Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10200
- 10219)
10200. I am equally concerned about the loss
of this kind of amenity value in this area, and I think we all
appreciate how vital this particular centre and stadium complex
is and I hate the loss of football pitches, that is my personal
interest and I tell you without any concerns whatsoever, and particularly
in areas of this kind. I believe they make a major contribution
to the well-being of areas of this kind, and certainly I gained
a lot of benefit from them, so I want to be absolutely sure that
the Promoters do not see a particularly nice green bit as an easy
way of solving their problems. I really am looking for an assurance
from you to that end, particularly in relation to sites of this
kind, because I think it has been too easily done and that does
not encourage me very much.
10201. Mr Mould: Sir, I can assure you
that that is not what has motivated this, that is to say taking
the easy option in that way. In this case, although I have not
troubled the Committee with it because, frankly, it seemed to
me that it was not necessary to trouble the Committee in that
way, the selection of this location for the shaft has been the
result of an optioneering exercise in order to identify what was,
on balance, taking account of the considerations that you have
mentioned amongst other considerations, operational and otherwise,
the optimum as to location. Within that context I hope I made
it clear that the Promoters are very conscious of the need, both
during the construction phase and permanently, to keep the impact
of this structure and this site to the minimum that we reasonably
can, and to ensure in particular that the recreational facilities
that exist are not lost but are relocated insofar as they are
directly affected by the Crossrail works, and relocated in advance
of the works so that the actual loss to the users is kept to the
minimum. I hope that gives you reassurance.
10202. Mr Binley: Thank you very much.
I think both of our comments are on record and that is important.
10203. Mr Mould: Indeed.
10204. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Lyon and
Mr Sinden, thank very much indeed. I now call Mr Akker.
The Petition of The Spitalfields Trust.
Mr John Akker appeared as Agent.
The Petition of J Akker & E Hill.
Mr John Akker appeared as Agent.
The Petition of Oliver Theis & Others.
Mr John Akker appeared as Agent.
The Petition of Ali Nehru & Others.
Mr John Akker appeared as Agent.
10205. Mr Akker: Sir, I have documents
which I want to rely on. There are only two documents here which
the Committee or counsel has not seen before, and I have got 24
copies here.[4]
10206. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you.
10207. Mr Akker: Thank you. I very much
welcome the opportunity to address this Select Committee. You
will be glad to hear I will not repeat the comments of others
yesterday that were heard or those previously. I know that a number
of members of the Select Committee were not present yesterday
but I am very much aware that they will read very carefully the
evidence which was given yesterday by Spitalfields Society, a
leading preservation society of the East End of London, and also
some residents, notably Huguenot Court Limited, in respect of
that, and various assurances were given by counsel for Crossrail
in relation to that.
10208. As an aside I would like to just say
that there was a lot of concern, and I act for and, I should say,
I am going to deal with petitions 227, 228 and 229 together, because
I feel that would be very helpful to you and would save time.
10209. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much.
10210. Mr Akker: I say not with too much
criticism, sir, I hope, that a lot of concerns particularly of
Huguenot Court could have been addressed much earlier and could
have been dealt with by meetings between the Promoters and people
in the area, and that would have saved quite a considerable amount
of expense and worry, but I will leave that point.
10211. There are four distinct points I want
to submit to the Select Committee on behalf of all the Petitioners
that are noted there. It is not that I do not feel very strongly
about all the other points there, because I do, nor do I think
that they are not of equal importance; it is just that I want
to concentrate on certain themes which I think ought to be brought
to the attention of the Select Committee.
10212. May I first say, sir, who I am and why
I want to present those petitions on behalf of those listed. I
am a resident of Spitalfields, and have been for the past eleven
years. I was born within one mile of Spitalfields, and it is quite
a remarkable area. I do not class myself as an important person
but there are very notable people who have been born in that area,
people like Max Bygraves, and I am trying to think of one of the
other stand-up comics which will come to me, but it is a remarkable
area in the East End of London for people who have been associated
with it.
10213. I am a member of the ward party of the
Labour Party in that area and am a member of the management committee
of the constituency party. I say that because I want to make certain
that this is known for the record. Professionally, sir, I am a
board member of the Refugee Council for England and the Immigration
Advisory Service. Both bodies are pre-eminent in the field of
refugees, immigration and related matters, and I have close contacts
with community organisations and NGOs that deal with refugees
and other minority communities. I am a specialist in refugee matters
and have close dealings with many communities in London and I
hold a visiting chair at London's South Bank University. I have
a very, very close relationship with the Bangladesh community
and have worked closely with them relating to their concerns about
Crossrail.
10214. It was characterised yesterday, I think,
sir, that this is very much a David and Goliath situation in Brick
Lane, and I think that is an understatement. I would characterise
it as something far more difficult. I have held various positions
in public life and, whatever the presentational issues that have
been placed before you by Crossrail, certainly the best face has
been placed upon it by them. I would wish to say to you that Crossrail
has not behaved corporately with much sense in the way it has
handled matters in the East End of London. Indeed, I think, because
of the way they have dealt with it, they have placed the whole
project in some difficulty because of their actions and inactions.
I will leave it to you, sir, and your fellow members to conclude
why so many from this area of Spitalfields have felt the need
to petition. Even those who are not most effective have still
felt the need to petition, and it is because there has been a
dearth of information and because Crossrail has, in my view and
the view of many, been very sparing with the information put before
you.
10215. As I have indicated previously there
has been no real attempt to meet first hand and directly the Petitioners.
As Mr Mark Lancaster observed yesterday, he had written to Crossrail
but only got back the most cursory replies and these had taken
a month to reach him. I have posted a comment about the lack of
information on their website about the Secretary of State's announcement
re the change in tunnelling. This was done on 10 May and it was
last Monday, 12 June, that I received a reply. I also had to inquire
about what the implications of the changes were. This was a matter
of very great concern in the East End and the statement which
was announced by the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London and
the Council was done with great publicity. It was me writing to
them again wanting to know what the implications of these changes
were that had to be done. There was no information that came from
them and this was, I believe, the situation because I was told
it by many other people in the area. We only received the information
which allowed us to consider what the full implications of the
changes were several weeks ago. The preliminary points I want
to make to you, therefore, are there are very grave matters concerning
the way Crossrail has dealt with it, but four specific points
I want to deal with are as follows.
10216. Consultation. I purchased my property
in Huguenot Court in the summer of 1995. Before doing so, I wrote
to Crossrail and I asked them about the impact on this property.
I was informed that safeguarding the route was to be north of
Princelet Street. I, therefore, purchased the property. This,
sir, was, of course, the old safeguarding route. In early 2004
I learned from a fellow resident that the line had changed and
immediately contacted Crossrail. Further contact with them assumed
that all I was interested in was talking to them about compensation.
There was no question in terms of the contact which I had with
them that this was a matter which was open for consultation. After
I had spoken to them and sometime after I learned that there was
to be an exhibition. Sir, can I ask you and other members to look
at exhibit A in the list. This is the first one and it is headed
"Invitation".[5]
This was a leaflet which had the intention of being circulated
in the area. In actual fact, sir, it was not distributed due to
a fault which the arrangements Crossrail put in place for it to
be distributed and many people did not see this. Can I draw your
attention to the reverse side where it is listed Whitechapel and
the Community Room in Wodeham Gardens.[6]
The first thing to note I would say looking at this leaflet is
if you received this leaflet, would you think your area was seriously
at risk? Would you think in the words of Mr Roy Adams yesterday
appearing as a witness for the Spitalfields Society that this
was going to be one of the largest construction sites in Europe?
I think not. It does not in any way show clearly why persons would
need to be worried about the size and difficulty of the construction.
The other thing that I would draw to your attention to, sir, is
that many people's native language in Spitalfields is not English.
I ask, had any thought been given to diversity and equal opportunities
issues relating to this? It says that further copies are available
in other languages, but, of course, it does beg the question if
you do not speak the native language to start with how would you
know they are available? I would put it to you, sir, that given
the length of time of the exhibition, which was barely two afternoons,
given the fact it does not describe in any great detail what is
happening in the area, given the fact there certainly were not
copies being made available freely in the languages that was said,
I would say this is not a fair way of portraying a major construction
site or a major construction exercise. Mr Berryman in his evidence
on 7 June referred to the considerable amount of issues in this
area and subsequently how much time it had taken Crossrail to
consider this. He said in column 9509 on 7 June that the consideration
of issues in this area had taken "dozens of man years"
and, indeed, this was repeated yesterday. This does surprise me
in the sense that certainly, as far as the social issues and relating
to the impact and explanation of what was happening, there was
not this degree of attention. There may have been meetings internally
in Crossrail relating to what was happening in Spitalfields. Certainly
as far as public awareness and public contact, I do not think
that can be said. I dare say, if Crossrail had done its planning
properly, it should have anticipated the great deal of indignation
that would have been come about because of a plan to dig and to
have a ventilation shaft so near Brick Lane. I have to say that
all the consequences of the scheme were fairly explained to Crossrail.
After the lack of information we obtained, we obtained the support
of Mr John Biggs who was the GLA member and the league member
on behalf of the GLA for transport, and meetings were held with
Crossrail. It is the position that Crossrail still explained the
building work in Hanbury Street as a primary ventilation shaft
and not the tunneling site. This is a really key issue for a lot
of the residents, that only in recent years has it been portrayed
as a major tunneling site. It was a matter of great concern at
the time that neither Crossrail nor the London Borough of Tower
Hamlets had any meetings at all. I was equally concerned with
Tower Hamlets at that stage. Both were waving away protesters,
as were Crossrail, saying that the fears were greatly overplayed
and that there were real benefits. The important point here, sir,
I believe, is there was no transparency or plain speaking with
the local community about what was happening. The only meetings
that were held were by local residents. There have been at least
three in recent years. May I draw your attention, sir, to A2 which
is one such meeting which was held in May 2004.[7]
You will see that the resolution, which is given here, is how
many people attended and the breadth of the organisations which
were present from both the Bangladeshi and the resident population.
There was not any input from Crossrail apart from one meeting
in the House of Commons, but even that was not a public meeting;
it was by invitation only. I organised a meeting with the Mayor
attended by six leading members of the Bangladeshi community during
its consideration of the various stages of consultation, but it
was stated again that the proposal was just a ventilation shaft
by the Mayor, and Mr Berryman did little to correct this impression.
Tower Hamlets' Petition also indicated many of the general concerns
about Crossrail and the lack of invitation. I know, sir, you have
their Petition, but I am anxious it is not lost for two reasons.
The lack of consultation was very keenly felt at all local levels
of the local authority both at member level and officer level.
Whatever—and I say this with some amusement—harmony
that may have existed or broken out this week between Tower Hamlets
and Crossrail, it was certainly not present at very early stages
of consideration of this Bill and I believe the very plain speaking
of Tower Hamlets about the lack of consultation on this.
10217. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Can I stop
you there, Mr Akker. We have taken your points on board. These
have been explored over the last few days, as you are well aware.
We are fully aware of them. Unfortunately, you missed at the start
of this morning, where I made it very clear as Chairman we are
very unhappy, as a Committee, that information has not been passed
down to you and others, that has been made abundantly clear. The
points you are making, we take on board, we accept and we understand.
What I ask you now is to move on from this. You have made the
point, you cannot make it any more clearly than you have done
and we are grateful to that. Can you now move on to the other
points you have?
10218. Mr Akker: Sorry I missed that
assurance earlier.
10219. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I understood
you could not be here. I think it is important just to say to
you that we are fully aware of that. Thank you.
4 Committee Ref: A117, Mr J Akker's Exhibits. Back
5
Committee Ref: A117, Invitation to Crossrail Information Centres
(SCN-20060614-003). Back
6
Committee Ref: A117, Invitation to Crossrail Information Centres
(SCN-20060614-004). Back
7
Committee Ref: A117, Resolutions passed at meeting of 26 May
2004 against Crossrail plan (SCN-20060614-005). Back
|
