street. Therefore, at first blush, just simply looking
at the distance of the properties to the sites, it looks as if
Woodseer Street would be the preferable option. The point is that
we have not received the proper impact assessment with the associated
noise calculations to be able to form a detailed view of the relative
impact.
9445. There is one thing about Woodseer Street
while we have the slide up. Can you just tell us, and the Committee
may know this already, its current use? Do you know anything about
its projected plan in the future?
(Mr Turner) I understand its current
use is that there is little business on it and there is some car
parking that is used. It is certainly part of the car park for
the brewery and I understand there is some planning consent on
that, and Mr Whalley could probably give you more details. If
we could go back to slide 12, we have already spoken about the
properties immediately to the south of the site.[17]
With the original Hybrid Bill scheme, those properties were identified
as having such a severe noise impact during the construction phase
that they would be eligible for temporary rehousing during the
construction phase element. I do not know for certain yet, but
I would not be surprised if they would also be eligible for similar
treatment with the new scheme simply because they are so close
to the site, whereas, if we could go back to slide 14, there are
properties that close to the site and I would be surprised if
any properties there would be similarly eligible.[18]
Therefore, it seems from that cursory assessment, and do bear
in mind that we do not have the details, that it is quite possible
that once the noise and vibration impacts during the construction
phase are properly taken into account, the Woodseer site could
be clearly the preferred alternative on this aspect, whereas at
the moment in the analysis presented by the Promoter, they have
Hanbury Street as the proposed option.
Cross-examined by Mr Elvin
9446. Mr Elvin: I think I will stick
for the moment, if the other two will forgive me, with Mr Turner
and the comparative position of Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street
and just draw attention to a couple of features. Can we please
go back to slide 12.[19]
Hanbury Street, Mr Turner, so far as residential properties in
close proximity is concerned, although it is not shown on this
plan as orange, there are the upper storeys and the shops at Princelet
Street you were drawing attention to, the ones with the blue fascia
which we saw on the photograph.
(Mr Turner) Yes.
9447. Other than those, all the other residential
properties in close proximity to Hanbury Street are shielded by
other properties, are they not? For example, in the revised scheme
Britannia House does not come down and it will remain as a substantial
barrier to noise affecting those to the west along Hanbury Street
and Princelet Street?
(Mr Turner) That is quite correct, yes.
9448. Similarly, in Princelet Street, other
than those who back directly on to the site, those on the opposite
side of Princelet Street will have the houses which do back on
to the site again as a barrier?
(Mr Turner) That is right, yes.
9449. Secondly, so far as the temporary rehousing
is concerned, of course that was in the scheme when Britannia
House was going to be demolished, was it not?
(Mr Turner) Indeed, that is in the Hybrid Bill
scheme.
9450. And you would accept that a significant
element of change in the new proposals is that Britannia House
does not have to go and it remains there? It is no longer a noise
source in itself through demolition and it remains a substantial
barrier protecting a lot of the residential properties in Hanbury
Street and Princelet Street?
(Mr Turner) I cannot disagree with that. I
think simply the point you are making is that we do not know yet
know and, when we have got a proper assessment, then we can form
a view.
9451. I am just drawing your attention to what
the comparative position might be. Then the only other properties
that remain without any direct barrier are those in the flats
across the road, are they not? That is a block of flats.
(Mr Turner) That is right, yes.
9452. Members of the Committee will have seen
that on their site visit.
(Mr Turner) Sure.
9453. Can we just look for comparative purposes
at Woodseer Street and can we look at photograph 13 which is the
next exhibit.[20]
In terms of the main residential properties, this in fact is looking
the wrong way, is it not?
(Mr Turner) It is, yes.
9454. The main residential properties are on
Spital Street and the back of the photographer is to the gardens
of the flats on Spital Street, so if we look at the next plan,
which is 14, we have here Woodseer Street and we have here in
close proximity a series of blocks of flats which will directly
overlook the Woodseer Street site.[21]
(Mr Turner) Yes.
9455. Indeed in terms of comparative proximity
and numbers of flats, there are far more here than you would have
overlooking the Hanbury Street site.
(Mr Turner) Well, in terms of the total count,
the difficulty is that we do not have the information. The point
you are making about the effect of localised barriers is perfectly
valid and would be taken into account in the calculations. On
a simple property count and distance, Woodseer Street is the favoured
option, but the detailed points you are making are quite right.
What we are asking is that we have that information so that we
can form a proper view. I think dismissing it at this stage is
premature.
9456. Mr Turner, I understand your point and
there will be a further Environmental Statement. I am simply trying
to draw out why in fact one might already begin to form at least
a preliminary view based on some of these characteristics. Of
course we have got some dwellings there, but of course the buildings
in the Woodseer Street site will have to come down and there will
be no significant noise barrier along the lines of Britannia House
to protect the residents here or here, and the residents in the
flats here cannot really have any acoustic barrier treatment because
they are at a much greater height because it is a multiple block
of flats overlooking Woodseer Street.
(Mr Turner) There would be less opportunity
to shield the upper storeys, I would agree, but the standard mitigation
being proposed for all worksites includes fencing of various heights
and I would imagine that the plan would be for a five-metre fence
at least.
Indeed, but what we lack on Woodseer Street
is anything akin to Britannia House providing significant shielding,
so these dwellings here will have to rely simply on the five-metre
acoustic shielding or whatever else is determined at the time
as being necessary.
(Mr Turner) They do not have a Britannia House
to protect them, yes, that is correct.
9457. Thank you. Can I then just turn please
to Dr Bowers. I just want to deal with the possibility of revising
the alignment and can we look at exhibit 8, please.[22]
Could you zoom in a little bit so that we can have the end of
Whitechapel to Liverpool Street but just a little bit more visible
detail. As I understand the situation, it was thought that there
may be some scope for further iterations of this alignment to
allow the track to go slightly further to the north to produce
a tighter curve and possibly miss Bishops Square.
(Dr Bowers) That was not the suggestion.
The observation was firstly associated with this section of the
curve west of Whitechapel. That section of the curve is of the
order of 600 or 700 metres radius, depending on which tunnel you
look at, which is a rather greater radius than the minimum desirable,
which clearly one wishes to stay within. If one were to tighten
that curve—and I exaggerate because it is necessary on this
scale—one would reach a point somewhere more in this direction
and could then go back into a curve the other way. Again, I exaggerate
the difference in angle but it would pass through the shaft, say,
more towards that orientation and that would have an effect down
here. Putting it in numerical terms, the differences are small
but we are only looking at a few metres over here in plan.
9458. I will ask Mr Berryman just to give a
view on this. The Committee knows our concern and I will get Mr
Berryman to explain the position. Our concern—and as Mr
Berryman will explain, there has been considerable consideration
given to alternative alignments—is that the curve here gets
tighter. Are you aware that the curve going into Liverpool Street
is already substandard and that any further tightening of that
curve will be unacceptable?
(Dr Bowers) Yes, the curve in this area is,
I believe, around 300 metres radius minimum which is, as you say,
substandard and we would not be anticipating any change that made
that worse.
9459. The risk here of course is if that curve
is tightened by any change in alignment it has unacceptable effects
at the western end of Liverpool Street, does it not?
(Dr Bowers) Indeed, which is exactly why we
would not seek any tightening of that curve.
12 Committee Ref: A110, View of Woodseer Street (TOWHLB-21805B-011). Back
13
Committee Ref: A110, Crossrail-Impact of Proposed Worksites
in the Spitalfields Area (Hanbury Street Worksite) (TOWHLB-21805B-012). Back
14
Committee Ref: A110, View of Woodseer Street (TOWHLB-21805B-013). Back
15
Committee Ref: A110, Crossrail-Impact of Proposed Worksites
in the Spitalfields Area (Woodseer Street Worksite) (TOWHLB-21805B-014). Back
16
Committee Ref: A110, Crossrail-Impact of Proposed Worksites
in the Spitalfields Area (Hanbury Street Worksite) (TOWHLB-21805B-012). Back
17
Committee Ref: A110, Crossrail-Impact of Proposed Worksites
in the Spitalfields Area (Woodseer Street Worksite) (TOWHLB-21805B-014). Back
18
Committee Ref: A110, Crossrail-Impact of Proposed Worksites
in the Spitalfields Area (Hanbury Street Worksite) (TOWHLB-21805B-012). Back
19
Committee Ref: A110, View of Woodseer Street (TOWHLB-21805B-013). Back
20
Committee Ref: A110, Crossrail-Impact of Proposed Worksites
in the Spitalfields Area (Woodseer Street Worksite) (TOWHLB-21805B-014). Back
21
Committee Ref: A110, Crossrail Central Tunnels-Woodseer Street
Shaft Alignment Option 2 (TOWHLB-21805B-008). Back
22
Committee Ref: A110, Crossrail-Impact of Proposed Worksites
in the Spitalfields Area (Hanbury Street Worksite) (TOWHLB-21805B-012). Back
| 
