Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11220
- 11239)
11220. Crossrail's health impact assessment
offers no substantive support or offers any mitigating plans to
reduce the cumulative effect of raised noise levels, apart from
offering a very limited number of residents living close to the
site the possibility of double or secondary glazing.
11221. This sounds to me very much like a blithe
and irresponsible dismissal of the reality of what it means to
live next to a building site for a concerted period of time. I
would like response to these points.
11222. My conclusion and main argument is Crossrail
have said that they no longer intend to start tunnelling in Spitalfields
and they will not be building a large depot at Romford, so then
why can they not now make another change and alter the tunnel
route from time to time eh one they want, the one that goes from
Liverpool Street to Whitechapel but along the Whitechapel Road,
missing the church, 19 Princelet Street, all the Georgian buildings
and no big hole in Spitalfields. With this route they will not
need to tunnel under Spital Street to Pedley Street.
11223. I would urge the Committee to consider
recommending major amendments to the Hybrid Bill at the Third
Reading to mitigate against the extremely harmful impact this
project will have upon the residents, families and school children
in Deal Street. In particular, I would like to see an amendment
which gives serious consideration to moving the tunnelling route
further south than the present safeguard route, thereby avoiding
major, serious and long-term disruption to the lives of the families
and school children where I live in the heart of Spitalfields.
11224. Finally, I have a number of questions
for Crossrail and I will leave a copy with them and the Committee.
I want assurance that these questions will be answered fully and
appropriately in writing in a matter of days. I would like confirmation
that a copy of Crossrail's response has been sent to this Committee.
11225. Firstly, Will the flow of traffic along
Buxton Street be controlled by gates at the end of the road, where
it meets the junction with Deal Street? Will there be fences erected
on either side of Buxton Street to stop children straying into
the path of lorries? If not, what measures will be taken by Crossrail
to protect vulnerable young children who play in Allen Gardens?
11226. If lorries are going to be transversing
Buxton Street for a period of four years during the shaft construction
process, then I would like to ask, what assurances can Crossrail
give that the park will not be excessively disturbed by Sunday
working or evening working during the summer months?
11227. I would like to ask Crossrail how long
it will be before Buxton Street is open to cyclists again?
11228. If Crossrail does intend to make "reasonable"
practical endeavours to negotiate the right to develop OSD sites
after the shaft has been dug, then who will the money from sale
of these developments go to? Given the current high land values
in the area, it is doubtful that local people could afford to
buy this plot of land or any development on it. Presumably the
site will be developed for sale a commercial, competitive rates?
11229. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Elvin?
11230. Mr Elvin: Sir, can I deal with
the broader points which have been raised. So far as the issue
of the value of the Whitechapel is concerned, the Committee made
clear on day 41, which was last Thursday, paragraphs 10883 to
10894 of the transcript, that they accepted that the principle
of the station in Whitechapel was established by a Second Reading,
and therefore it is not a matter for the Committee to determine.
I do not propose to say any more about that. We have, in any event,
given the Committee an explanation of the reasons for the station
and Mr Anderson on last Thursday, day 41, gave evidence on the
issue. So far as working hours are concerned, as I mentioned a
moment ago, agreement has been reached with the local authority
on the working hours. A final document needs to be prepared for
submission to this Committee so that you can see what has been
agreed.
11231. Can I tell the Committee what that means.
It has been agreed that the core working hours will be from 8am
to 6pm on weekdays and 8am to 1pm on a Saturday . Outside the
core working hours only non-disturbing preparatory work, repairs
and maintenance, will be carried out outside those hours, for
example on Saturday afternoon or on Sundays and even then not
later than five o'clock in the afternoon. That does not involve
the delivery and removal of spoil. Construction related to traffic
serving the work sites will abide by this, by the agreed hours
of working for each specific location. That means that the core
hours will cover timing of deliveries, off-loading and loading
from the public highways, and deliveries, other than a normal
load, will not take place outside the core working hours and start
and closedown periods without prior agreement with the local authority.
11232. Can I make it clear that the activities
that are agreed to 24 hours a day primarily are the tunnelling
works and matters which can be served through the portals and
within the tunnels themselves and matters such as the operation
and maintenance of equipment.
11233. The Committee will get a full document
which sets this out in detail but I thought it would be helpful
to make it clear now that there will not be delivery lorries taking
spoil away at ten in the evening or matters such as the Petitioner
raised concern about.
11234. Can I also say so far as cycles are concerned,
this is dealt with in information paper D20 paragraph 3.1, local
diversions will be signposted and where necessary alternative
facilities provided.[6]
11235. Finally, on the question of oversite
development, that is a matter for the normal planning process
by local planning authorities and where necessary we would appeal
to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is not the decision
of the House or the Secretary of State for Transport, but of the
normal planning process.
11236. So far as the proceeds from oversite
development, if the site is bought by public money then it will
be the public coffers that will take the proceeds. However, as
Mr Colin Smith, one of our property experts, explained to the
Committee, I think it was during the first Westminster Petition
back in February, it is a mistake to regard this as being profitable
because of the fact that we have to pay for the property upfront
when it is taken and then the property is held while the works
are being carried out and before any development can take place.
11237. Of course, there is a holding cost and
the financing of the capital costs of acquisition. However, it
is the public purse that will pay and the public purse that will
take such proceeds as arise from selling off any OSD whilst it
is permitted. The OSD is entirely a matter for the normal process
and in an area such as Hanbury Street no doubt that will be constrained
by the presence of many listed buildings. I have nothing else
to say.
11238. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you,
Mr Elvin. Have you got anything else to say?
11239. Ms Broadbridge: Many thanks you
for your response there. I wanted to query the phrase "non-disturbing
noise" as I find it is a slightly odd term and I would welcome
a stronger definition of what that is. I would also welcome a
more detailed study from Crossrail into what the noise effects
will be, such as the one carried out on the King's Cross development
a few years ago, which I gather was very detailed.
6 Crossrail Information Paper D20 Traffic Management
During Construction, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
| 
