Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10360
- 10379)
10360. Could I go back to my question, which
was there are major impacts in certain areas which Crossrail clearly
was going to bring about. Perhaps I could put it like this. You
did a public awareness project concerned with raising the public
awareness about impact of Crossrail?
(Mr Dean) Yes.
10361. Where was it in any of the leaflets that
a major issue was in relation to the area of the Spitalfields?
(Mr Dean) No, it was not. What the public awareness
tried to do was to introduce the concept of Crossrail, saying:
"Here is a major new railway scheme in London, these are
the destinations, these are the general routes, this is how you
can find out more information." To have tried to do that
on a leaflet, bearing in mind the scale of the project, I think
would have been counterproductive. What it was trying to do was
just to alert the London and the south east community at large
that the project was moving into a progressive mode and that there
would be opportunities, therefore the public awareness campaign
said: "Look, this is how you come and find out more",
and it also presented the project's contact details.
10362. So many of the leaflets you put out were
not really designed for the process of actually aiding the consultation
or the process of actually informing people who were going to
be affected?
(Mr Dean): I think that is right. It was not
part of the consultation. We had round 1 and round two of consultation.
That is why it was specifically called "public awareness".
10363. So why did you not consider putting out
a special leaflet in the Spitalfields area?
(Mr Dean): We did a lot of special work for
the Spitalfields area.
10364. But you did not put out a leaflet, did
you? You did not actually show what learned counsel put on the
pages as any information about the impact in Hanbury Street or
the fact that there were going to be very large drilling machines
put in there? You did not put the fact that there would be increased
lorry movements or the hours of work?
(Mr Dean): I think it was the preferred way
that we would hold information centres where people could explain
this. It would be a lot of information and possibly rather upsetting
for people to receive that through the letter box. There was not
a leaflet as such but there has been a mass of information prepared,
and we have looked to provide that to stakeholder groups, community
groups, they were sent brochures, documents, explaining the project.
You have seen the information papers so not a leaflet as such,
but there would be more comprehensive documentation than that.
10365. Did you ever check that all this information
was going to the people within the area? Because can I put to
you an observation here—that there are a very small group
of people in here but I do not think there is anyone of the group
in this room who has seen the large amount of information that
you have said is available.
(Mr Dean): Well, in the first instance we used
a professional distribution company and they do checks of their
work, and then we look to try and safeguard any mishaps by using
Royal Mail, and we entrusted ourselves to their good service to
make sure that all of the leaflets were posted through the doors.
10366. Can I put it another way to you? You
will be aware that a large number of people from the Spitalfields
area have petitioned Parliament in relation to their concerns.
Why has Crossrail not said: "Here are your petitions, this
is the information we have already circulated about Crossrail?
This is what is happening in the area?"
(Mr Dean): Sorry, I am not quite sure what
the question is.
10367. The question is, if you say there is
all this information available, a lot of our concerns we have
put forward have been about the information that is available.
Why have you not said: "Well, you are very much mistaken."
You could have done an individual reply to every Petitioner saying
that all this information was available?
(Mr Dean): I think we are replying here today
and I am aware that there have been individual responses to petitions
where it is sought to explain that position. The trouble is with
perhaps issuing you with information that was produced, say, for
a round one consultation is that some of it is out of date and
it has been superseded, and there is a need to always use current
information. Well, that was the Bill deposit which contains, I
think, a huge amount of information. I guess this is where petitions
arise—either the information that is provided is something
that causes concern, or you want further information or clarification,
and that is what the negotiation team will seek to do.
10368. Thank you for that. I am reminded of
a question which a lot of people would be interested to know.
How do people know to go to the information centres at all? How
would they know that there was relevant information to find out
there?
(Mr Dean): First, in the ways I have mentioned;
there was widespread blanketing advertising in newspapers, local
as well as regional. There were leafleting exercises, they were
staged in high profile locations. One thing I did not mention
earlier was we used what we referred to as satellite teams standing,
giving out flyers, leaflets, within a close vicinity of the event.
There were events that tried to be local to high footfall with
good access. We also sent out the leaflets to all those registered
on the database. We sent out information to stakeholder groups,
community groups, and we hoped that they would disseminate information
as well, the local authority had all the information, we put information
in libraries, in civic offices—we really did make a huge
effort to try and notify people. There are probably other initiatives
as well that will be recounted in the report.
10369. I appreciate what you say in terms of
the number of leaflets which you have sent out. What I think would
be quite interesting to find out would be what steps you took
to see that it was having any impact on the local community?
(Mr Dean): There was some market research conducted,
and I have not got the findings with me but we obviously have
constantly had area consultation managers in post. We get feedback
from the local authority. I guess the main way is getting comment
back through the help desk, the website, comment cards with free
post facility—those are the main ways that we got comment
back, and sometimes people are not necessarily that interested.
I am not saying that is not true of this area; it is difficult
to gauge whether you have been successful in reaching a target
and, as I said, perhaps we could slightly suffer from not having
a comprehensive directory of local groups from the outset.
10370. Could I ask why no public meetings were
held about this? Why did Crossrail not consider having a meeting
where people could come along and hear at first hand what was
involved?
(Mr Dean): I do not know. There were some public
meetings. I am aware—
10371. But none given by Crossrail?
(Mr Dean): I think there were. I remember one
that Oona King called—here it is, 18 October, House of Commons.
10372. But that was by invitation. That was
not a public meeting; that was by invitation of Oona King?
(Mr Dean): My own personal view, and I am not
sure whether this was the decision, is that sometimes those sessions
can be counterproductive and really what you are trying to do
is deal with sometimes differing circumstances within the same
community, and sometimes it is better to do that—either
by written correspondence, which I do not think people appreciate,
or by information centre if it is general information, but also
then by identifying those with specific concerns and obviously
dealing with those either in separate meetings or correspondence,
but I participated in a number of public meetings myself over
the years, and I am not always sure that either side gets what
they are looking for out of them.
10373. Were you aware that there were some really
big meetings that were taking place in the area concerning Crossrail?
Were you aware, for example, of one meeting at the Brady Centre
which attracted over 300 people, and that was reported in the
East End Advertiser?
(Mr Dean): To be fair I am more involved in
managing the process and analysing the comment and reporting on
it. In terms of what actually is going on out on the ground I
am afraid I would have to get some advice from one of my colleagues,
one of the area consultation managers.
10374. That would be quite an important aspect
to reflect on, would it not, because if there were public meetings,
if large groups of people were getting together, it would be a
really good measure of what was happening on the ground.
(Mr Dean): It depends what they are discussing.
10375. But it was really clear from all the
press that there was very great concern in Spitalfields about
Crossrail?
(Mr Dean): Certainly I have been aware that
there has been a high level of misinformation and I am aware that
there has been constant reference to Brick Lane being used as
a lorry route, which I understand has never been proposed by this
project, and I fear there may also have been some confusion with
another major project in the area which does have impact in the
same area, and perhaps there has been an issue there where there
has been a degree of misunderstanding.
10376. But it could be said that, if there was
any misinformation, it was in Crossrail's interest to put out
the correct information?
(Mr Dean): Certainly we have endeavoured to
try and address that issue.
10377. I will not be long, sir, there are two
other points. Could I ask, since it was raised by me this morning
and answered by learned counsel, about this exhibition in Brick
Lane which offended the local Bangladesh community? It is the
position that there are a large number of public meeting halls
in Brick Lane area which could be used other than the Brady Centre?
(Mr Dean): Of the ones we identified it seemed
that the Truman's Brewery was suitable against our criteria that
we set out. We regret that has caused any level of concern or
even offence. My understanding at the time, and it is called the
Old Truman's Brewery, was that it had not been set up for its
original function for some 15 years, but it was very popular with
the local community. There are cottage industry and craft shop
type facilities within the building and, on the face of it, it
seemed to be a good location in terms of everyone knowing where
it was, with good access, access for those with mobility difficulties,
and unfortunately the Brady Centre was not available. We did correct
ourselves as soon as we received the criticism, and I must admit
that I was surprised myself by a short petition that was received,
I think, with ten or twelve names, and the first two names on
that petition were the owners of the local off-licence, so we
could not fully understand or agree with the concern on that basis.
However, we took corrective action as soon as we could, and we
took a lease on the Dray, which was nearby, so we could re-direct
people there and anyone who did travel would still be able to
find it easily, but I would like to end by saying that we do regret
having used that as a venue and shall not in the future.
10378. And I did hear you correctly saying that
there was a check done on the Brady Centre --
(Mr Dean): We checked the Brady Centre and
it was being refurbished, and it was not suitable for people with
restricted mobility getting access, and when it was refurbished
and fully accessible then we used it in the information round
that we gave. If I have got that wrong then I apologise but that
is my recollection.
10379. Mr Akker: I, in fact, visited
the exhibition in the Truman's Brewery, and my experience was
that the exhibition was staffed—and I have got nothing against
Australian I add—by some very young Australian students
who knew absolutely nothing about Crossrail?
|
