Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11680
- 11699)
11680. Mr Elvin: Sir, as the Committee
is aware, the Petitioners in week 18 have focused their evidence
on the following principal issues: firstly, defects in the consultation
process; secondly, tunnel alignment; thirdly, the location of
the ventilation and intervention shaft (whether that should be
at Hanbury Street or at Woodseer Street or at all); settlement
of listed buildings; noise and vibration and Whitechapel Station.
11681. Sir, we have addressed a number of these
matters already on Day 38 and by agreement with the London Borough
of Tower Hamlets. Sir, you will have that in the transcript of
Day 38 and the Tower Hamlets' case, and the letter from Tower
Hamlets Borough Council to Mr Berryman dated 6 June, which is
one of the exhibits the Committee was provided with.
11682. Sir, we have presented evidence in a
variety of forms. I am not going to read them out but I have listed
them in paragraph 3 of P100, together with some of the salient
references so the Committee can cross-reference the evidence with
the submissions. I turn, firstly, to the issue of consultation.
Whilst there may be aspects of the consultation process in the
Spitalfields area which could have been improved, or where there
has been an insensitive selection of location (I have in mind
the Old Truman Brewery for part of the consultation round two,
though not the whole of consultation round two), but the Promoters
do not accept though that in overall terms the consultation was
inadequate or failed to provide important information in accessible
format.
11683. Sir, at paragraph 5 of P100 I set out
the references which describe the consultation process which has
taken place: Information Paper F2; the main Environmental Statement
in volume 2, pages 65-68 and volume 5, appendix A3 of the Environmental
Statement and, more specifically, for the purposes of the Committee's
consideration of the Spitalfields Petitions, document P91, which
is a summary of the consultation process for the Spitalfields
area.
11684. The process began with a more general
awareness campaign and moved to provide more detail over time
to the point when the Environmental Statement, plus subsequent
Supplementary Environmental Statements and AP Environmental Statements,
together with the background reports, have been made available
as part of the Hybrid Bill process. The Bill process itself provides
an important opportunity for those affected to make their views
known. The process does not end there since there will be further
consultations on the design stage of the scheme, in particular
on the combined basis in this area as has been agreed with the
London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
11685. I have quoted from the end of our Spitalfields
consultation document, P91, at page 9: "A community cohesion
advisor has been appointed to assist the project in its objective
of improving community relations and engaging with the hard to
reach. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets have recently invited
CLRL to work in collaboration on future consultation and community
relations exercises. CLRL has readily agreed to do this."
11686. The Committee has seen extracts from
the information provided as part of the consultation process:
the two main consultation rounds, the 2005 information round and
some of the leaflets (including the multiple language formats)
and information leaflets. The leaflets covered particular issues
such as noise, vibration, environmental impact and settlement
and tunnelling. Mr Dean presented to you the note on the Spitalfields
consultation on Day 40. That is P91.
11687. Sir, it is clear from the information
that issues of concern to the Petitioners were addressed in the
information provided in the consultation process. Firstly, it
covered the Crossrail route east from Liverpool Street, which
included the new station at Whitechapel and a shaft at Hanbury
Street. Secondly, the alignment of the tunnels running through
Spitalfields under Hanbury Street and Princelet Street was shown
in the first consultation round and subsequently. Thirdly, the
originally proposed use of Hanbury Street for the launching of
TBMs and for tunnelling was shown. Fourthly, there was consideration
of settlement issues and listed buildings. Fifthly, it made reference
to noise and vibration issues and the use of the Construction
Code.
11688. It is also important, sir, to test the
claims that the information was not properly disseminated. Sir,
we suggest this: firstly, if one has regard to the report on consultation
round 2, section 9, it noted the response to consultation comments,
including on the issues of settlement and on the issue of Hanbury
Street, making it clear that issues had been raised as part of
consultation round two regarding alternative tunnel alignments,
including the southern alignment, and, secondly, alternative shaft
location sites—seven alternatives were considered to Hanbury
Street. Thirdly, the possible use of Woodseer Street. These comments
could not have arisen for response if the information had not
been provided to those in Spitalfields.
11689. The Environmental Statement consultation
responses from Spitalfields residents and organisations show a
clear understanding (though there is criticism of a lack of assessment
in the Environmental Impact Assessment) of many issues such as
alternative alignments. Sir, as you may recall, at Second Reading
the House was presented with this document, which is the command
paper responses to the Government's consultation on the Crossrail
Bill Environmental Statement.
11690. That contains a number of individual
responses which were available for consideration before second
reading. I draw the Committee's attention, for example, to numbers
18, 19, 22-24 and 32, all of which are from petitioners who have
been present before this Committee. Again these points could not
have been raised if there had been a lack of information about
them.
11691. The Independent Crossrail Referee is
appointed to adjudicate on complaints regarding consultation.
Professor Tony Kennerley, experienced as complaints commissioner
on CTRL, has not upheld many complaints regarding consultation
and has expressed the view that consultation was good in comparison
to similar projects. If the Committee wish to refer to it, I have
given his website reference in paragraph 112 of P100.
11692. The large number of communications with
local people and organisations, set out in P91 at page 8, also
contradicts the allegations of inadequate consultation. For example,
339,000 communications had been received from those on the contacts
database and 6,500 in the Spitalfields area in particular.
11693. It is unfortunate that so much of the
case against the proposals in this area has been the subject of
exaggeration and misinformation. This may well have had the unfortunate
effect of unnecessarily increasing local anxiety. Clearly, examples
were provided by Mr Galloway MP and others in the claims regarding
the demolition of houses locally (there are none to be demolished);
the number of lorries (15 per day for two years, not a lorry every
few minutes, and following a circular route and not doubling back
over the same area); the routing of lorries through Brick Lane
(no lorries are to be routed even close to Brick Lane); and the
length of time for construction of the shaft (two years, not seven).
11694. Reference was made to breach of the Race
Relations Act and a letter from the CRE in 2004 disregarding what
has happened since then and the fact that the CRE has not served
notice of non-compliance with duties under the Act. The Committee
has been given, of course, a complete set of the correspondence
with the CRE, so it can see what has happened for itself.
11695. Mr Akker (Day 40) made various complaints,
but it is observed that he himself was well informed as to the
issues and his stance and knowledge did not support the view that
the local community had not been well informed. Indeed, Mr Uddin's
and the Housing Association's evidence (Day 41) did not support
Mr Akker's criticisms either. Mr Akker's representations contain
inaccuracies as well, such as the plainly untenable allegation
that CLRL has not made clear that Hanbury Street was to be used
for the launch of TBMs prior to the change made in April 2006.
He also sought to underplay the considerable amount of information
available on the website.
11696. By addition to paragraph 15, can I say
that Ms Jordan was clearly aware at the end of consultation round
one, as she told you yesterday, that there would be a tunnel launch
site from Hanbury Street. The letter she showed you, which she
wrote on 17 January 2004, made that absolutely clear, that she
knew that would happen. She refers in that letter to: "The
use of a major part of Hanbury Street as the tunnel cutting-head
worksite for the largest civil engineering project in Europe"
and "the permanent location of giant tunnel mechanical ventilation
extract fans, as well as a secondary spoil tunnel." Clearly,
even in the situation in which she found herself, which was only
finding out about the consultation round at its end, she understood,
from the information she had been given, those key factors.
11697. Jill Cove for the Spitalfields Community
Association complained (Day 41, paragraph 10857) of the absence
of a map and information about lorry routes. However, these were
clearly explained in the Environmental Statement published in
February 2005. The route was explained in volume 8 of the main
Environmental Statement, in paragraphs 8.10.108 to 8.10.110 (route
window C8), and in volume 8b. I do not propose to read out the
detailed references in paragraph 16 of P100. Two maps showing
the lorry routes were included.
11698. The CRLR website is plainly an important
source of information (which has a link from the Committee's own
website) containing not only the Bill supporting documents (the
Environmental Statements, technical reports, plans and information
papers) which can be accessed directly from the CLRL homepage,
but also: consultation information; the sheets/panels made available
during consultation; the information sheets; the Equality Impact
Assessment; and the Health Impact Assessment. At paragraph 17
I have provided website links for these in case any members of
the Committee wish to check those up.
11699. We also draw your attention to the DfT
Bill site which has a link from the Committee's own website. I
have set out the reference at paragraph 18 in case the Committee
wish to check that.
|
