Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11480
- 11499)
11480. Ms Thornton: There are three aspects
I want to cover tonight. The first is a simple point. Given the
revised tunnel strategy for Hanbury Street, and this is a point
that has already been made by others so I repeat it, we would
like to understand whether there is still a need for the shaft
at Hanbury Street. We would like to hear from the Promoter as
to whether the shaft at Hanbury Street is still necessary given
as we understand there is greater flexibility now the tunnel strategy
has been revised. That is point number one.
11481. Point number two is we want to explore
the protection measures that are available to residents. You are
aware of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link experience of residents.
That, it seems, is now a success story in terms of the relationship
between residents affected by the construction works of the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link, the contractors and the promoters. There seem
to us to be some real practical examples there which the Committee
could seek to replicate as one success story to ensure that Crossrail
can proceed along the same lines.
11482. The third part of what I want to say
will be very brief. It is to support arguments on wider issues
made by others.
11483. The point about the need to look at the
tunnel strategy for Hanbury Street is my clients are grateful
for the changes that have been made to the tunnel strategy so
that we no longer need a tunnel boring shaft. Because, as we now
understand, there is greater flexibility in that, whereas before
when you were boring right down to the earth and bringing out
the tunnel spoil you needed a nearby railway line and a nearby
street to take the spoil out, that is no longer taking place.
There does seem to be a change of circumstances. There seem to
be implications from that change of circumstances, ie greater
flexibility about the location of the shaft. As far as we are
aware the Promoter has not demonstrated why the Hanbury Street
shaft is necessary or looked at whether there are now better alternatives
given these change in circumstances. It may be that in this particular
area, we are not saying there are, there is a better piece of
land, derelict land, waste land, abandoned buildings, we do not
know. As far as we are aware that assessment has not been carried
out. Given these change in circumstances, given the impact and
disruption that this Hanbury Street shaft is going to cause for
the next five years, it does seem to be a matter of fairness that
at the very least that assessment is carried out and the residents
I represent receive the results of that assessment. That is the
first thing we ask for.
11484. The second point I want to make is a
point about trying to understand what the day-to-day impacts are
going to mean for life for residents. I am picking up on some
of the debate that has already taken place this evening. If one
is trying to appreciate the concerns of residents and the difficulties
they face, one of the problems is it is very difficult to understand
what this is going to mean on a day-to-day basis for people. I
say by way of preliminary point, the Government has accepted in
the context of the Environmental Impact Assessment that the general
public, when faced with a construction project of this sort of
magnitude, feels anxiety and concern. Much of that anxiety and
concern is about the fear of the unknown or the fear of these
unforeseen effects. By providing proper information it is widely
recognised you help to allay public anxiety; things may not be
as bad as people feel. It is unfortunately the case that the information
that is coming out in this project is not allaying anxiety and
concern. I will not go into the detail of it because I think you
have heard it before.
11485. Mr Elvin has already referred this evening
to generic documents when responding to individual petitioners.
It may be simply inevitable in a project of this size that you
have to rely on generic documents but I think it needs to be recognised
when you are trying to understand the concerns of residents that
generic documents, very technical documents, decibel limits, et
cetera, when it is hard to understand what that is going to mean
for day-to-day life, creates fear and anxiety. If you have got
those problems sometimes you can get round them by consultation.
You have heard about the problems with consultation in the Spitalfields
area and I do not propose to repeat them, apart from making one
particular point that is a source of significant anger and frustration
to those I represent, which is in the round one consultation,
which people now realise was their only opportunity to talk about
a route, there was no explanation that there were alternative
routes that could have been considered in a round of consideration.
You have heard Mr Elvin's response tonight which is just because
they were not in the consultation document or made available,
people could have still commented on them. Quite frankly that
is unrealistic when you have got residents who do not have the
resources, who are acting on their own initiative, to be presented
with proposals which do not refer to alternatives is to circumscribe
what we are going to talk about. It is only now that people have
realised they have lost the chance to talk about a particular
route. I mention that because that is a point I have been asked
to raise.
11486. Having said that you have got information
problems here, you have got consultation problems, it therefore
becomes very important that you move to protection measures. There
is a sense I am getting from behind me, from those who are instructing
me, that there may be a sense of greater preparedness to wait
and see, to see if it is as bad as they fear, yet the Promoter
says it will not be as bad. If they feel that at the point at
which they have waited, they have seen it and actually it is getting
quite bad, and they raise their head above the parapet and say,
"Actually things are getting bad. The noise is getting bad.
The lorry movements are getting bad", if at that point they
felt confident that there would be a responsive resident focused
sympathetic speedy dealing with the problem then I think that
would go a long way to resolve some of the concerns.
11487. Those instructing me have tried to set
out at page four of the letter what the impacts are likely to
be for this particular part of Hanbury Street. Quite frankly,
having heard the debate tonight, I do not think it is worth going
down that route because what I am hearing is there is just going
to be a debate about impact. "Yes, there is going to be an
impact". "No, there is not going to be an impact".
"It is not going to be as bad as you think". It goes
to the same problem, there is a lack of proper specific information,
for example there are no details yet of where the lorries are
going to go in the streets in Spitalfields. I am hearing somebody
saying to me "Yes, there are". Yesterday a letter was
sent saying, "No details yet of specific routes the lorries
are taking". This came from Tom Mantey, who I understand
is the negotiator. The understanding of those who instruct me
is that detail is not available.
11488. Mr Elvin: It is in the Environmental
Statement.
11489. Ms Thornton: We can perhaps produce
the letter.
11490. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think we
will just continue.
11491. Ms Thornton: Anyway, the point
is exemplified in a way by the dispute you have just heard. It
is not clear, there is an element of doubt, there is an element
of confusion about what these impacts are going to be. That creates
the uncertainty, it creates the concern, it creates the anxiety.
If you cannot tie it down in advance you have to provide proper
protection measures to pick up the pieces when they start to go
wrong and that is what I want to look at tonight and try and identify,
and I will do so briefly as I am aware of the time.
11492. At page five I talk about what exactly
can we do to try and make people's lives better. Just to say here,
this part of the letter comes from extensive consultation with
what I will call the Channel Tunnel Rail Link affected residents.
We cannot get a better, clearer example of what it is like for
residents who are living through this day-to-day. They have this
experience, and it is to be relied upon. There is a video available
if you want to see what the residents affected by the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link are saying. I understand that is difficult for
the Committee. That has not been provided but I do not want you
to think that we are not putting forward any direct evidence tonight,
it is available. What the consultations with the Channel Tunnel
Rail Link affected residents show is that there are four or five
very important principles which ensure the protection for residents.
We have set those out on page five.
11493. The first, and it bears repeating, is
it is no good relying on assurances, it is no good relying on
expressions of commitment and goodwill that a Promoter may make
often at a stage when he or she is trying to get the project approved.
That is not sufficient when one or two years down the line in
the dead of night you have got someone who has a real problem.
The legislative and regulatory spotlight has gone, people need
assistance. That comes from legally enforceable binding undertakings,
and that is what we are seeking tonight. So far as we understand,
the Promoter has rejected the proposal that there be undertakings.
I do not have the specific details but that is what I am instructed.
I remain to be corrected on that and I would be delighted if I
was corrected on that.
11494. Regular meetings with the contractor
so people understand in advance what work is going to happen to
them over the next few weeks. A clear allocation of responsibilities
so the Promoter, the contractor and the local council cannot all
shift the problem. The procedures need to operate under the principle
of equal partnership between the residents and the contractors.
Residents should not have to negotiate with the local authority
because, quite frankly, a local authority will never care as much
as residents do. What made the major difference in the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link was clear disciplinary procedures and clear penalties
if the Construction Code was breached.
11495. Further additional points I make very
briefly on how we best move the process forward given we are where
we are in this particular Bill and these particular proceedings.
You have heard evidence on a lot of health impacts, vibration
impacts, noise impacts from petitioners. This generates additional
concern from those sitting behind me as they hear more and more
information being put forward before you, new issues being raised
that they feel have not been adequately dealt with. If we are
to move forward from here we need, those instructing me say, an
independent assessment of the particular issues that have been
raised before you on noise, vibration and sound with non-technical
summaries so that people receiving them, wherever they are, can
understand the outcome of those.
11496. You have already heard detail of the
settlement, I do not propose to repeat it but can I say just on
this point about the deed of settlement, the response of the Promoter
is apparently "you can pay for your own legal advice".
We hear that. It seems to us one option would be for legal resources
to be made available for one lawyer on behalf of all the residents
to negotiate a pro forma deed of settlement which residents could
either sign up to or not. The only reason these residents are
in the situation they are in is because of the Promoter and to
hear that they have to pay their own money to get legal advice
creates continuing frustration.
11497. I have talked about vehicle movements
and regular meetings to understand about vehicle movements. On
compensation, I simply refer you to the evidence given by Norman
Winbourne on behalf of Mayfair Residents, a chartered surveyor
with 50 years' experience who talked about the inadequacies of
the Compensation Code, and now we understand it is not a code.
11498. Finally, on this—it is the point
I made earlier, and possibly it is the most important point—as
and when things go wrong having a resident focused responsive
procedure to deal with these impacts. That means not just looking
at whether people fall under schedules or under thresholds at
the highly technical approach, it means looking at—and I
appreciate this is difficult to achieve in practice—somebody
in front of you who is vulnerable, who is suffering a problem
maybe because they have a greater sensitivity or a greater vulnerability
and being able to take that into account in any discretion you
have and incorporation of some sort of principle along those lines
to assuage their concerns. If you have got irresolvable differences
then you need an independent appeals process that has to be seen
to be independent. That could involve community representation,
possibly not members from within the particular community but
outside the community to involve a greater degree of objectivity.
It might be local GPs, it might be head teachers, the post might
be applied for and advertised, it is about creating a sense that
this is a scheme that is looking after people as and when they
need looking after.
11499. I finally want to say something very
briefly on the two wider issues that you have heard a lot about
and I do not intend to repeat. One of them is alternative routes
and the second is the existence of the Whitechapel Station. I
fully expect the response on Whitechapel Station to be, "This
is a point of principle about the Bill, the time for debating
that has gone". What I will say in response to that is that
is not helpful to residents who, as I have already pointed out,
feel they lost their only opportunity to be adequately consulted
on the route at round one, for the reasons I have given, no consideration
of alternatives. To hear now that the time for debating that has
gone sits very uneasily.
|
