Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11180
- 11199)
11180. I would like Crossrail's assurance that
only the fullest internal investigation will be carried out when
looking at these issues. We have heard much evidence about the
levels of the foundations in the area and the church is a key
example of that. My concern is not just the public building, such
as 19 Princelet Street, the church on 22a Hanbury Street which
is our community church hall and sits above the central route
of that project, but for many residents who have moved to the
conservation area, and live in private houses with shallow and
weak foundations. I understand you have been asked to investigate
the Ten Bells and 19 Princelet Street and I will ask on behalf
of my neighbours for a random internal testing of why six to eight
of these very fragile, historic properties of 80 properties that
constitute the conservation area. I do not think that is very
much to ask given the size of the scheme that is being considered.
11181. Fourthly, and my initial reasons for
petitioning were motivated by a pastoral concern for the neighbours
of the Hanbury Street shaft site and Pedley Street tunnel which
I now understand to have been taken out of the project plans as
a result of local wisdom and concern. But I do also understand
that these are yet to have additional provision amendment approval.
I would like Select Committee assurance that these changes will
be removed from the scheme or least the very best endeavours to
be made to ensure they are. If tunnelling is not to be carried
out from there, and I say "if" because, as I say, this
approval as yet has to be given to government, the shaft, I understand,
will be approximately half the original intended size and no Pedley
Street tunnel will be constructed. However, this still requires
some 30 lorry movements a day in the narrow residential streets
of Spitalfields over a period of some four years. The site sits
between a large housing estate and Brick Lane, the community's
local shopping street, our own church stall, of which I am chair,
sits on Brick Lane itself and has some 160 children many of whom
walk, play and shop in the vicinity around the proposed shaft.
The road dangers, the dust and the noise will have an adverse
effect upon these families; in fact, many adverse effects upon
these families and upon those who attend the other four primary
schools in that part of our parish, namely Thomas Buxton School,
St Anne's and Osmani. Furthermore, these narrow roads with their
one-way system already get heavily congested on a daily basis.
The addition of some 30 lorry movements a day often having to
wait on nearby roads while others unload will only add to the
congestion causing roads to become completely blocked and often
at times dangerous. I understand the planned lorry route is to
enter along Greatorex Street and leave via Buxton Street which
Crossrail, I understand, declared last week in response to Pat
Jones' evidence, to be a local distributor route. Even so, Buxton
Street, I believe, as seen when you visited recently is currently
blocked off half way down. It is not a thoroughfare. This, I believe,
was blocked off for safety reasons. I have been informed in the
last couple of days—I have not been able to research fully—but
this was partly in response to a fatal road traffic accident involving
two young children some years ago. There are still today two schools
right on Buxton Street that twice a day fill the street with children.
I was there last week. One of them is a two-form entry; one of
them is a one-form entry, so there are a lot of children coming
out of school twice a week and entering. Parts of Buxton Street
is still cobbled and also runs alongside our chief area of local
open space where children regularly play. I cannot believe this
shaft site, even in its reduced form, is better located at this
spot or the lorries delivering and removing materials will not
significantly harm this community.
11182. My last comment is it seems to me quite
clear that serious and thorough consideration must be given to
other routes. I am aware a more northerly route is being offered
that would not involve the tunnels going under the fragile and
Georgian conservation area and a Grade I Listed national treasure
in Christ Church. I believe this route has been suggested by Tower
Hamlets both in the past and in recent discussions. My own view,
however, is that southerly route should be considered, making
a much more direct and possibly cheaper link between Liverpool
Street and Whitechapel Street. I believe there have been four
options with four initial studies done on southerly routes previously
by Crossrail. Indeed, I am led to believe the main objection in
the past, as Mr Harris suggested, was the distance between that
southerly route and the Pedley Street removal site. Now that Pedley
Street site is not going to be part of the proposal, that previous
objection falls away very fast. I would like to hear a commitment
from Crossrail that they will consider again a southerly option
of avoiding the distress, trauma and perhaps serious effects of
a site in the middle a residential and narrow streeted community.
11183. Lastly, it has been reported not just
here but wider that this Crossrail scheme has been perhaps one
of the most troublesome by way of public concern. I urge you then
to reconsider in the light of that concern and in the wellbeing
of a large Bengali community, who may have been more silent than
most by way of petitions but undoubtedly will be affected more
than most, if this goes ahead, to reconsider the wisdom of this
current proposal and that shaft site. Thank you.
11184. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much, Reverend.
11185. Mr Mould: Sir, I have said something
already about Christ Church-Spitalfields and settlement. I simply
repeat the point that we have considered the potential impact
upon Christ Church of the proposed Crossrail works. I do stress
that the settlement assessment process that we have is focused
specifically upon the risk of differential assessment, a point
that the Petitioners perhaps will wish to be aware of. We will
certainly share with the Petitioner, as the proprietor of Christ
Church, the work we have done in relation to that building. In
so far as noise and vibration is concerned, that is a matter upon
which I think Mr Elvin gave certain commitments last week when
Ms Serota was presenting her Petition and we will involve this
Petitioner in the process of further site visit and investigation
that was mentioned by Mr Elvin last week.
11186. In so far as other buildings within the
Petitioner's ownership and concern they have been subject of assessment,
as part of our assessment process, and again we have indicated
that we will share information with the proprietors of buildings
that have been subject to that process and in relation to this
Petitioner.
11187. In so far as lorry routes are concerned,
we have indicated that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, as
local highways authority, have indicated they prefer the proposed
lorry route that we have presented to the Committee through this
area. As part of their regulatory role in relation to lorry routing
under the Bill, we will be continuing to consult with them and
to ensure that we negotiate with them for sensible arrangements
in relation to school opening and leaving times. The safety of
children at those important times is paramount.
11188. Mr Mould: In so far as the southerly
route is concerned, it is a matter that you would have heard a
good deal about, largely from Mr Berryman in evidence. I will
say no more about that. We will summarise our submissions in relation
to that when Mr Elvin comes to make his case later on.
11189. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Have you
anything else you would like to say?
11190. Reverend Rider: Thank you for
the reassurances around the settlement of the church. Of course,
that is not responding to my request for random testing on private
properties which you have heard a lot about this afternoon. Also
thank you for the consideration around school opening hours and
a reminder that Tower Hamlets prefer this route. Of course, there
are few routes possible if the Hanbury shaft is sunk at the place
where it has been suggested. Again, I want to state for the record
my concern about danger, health impact and risk with this shaft
where it is and ask the Select Committee to impress upon Crossrail
the need to look at this southerly route again.
11191. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much for coming. Could I now call Jemima Broadbridge, please.
The Petition of Jemima Broadbridge.
Ms Jemima Broadbridge appeared as Agent.
11192. Mr Elvin: The Petitioner is resident
of 18 Deal Street in Spitalfields which is to the north-east of
the proposed shaft at Hanbury Street and is outside the Bill limits.
The property of the Petitioner is about 60 metres to the north
of the east-bound running tunnel. I ought to mention that the
Petitioner only received her Petition response document yesterday
because the post office was unable to deliver it and only informed
us at the end of last week that it had not delivered the PRD.
Mr Mantey, who is the Petitioner negotiator, went around personally
as soon as we found out on Friday and left a copy of the PRD.
I understand Ms Broadbridge is still willing to proceed for which
the Committee I am sure are very grateful.
11193. Ms Broadbridge: I would like to
begin my presentation with a brief word about Tower Hamlets Council
in relation to Crossrail's proposals. The council has never explained
the value of creating another underground station at Whitechapel
to me as a local resident. The local community has been told that
the new Whitechapel station is intended to help regenerate an
area which even to outsiders must seem pretty lively, vital and
thriving community.
11194. Frankly, this word "regeneration"
sounds patronising to people like myself who are already resident
in the area and who are aware, possibly more than visiting property
developers, of what a bustling and lively place it is to live.
Meaningless term like "regeneration" effectively serve
to depersonalise, dismiss, overlook or devalue the community in
which you live. They are words used to sweeten the bitter pill
of the impact of development on your surroundings and daily life.
11195. I am interested in the people of this
village and not just buildings. I thought the last presentation
was excellent and very interesting. I would like to stress that
I do not think Spitalfields should be used as just another Brown
fields site for development which I think a lot of city developers
tend to think.
11196. In my case, it is the village of Spitalfields
and it is a village because when I come out of my door every morning
on the way to work I say hello to my neighbour opposite and my
neighbours who live either side of me if I see them going to work.
We all know one another to talk to. It is a safe, relax and friendly
community that I am lucky enough to live in. My main reason for
bringing this Petition is because I am interested in preserving
the precious, unique character of my village.
11197. I am afraid that my personal experience
of regeneration in East London is that it is usually a euphemism
for just that, development. Having observed Tower Hamlets Council
and the corporation of London's developer in action in Spitalfields
and on the city fringe over the course of the last six years I
have come to learn that regeneration very rarely benefits the
local residents in the local area. More often than not, development
is targeted to satisfy the perceived requirement of city workers
on their lunch breaks who commute to the square mile but have
little or no connection to their work surroundings.
11198. If Whitechapel is to be regenerated—and
it could do with some help—then I would suggest that some
of the planning gain generated from other projects in the borough
could be spent on improving local services and facilities for
local people. I understand that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
is sitting on around eight and a half million pounds of planning
gain monies derived from other developments. I would like to ask
whether some of this money could perhaps be used to offset the
environmental impacts that the Crossrail project will have on
Spitalfields and in particular on Deal Street residents?
11199. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Broadbridge,
that is way outside our remit. We cannot look at that, that is
for Crossrail. Can you please focus your remarks on Crossrail.
| 
