Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11700
- 11719)
11700. The Committee has been given the correspondence
with the CRE. It can be seen that, although concerns were initially
expressed with aspects of the consultation and absence of REIA,
this has now been remedied and there is a continuing Equality
Impact Assessment and monitoring of equality issues. It is clear
from the evidence, including the NOP reports (P94 and P95) that
lessons have been learned and that consultation with the local
community, including the Bangladeshi community, have plainly improved
considerably. Moreover, Crossrail has already told the Committee
that it is very receptive to the Spitalfields Housing Association's
offer to assist in further consultation with the local community
and looks to work with the Association (Day 41, paragraphs 11040
to 11043). 11701. It may be thought that the dissatisfaction expressed
with regard to the consultation on the proposals was not in essence
a real question of consultation but a manifestation of the fundamental
opposition of many Spitalfields petitioners to the scheme. This
was made very clear, the Committee may think, from Jill Cove's
evidence on behalf of the Spitalfields Community Association.
The complaint which underpinned her allegation of poor consultation
was that Crossrail did not agree with her Association's position
(Day 41, paragraph 10855) and their view was based on the Association's
own misunderstandings. At the end of paragraph 19, I have quoted
a passage from that for the Committee's reference.
11702. At paragraph 21 I also draw the Committee's
attention to Jill Cove's acceptance that the Community Association
was perhaps not as actively in contact as it might have been with
CLRL. (Day 41, paragraph 10855).
11703. Could I also draw your attention to what
Ms Jordan said yesterday on behalf of the SSBA. Clearly the SSBA
has a root and branch opposition to Crossrail in this area. It
cannot accept the case for Whitechapel, she made very clear, and
it is quite clear that their position is that they wish the area
to be completely bypassed. The Committee heard that evidence and
will no doubt judge the matter for itself, but, nonetheless, it
is an important indicator of what the real cause of complaint
with regard to consultation is. It is also clear, certainly in
the case of the SSBA, that there is an unrealistic expectation
that consultation should start before the official consultation.
There have been two consultation rounds, one information round
and then the massive Environmental Impact Assessment consultation,
but the SSBA clearly can only be satisfied with some further additional
pre-consultation consultation it seemed from her evidence yesterday.
A degree of reality, we would say, has to enter the equation at
some point. The SSBA has unrealistic expectations we would respectfully
suggest.
11704. Turning back to P110, paragraph 22, the
opposition which I have mentioned is one which, in a number of
cases, amounts to opposition to the principle of the Bill (see,
for example, Mr Galloway MP's evidence on Day 40) or at least
root and branch opposition to local elements of the Bill scheme.
This is indicated by representations at an earlier stage, those
made to Parliament on the Environmental Statement in 2005 and
the cases presented to the Committee, the majority of which show
a considerable knowledge of the details of the scheme. The fact
that there is deep-seated opposition to the Bill should not lead
to the conclusion that the consultation has been inadequate.
11705. In any event, even if the Committee did
consider that at least some aspects of the consultation were deficient,
we invite the Committee to agree with Mr Whalley for the London
Borough of Tower Hamlets, who made a clear statement on Day 38,
paragraph 9473, which I have set out at paragraph 23 of P100 but
do not read out in full. He effectively says that, while they
have concerns, the Council has sought undertakings " ...
to ensure that more efficient consultation and communication takes
place in the future." He said, "In respect of this issue,
the Council considers that a major step forward has been taken
with the publication of the draft Community Relations Strategy".
11706. The procedural complaints made by Petitioners,
to the extent that the Committee accepts them, have to be set
against the plain fact that it has not prevented both organisations
and many individuals from the Spitalfields from presenting clear
representations to the Committee about various aspects of the
Bill scheme. The Petitions, most of which are in very similar
form, raise very many issues and have plainly been co-ordinated
and articulated clearly by many who raise concerns.
11707. Finally, it is important to note that,
despite the strong views expressed to the Committee by Petitioners
over principally weeks 18 and 19, the NOP surveys paint a different
picture and one which is less subject to the issue of those who
might be more motivated to petition Parliament. It is clear from
those surveys, which focused in particular on Whitechapel as one
of the three most sensitive `boost areas', as they call them,
for consultation, that a majority were supportive of the project.
11708. I have set out just as an indication
in paragraph 25, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of P100 certain of
the statistics from both the reports. The first report in 2004,
P94, deals with the first consultation round and the second report,
P95, from 2005 deals with the second. What is clear from the figures
I have set out there is that there is far more support for the
scheme than the Petitioners would lead the Committee to believe.
11709. Let me just say for the record that 72
per cent of all respondents in 2004 agreed that Crossrail will
open up improved travel options for people like them, and 55 per
cent of Whitechapel respondents agreed with this statement a lot;
73 per cent of all respondents agreed that Crossrail will ease
overcrowding on London's transport system and 50 per cent of all
Whitechapel respondents agreed with this statement a lot; 60 per
cent of all respondents agreed that Crossrail will increase economic
prosperity with few differences across the various subgroups;
and 64 per cent of all respondents agreed that Crossrail would
represent good value for money, rating varying little across all
the various subgroups. The picture in 2005, and I am not going
to read the statistics out because I have set them out in P100,
but the statistics in 2005 which show support for Crossrail and
support in the Whitechapel area are very similar to those which
were presented in 2004.
11710. I, therefore, turn to the next question
which is the first question of substance, the tunnel alignment.
Contrary to the statements by Petitioners, alternative tunnel
alignments were considered, as explained by Mr Berryman on Day
38, paragraphs 9500 to 9521 of the transcript and on Day 39, paragraphs
9795 to 9803 of the transcript.
11711. Problems which arise with substandard
curvature were explained in the first Supplementary Environmental
Statement, paragraphs 6.2.7 to 6.2.9, although in the context
of the rejected Woodseer Option 1 alignment. It nonetheless does
explain what are the implications of such matters. An explanation
was also given in the consultation round two in the report on
that consultation in 2005 under the section, "How have we
responded?" which I put in evidence on Day 40, and I quote
the relevant passage, but do not read it now, at paragraph 28
of P100.
11712. The southern route is not considered
to be an appropriate choice. Any alignment to the south, ie the
southern alignment, would pass through an area comprising multi-storey
structures with deep-piled foundations (20- to 30-metre deep piles),
exposing the project and building owners and occupiers to significant
risks from ground movement. Multi-storey structures are of between
eight and 15 storeys, many with basements, on each side of the
southern route. Many of the buildings are of high quality and
are relatively modern. Foundations depths for these buildings
have been assessed at between 20 and 30 metres.
11713. An intermediate shaft on this alignment,
as Mr Berryman explained, is difficult to locate due to schools
and residential areas. The only suitable site identified was at
the southern end of Brick Lane. The depth of the shaft requires
construction within the Lambeth Group requiring advance ground
treatment. An alternative would be to raise the base of the shaft
into the better ground conditions, but this would introduce a
low point and associated sump in the tunnels at a location close
to the pile toes of the high-density, multi-storey development.
As a result, a low point in the alignment would be introduced
closer to the piled buildings. That of course requires an intermediate
sump to be provided to remove the water. This is similar of course
to the problem Mr Berryman explained of routing the alignment
beneath Bishops Square. The southern route would be about 350
metres longer than that proposed and would add to the journey
time between Liverpool Street and Whitechapel stations. The resulting
alignment comprises tight, horizontal curves combined with steep
gradients which result in poor passenger comfort, increased journey
time, long-term operational and maintenance disbenefits from increased
wear on both rails and rolling stock, rail lubrication being required,
greater power demand for trains and increased locomotive power
requirements and heat generation, possibly requiring larger ventilation
fans at the intermediate shaft.
11714. Despite the suggestions yesterday that
there may be some other motive for selecting a Hanbury Street
shaft site, there is no reason, other than engineering and operational
reasons, which has led to the rejection of the southern alignment.
The Pedley Street conveyer was not the reason for the location
of the Hanbury Street shaft. The Hanbury Street shaft is where
it is because it is on what is considered to be the optimum alignment
for the rail between Whitechapel and Liverpool Street. Those reasons,
although more mundane than some have suggested perhaps of ulterior
motive, are nonetheless important.
11715. Neither the Woodseer Street alignments
nor the southern alignment have any merit for the project, we
say, and they have been examined over the last two years with
the same conclusions. An intermediate shaft is required on the
alignment for safety reasons and all of the sites have similar
environmental impacts. Only the Hanbury Street shaft site offers
the best operational railway alignment. Contrary to Mr Galloway's
assumption, the southern alignment does not eliminate Whitechapel,
but it is simply an alternative route to reach it.
11716. Turning then to ventilation and intervention
shaft issues, even with the revised tunnelling strategy, a shaft
is required for ventilation and emergency intervention, and I
draw your attention to IPs G3 and D8, which were revised in April
2006, and ask you to compare the much-reduced land-take and I
give you the exhibit number of the plan you were shown during
evidence.
11717. HSE current standards are such that shafts
should be spaced one kilometre apart for these types of tunnels,
and for this see Mr Berryman's evidence and his submissions on
Day 33 which I have set out and given you the references for in
paragraph 36 of P100.
11718. There has been a debate about Woodseer
Street versus Hanbury Street as a more suitable location. The
Promoters and Mr Galloway MP are of the same view that the impact
of a shaft in the two locations is likely to be comparable, as
indeed was Jill Cove for the Spitalfields Community Association
on Day 41, paragraph 10849. The alignments through Woodseer Street
that avoid the Bishops Square development would result in long-term
operation and maintenance disbenefits, greater noise impacts,
an increase in journey times and poor passenger comfort as a result
of a series of back-to-back reverse curves. It is agreed with
Tower Hamlets that this option should be discarded.
11719. An operationally compliant alignment
through the Woodseer site, known as Option 2, would pass beneath
the Bishops Square development. Bishops Square is a multi-storey
development designed and constructed to take account of the tunnels
in their current position. Locating running tunnels beneath this
development would expose the foundations, and the structure, finishes,
services and cladding, to increased ground movements. Water-bearing
ground conditions at tunnel level require the alignment to be
deepened by approximately seven metres which would reduce the
risks to the structure. As a result, a low point in the alignment
would be introduced under Bishops Square to keep the gradient
to the Woodseer Street shaft within the standards. A low point,
as with the issue with the southern alignment, requires an intermediate
sump to be provided which connects with the running tunnels. To
construct the intermediate sump in water-bearing ground, that
is the Lambeth Group, will require extensive ground treatment
and expose Bishops Square to even greater ground movements.
|
