Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10340
- 10359)
10340. So far as the noise and vibration issue,
which is another matter which has been raised, we can see there
that two of the most likely noticeable effects, practical ways
of managing them, identifying design and construction methods
to reduce potential numbers of noise and vibration impact, the
requirement for an environmental statement, mitigation measures,
effects of noise and vibration depends on a number of factors
and it lists them.[56]
What are the likely effects and it refers to the use of the construction
code which is what is proposed and the Committee is aware of that
from the various Information Papers of the significance of that?
(Mr Dean) That is right.
10341. Mr Elvin: Unless the Committee
want to see any further materials, I appreciate I have shown you
quite a lot. It is the tip of the iceberg, but I hope that, at
least, has given the Committee a flavour of the sort of information
that has been disseminated further materials can be provided and
if and when necessary.
10342. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you.
10343. Mr Elvin: Can I ask you, Mr Dean,
to deal with the issue of the Commission for Racial Equality?
(Mr Dean) Yes.
10344. We have got a complete, or as complete
as we could put together over lunch, bundle of correspondence.
Would the Committee like copies of that or simply have Mr Dean
summarise it?
10345. Mr Liddell-Grainger: We would
like copies, please, if you could circulate that.[57]
10346. Mr Elvin: I should have said that
the consultation referee notice P91, I imagine this will be P92.
10347. Chairman: We will let you know
in a second.
10348. Mr Elvin: I am afraid it is in
reverse dated order in the way that files are often copied. The
first letter is July 2004 which I think comes in just after the
letter that was produced this morning which was a letter to local
people rather than to CRL or the Department. Mr Dean, try to summarise
this without going through it in detail. Is it fair to say the
CRE raised initial concerns about engagement of the various community
and ethnic groups and requested the issue of equality impact assessment,
is that right?
(Mr Dean) That is true. I think it was the
first time there was formal notification or correspondence with
the project but there had been correspondence to the project from
outside parties and we then reacted to that by formulating a strategy
for undertaking quality impact assessment work.
10349. And can you summarise what then occurred?
(Mr Dean) The correspondence took place between
primarily the Chairman for the Commission for Racial Equality
and senior management of Cross London Rail Links and it started
off by notifying the project of its general duty. There was a
certain amount of confusion and I think it was largely borne out
of the fact that Crossrail had two stakeholders, one of which
was the SRA, and whilst they both had their own equality schemes,
Crossrail itself did not technically fall under the statutory
duty. The project decided in any event that it was the right thing
to do and forged ahead with this piece of work. The demise, if
I can call it that, of the SRA then saw TfL become a major stakeholder.
Then we had the issues of assimilating the DFT statutory duty
under its race equality scheme with TfL's race equality scheme
and coming up with a cohesive and robust way forward. More latterly
then there has been continued correspondence from the CRE where
they reminded us of their expectations under the duty and have
expressed themselves content with progress and welcomed the fact
it is an ongoing piece of work. I think it is possibly relevant
they have not chosen to comment on the race equality impact assessment
nor the comprehensive race equality impact assessment nor can
I recall them commenting during any of the consultation rounds
but perhaps that is all overtaken by the one-to-one correspondence.
10350. Can I just get this clear, of course
the CRE can serve notice if it considers that there are significant
failures in terms of their area of interest, can they not?
(Mr Dean) They can serve a compliance notice.
10351. Has any such notice been served or threatened
in this instance?
(Mr Dean) No mention.
10352. Mr Elvin: I do not know whether
you require any further summary other than that.
10353. Mr Liddell-Grainger: At the moment
I do not think so.
10354. Mr Elvin: I thought it was better
you had the complete documentation so you can see it warts and
all.
10355. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I can assure
you we will come back to you and if necessary call.
10356. Mr Elvin: That concludes the information
I was going to present to the Committee on consultation.
10357. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Have you
any questions to ask? Please come forward?
10358. Mr Akker: I do, sir. Could I just
indicate that a lot of the material just stated by counsel will
come as a complete surprise to many people, constituents and Petitioners,
certainly the breadth of it and the detail. I would like to give
an initial comment, sir, but what I would like to seek with your
permission is since this goes to the heart of so many Petitions,
principally Tower Hamlets London Council and Spitalfields Society
and to a number of others, that I would like to seek whether we
could put in a written comment to you based on what has been said
not because we want to lengthen the process but it would just
be a fact sheet. I say that because the leaflets and information
which have been stated here many of us have not had any sight
of these before. There has been a view put forward that these
were available at exhibition centres, but the issue which many
people have found with the exhibition centres, sir, is that the
exhibition centres have been staffed by people or staff who are
unaware of many of the principal features of the scheme and they
have not been put forward and accessible in a way that has been
suggested. What I would like to do, sir, with your permission
is to ask the witness from Crossrail—I will not go into
great detail at this stage—a number of questions in relation
to what he said. First, could I ask, since your responsibility
is very large indeed, how did you go about assessing which of
the principal areas of the Crossrail project that would be likely
to cause maximum impact and maximum disruption?
(Mr Dean) I am not sure whether that is my
area of expertise. There was an environmental impact assessment
conducted and the results of that exercise identified where the
likely impacts arose and what the nature and extent of those impacts
was likely to be.
10359. Your job was communicating what were
the principal issues to the public which would affect the project.
It has been put in many Petitioners' evidence that the impact
on Spitalfields was very severe, to have drilling machines going
from Spitalfields in a very condensed area was clearly of major
importance as far as the local community is concerned. I am asking
you what level of special considerations of Spitalfields played,
in your view, of how it should be communicated to the people in
the area and to the public at large?
(Mr Dean) I think as a general
answer the response was to use all available media and extensive
formats to invest heavily in the programme of consultation and
to try and provide access to the project in best way we could.
I mentioned earlier that we have had a special relationship with
those directly affected. We have looked to introduce information
exchange so there was a semi-permanent presence in the area during
the second round of consultation and over and above that we hope
that we have been accessible to consultees and I do think it has
to be a two-way process rather than us trying to come out and
give information to parties. There is also the ability for them
to approach us via the website, the help desk, by members of the
consultation team which, I think, was over a dozen strong at the
time. We employed a professional company, Lime, whose expertise
is in planning and staging consultation events. We widely advertised,
we sent press releases to media in the area and I think very few,
if any of them, choose to run stories at the time of the consultation
and we were hopeful that they would; I stand corrected on that.
I am not sure whether we were very successful in getting co-operation
of local media. You heard we tried the radio. I could go through
the list again. Perhaps one area where we were hoping that we
would be able to filter information back to the community was
via the schools programme, by students taking home their work,
talking about a project or attending competitions as competition
winners with their parents. These sorts of things were just supplementary
ways—they were mainstream ways—of us trying to engage
with the community.
The consultation process itself, as I mentioned,
was another avenue for the community to say: "Hang on, why
don't you try A, B or C?" What we did have was some criticism
of inadequacy but I cannot recall having any suggestions that
we could have taken on board to improve the process.
56 Crossrail Ref: P91, Crossrail Information, Noise
and Vibration, www.crossrail.co.uk (SCN-20060614-045 and -046). Back
57
Crossrail Ref: P92, Correspondence between CLRL and the Commission
for Racial Equality. Back
| 
