Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9900
- 9919)
9900. I have already told the Committee what
the agreement was with Tower Hamlets, so if there are any issues
on any remaining matters then they can be picked up by individual
property owners. Would an alignment to Woodseer Street avoid listed
buildings in this area?
(Mr Berryman) Not completely; it would go under
fewer of the listed buildings than the Hanbury Street alignment.
9901. Is Crossrail a type of project which can,
given the nature of the area it is going through, avoid listed
buildings and, indeed, conservation areas?
(Mr Berryman) It is completely impossible to
avoid listed buildings and conservation areas in central London;
there are so many of them, it is like a patchwork.
9902. It was suggested to you when you were
doing consultation assessment there ought to be a detailed appraisal.
If you had to do a detailed assessment of the range of potential
impacts for a whole range of possible routes before you came up
with your preferred route—in other words, you had to do
a detailed environmental appraisal of the whole range of options
for a route, how feasible would this scheme be in those circumstances?
(Mr Berryman) For a linear route like this,
like any railway, it would be a monumental undertaking because
there are so many sites involved. As I say, you have to, by reconnaissance
really, pick out the issues which are likely to be significant
and focus on those in making a route selection.
9903. Mr Elvin: I am not going to take
you to it but just to remind the Committee that if it wants further
detail on consultation, the detail is set out in volume 5 of the
main Environmental Statement, appendix 3, starting at page 109.
I am not going to re-examine on it because it is in there in writing.
Unless there is anything else you want me to go into I do not
propose to ask any further questions.
9904. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Elvin,
just one point: if a Petitioner wants to get a report on their
house on the listed status and what will the effect be, is there
any mechanism for that Petitioner to have an individual report?
9905. Mr Elvin: On the?
9906. Mr Liddell-Grainger: On the listing
statement of the house.
9907. Mr Elvin: You mean the formal statement
which says why the building is listed. That is already a public
document. When buildings are listed formal listing particulars
are provided and they are available on public registers.
9908. Mr Liddell-Grainger: What about
settlement?
9909. Mr Elvin: The individual Stage
3 reports—it was part of the agreement with Tower Hamlets—individual
property owners will be able to request their individual Stage
3 reports. There are individual reports on each listed building.
(Mr Berryman) Actually, I think we have gone
further than that, Mr Elvin. I am sorry to interrupt. We have
said that owners of listed buildings would automatically be sent
copies of their settlement reports on their buildings.
9910. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much indeed, Mr Elvin.
9911. Mr Elvin: Mr Mould has reminded
me, because he was dealing with that, that one was produced with
regard to St Dunstan's Church a couple of weeks ago, so you will
have seen a specimen Stage 3 report for a listed building.
9912. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Elvin,
do you have a second witness you are calling?
9913. Mr Elvin: My second witness is
going to be Mr Thornely-Taylor, who is going to deal with the
noise impacts. I was hoping to deal with that very quickly.
The witness withdrew
9914. Mr Elvin: Sir, in order to save
time, because I appreciate there is quite a lot of other business,
I am not going to call Mr Anderson this afternoon. He was going
to deal just with the benefits of Whitechapel Station. That is
not an issue that the Spitalfields Society has really dealt with,
so, with your leave, I will not call Mr Anderson this afternoon;
I will hold him in reserve for a later occasion.
9915. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I quite accept
that. Thank you very much.
9916. Mr Elvin: In which case I will
not call anyone other than Mr Thornely-Taylor.
Mr Rupert Thornely-Taylor, recalled
Examined by Mr Elvin
9917. Mr Elvin: Mr Thornely-Taylor, like
Mr Berryman, you are known to the Committee, as they say. Can
I ask you just to deal with the issue of your view of the comparative
noise impacts of the Hanbury Street location for a ventilation
and intervention shaft and Woodseer Street? As we know, the assessments
that were previously carried out, which are in Supplementary Environmental
Statement 1, were for a shaft of much greater proportions and
for the launch of tunnel-boring machines.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is quite true. I
have prepared an aerial photograph. I do not know whether we can
see it.
9918. It is GEN01-002 and 1003. Which one would
you like us to turn to?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Could we start with 003,
which is Hanbury Street?[62]
What I have endeavoured to do is to show at a glance what are
the main features of the Hanbury Street site, from the point of
view of the noise and vibration effect. Many of them we have heard
about already, so I do not need to say very much, other than just
to present this aerial view which I think does help to show the
important features of the site. We have heard about the reduction
in the size of the Hanbury Street site and the retention of Britannia
House, which is top-left in the photograph. We have heard about
the residential content of the building which I believe contains
six flats (if I am wrong I am sure others will be able to give
the accurate figure), which will under the Environmental Statement
Assessment be eligible for temporary re-housing as well as noise
insulation, if they should choose to remain. I am confident that
when the revised assessment is carried out on the reduced extent
of the site that will remain the case. It means that the combination
of Britannia House and the Princelet Street block do effectively
screen noise effects for other properties to the south and west,
and it leaves us with significant effects, primarily in the three
blocks on the right-hand side of the photograph. In the Environmental
Statement there is some eligibility for noise insulation in the
northern most of those blocks—that one. I think that will
probably remain the case when the detailed reassessment is completed.
If we now go to 002, which is the Woodseer Street photograph,
as has already been made clear the fundamental difference is it
does not have the Princelet Street block with the flats in it
immediately overlooking it but its main feature is that to the
north, the west and the south, the immediately adjoining premises
are all industrial and there is a residential block to the south-west
with an industrial building in between.[63]
Then to the east and the north-east there are some higher blocks
which do have the disadvantage that the five-metre high noise
barrier translated from the proposals at Hanbury Street will be
overlooked by the upper floors and there will be fewer opportunities
for noise mitigation. Apart from the presence of the flats eligible
for temporary re-housing at Princelet Street, it is possible we
may find there is a higher residual significant effect at Woodseer
Street than Hanbury Street. It is unlikely to come out better
from the noise point of view.
9919. Mr Elvin: Thank you very much,
Mr Thornely-Taylor.
Cross-examined by Mr Philpott
62 Crossrail Ref: P89, Properties potentially affected
by noise at Hanbury Street (TOWHLB-GEN01-003). Back
63
Crossrail Ref: P89, Properties potentially affected by noise
at Woodseer Street (TOWHLB-GEN01-002). Back
| 
