Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11720
- 11739)
11720. Mr Philpott's points for the Spitalfields
Society about the Mott MacDonald Report, "Comparison Between
Woodseer Street and Hanbury Street—Technical Note",
the full reference of which is in paragraph 40 of P100, criticising
its listing of comparative issues, overlooked the most important
feature, namely that it was considered that the reason for selecting
Hanbury Street over Woodseer Street lay not in any environmental
advantage or in terms of HSE spacing requirements, but in the
greater difficulties which a Woodseer Street shaft would create,
and I have set out the conclusion from that report which Mr Philpott
did not refer you to, but is in evidence at the end of paragraph
40 of P100, and again I refer to it without reading it out, but
it is there for reference.
11721. Mr Philpott's generalised criticisms
which flowed from his concerns about the lack of balance in the
report wholly ignored the above section, which did not rely on
the points he raised with Mr Berryman in favour of Hanbury Street
and overlooked the fact that this is a consultant's report, not
an environmental statement. An environmental statement will be
published in due course to support AP3. His wider points which
then flowed from his mistaken characterisation of the assessment
of the two sites were even more flawed since the expression in
one consultant's report does not rationally show flaws in other
materials, such as an environmental assessment.
11722. The Spitalfields Society in this context
also failed to appreciate that the illustrative proposals for
the new shaft at Hanbury Street were open to consultation and
detailed design and could provide for off-street lorry parking
should it be required. Mr Berryman explained to the Committee
on Day 39 in transcript paragraph 9812 that the use of large lorries
would be rare.
11723. The Society also misunderstood the EIA
process which is not to be conducted prior to the presentation
of the project, but is put forward together with the project as
an assessment of its likely environmental effects. It is not a
requirement that the environmental assessment must remain unchanged
or that it should not reflect changes in the project, especially
such a large one, as they may arise.
11724. I ask you just to note two further points.
The environmental statements are specific assessments of likely
impacts as at the time the assessments are made. The fact that
they are "likely" ones makes that clear. If the project
changes and they are no longer the likely ones, then there is
a need for further assessment, hence the supplementary statements
and the APESs.
11725. Also, as the Committee will expect and
has heard, there are a wide range of competing opinions about
impacts and whether they are acceptable. I am sorry to bore you
with a little bit of law, but I thought I needed to respond on
this point, sir, so I apologise for troubling you with it. The
courts have made it clear that simply because there are those
who do not agree with the news in an environmental statement does
not make it any the less a proper and lawful environmental statement.
It might well be thought practically impossible to produce environmental
assessments of a project of this scale which did not give rise
to differences of opinion amongst those affected. The courts have
made it clear that the adequacy of the environmental assessment
process is for the decision-maker to judge, which is Parliament.
In dismissing the legal challenge to the new Arsenal Stadium some
years back, Mr Justice Ouseley considered this point, and I have
set out the relevant passage. It comes from paragraph 203 of his
judgment in 2002 and what he says there I have paraphrased in
the paragraph before, but he says: "It is inevitable that
those who are opposed to the development will disagree with, and
criticise, the appraisal, and find topics which matter to them
or which can be said to matter, which have been omitted or to
some minds inadequately dealt with". He says that, although
there may be some force in the criticisms, that does not make
it any the less an environmental statement.
11726. Can I also respond at this point to the
point made by Ms Jordan yesterday. She was also quite wrong in
suggesting to the Committee that an environmental assessment should
have been provided at an earlier stage. The requirement both of
the Directive on Environmental Assessment and of Standing Order
27A of this House is that the environmental statement should accompany
the deposit of the Bill. That is the requirement of both European
law and the rules of this House and it is wrong to suggest that
the environmental statement is required at any earlier stage.
11727. The Spitalfields Society and others had
unrealistic expectations in demanding a level of detail in design
and information which, if applied across this very large scheme
as a whole, would be unmanageable and impractical, and Mr Berryman
pointed out to you on Day 39 at paragraph 9800 just how much time
has been devoted to this particular section of the project. I
have quoted the relevant passage and I am not going to repeat
it, but the figure he gave was over 20,000 man hours for the principal
consulting engineers and that about 25 per cent of the total resource
spent on alignment design was spent on this section of track because
the sensitivity of this location was known.
11728. I do ask the Committee perhaps to take
notice of the commonsense fact that we would not be fighting for
this alignment and these aspects of the Bill scheme against such
determined opposition if there were not good reasons for doing
so. We have no reason to create additional trouble for ourselves
and the need for such large amounts of work. The reasons for the
alignment and the shafts are the engineering and operational reasons
set out in the environmental information and explained to you
briefly by Mr Berryman.
11729. Sir, we repeat our submissions made in
the context of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets' position on
Day 38, paragraphs 9607 to 9609, on the alignment, and I summarise
those on the basis that, whilst it would be technically possible
to have a shaft at Woodseer Street, the increased risks which
the changed alignment would bring mean that the site should not
be used unless there is no alternative. Since there is an alternative
which has no significantly different environmental impact, there
is no proper basis for adopting an alternative location which
carries greater risks, and I quote to you in paragraph 43 of P100
what Mr Berryman told you on Day 38, paragraph 9521, which I do
not read out.
11730. Since then, the Committee has had the
benefit of Mr Thornely-Taylor's views on the likely comparative
noise impacts, and I give you the reference at paragraph 44 of
P100, which confirms that the noise impacts will be comparable,
although different residential properties will be affected, notably
a large number of the flats facing the Woodseer Street site from
the other side of Spital Street, and I draw your attention to
the annotated photographs, and I give you the references of the
two site photographs produced by Mr Thornely-Taylor on Day 39.
11731. Sir, I turn then to the issue of settlement
and Listed buildings. There is no issue with regard to the harm
to Listed buildings from settlement and the concern of Petitioners
is not well-founded. Considerable experience from other major
transport projects, such as the DLR, the JLE—and I would
remind the Committee of the major works at Westminster Station
close to this location—and CTRL exists so that accurate
assessments can be made with regard to the likely effects of tunnelling
and settlement. Indeed it was in part the need to avoid difficulties
that the important Grade I Listed Christ Church, Spitalfields
was avoided in determining the alignment of the tunnels. The examples
that were given yesterday by Ms Jordan of difficulties at King's
Cross and the Limehouse Link arise from situations which are simply
not comparable. The Limehouse Link is not a deep-bored tunnel,
but it is a cut-and-cover tunnel cut from the surface downwards,
and King's Cross is a large amount of work at, or close to, the
surface over a vastly greater area than that impacted in Spitalfields.
11732. Sir, in paragraph 46 I set out references
to where the settlement assessment process is listed and explained.
I do not repeat those references now, but I draw your attention
in particular to Professor Mair's evidence which explained the
process to you on Day 8 and to the position in Information Paper
D12. You have also heard the reassurances with respect to individual
Petitioners' properties over Days 30 to 42, including at Christ
Church. As those explanations make clear, mitigation does not
primarily involve interventions in the structure of the building,
and I draw your attention to paragraph 4.1 in Information Paper
D12, that the primary form of mitigation is good practice and
steps taken in the context of the underground works, not in the
context of putting in beams and propping up buildings both internally
and externally on the surface. The Information Paper provided
on settlement as part of the consultation rounds and shown to
the Committee on Day 40 refers specifically to Listed buildings,
and again in paragraph 49 of P100 I quote the relevant passage
without reading it out now.
11733. Individual Stage 3 assessments have been
made of all Listed buildings in the area and it is not considered
that there is any cause for concern. The assessments take account
of the fact that a differential approach is required and that
different historic buildings may have different features or aspects
which require individual consideration. Agreement was reached
with Tower Hamlets Council and recorded in Mr Berryman's letter
of 6 June to Mr Whalley which makes it clear that the property
owners would be sent the reports concerning their own buildings,
and I have quoted the relevant passage from the letter which gives
the assurances which I have repeated on a number of occasions
in paragraph 51 of P100. As the Promoters made clear on Day 39,
property owners would be able to raise any issues about their
own Stage 3 reports with the Promoters, and this was repeated,
for example, on Day 40 with respect to the Spitalfields Centre
and Ms Symes' Petition, Day 41, and the references are at paragraph
52 of P100.
11734. As to noise and vibration, there is no
basis, we say, for considering that any issues will arise with
the operation of the tunnels once constructed, taking account
of Mr Thornely-Taylor's evidence given to date and the fact that
the tunnels are deep as they run under Spitalfields, more than
30 metres, which is 100 feet or more, below ground.
11735. So far as the construction traffic is
concerned, the revised proposals for Hanbury Street, which of
course will be subject to further environmental impact assessment
for AP3, will be of reduced impact in comparison with those assessed
in the ES and SES1 Section 6. The main construction of the shaft
is now likely to be two years at worst case with only about 15
lorries per day, dropping to a single vehicle no more than once
a day after the two years. The larger lorries are unlikely to
be used regularly, and the Hanbury Street site remains to be designed
in detail and, if the London Borough of Tower Hamlets consider
it necessary, the site can be so designed to accommodate lorries
so that they do not need to park on the street. As has already
been noted, the routes have been part of a process of agreement
with Tower Hamlets and are shown and explained in detail in the
Environmental Statement. Again I give you the references in paragraph
55 of P100.
11736. The noise impact on the residences in
61 Princelet Street which overlook the proposed worksite will
be such as to entitle the occupiers to both noise insulation and
temporary rehousing under the Promoter's Noise Mitigation Policy.
At the Committee's request, the Promoter has agreed to review
the noise mitigation package to be offered to those occupiers
and will report back on that issue, and I can tell the Committee
that that process is under way at the moment and at least a preliminary
meeting with Petitioners has already taken place. However, 61
Princelet Street and its immediate neighbouring buildings, together
with the retained Britannia House, will provide an effective noise
shield for the majority of other surrounding residential properties.
11737. The noise impacts are unlikely to be
significantly different if the reduced-scale ventilation and intervention
shaft were located at Woodseer Street, and I give you the reference
to Mr Thornely-Taylor's evidence at Day 39 at paragraph 57 of
P100. This appears to be the view not only of Mr Thornely-Taylor,
but of Mr Galloway and Jill Cove from the Spitalfields Community
Association. There will not be an adverse impact on Christ Church,
Spitalfields in respect of which the exacting 25dB standard for
concert halls will be met. I would repeat that we have made various
offers to a number of Petitioners for Mr Thornely-Taylor to discuss
with them and to explain to them the noise implications and why
we do not consider there to be a problem, and that offer has been
made to a number of Petitioners over the last two weeks, as the
Committee knows, including indeed Mr Carpenter last night and
Dr Goodbody yesterday afternoon.
11738. On working hours, the issue of working
hours has been the subject of discussion between Westminster City
Council, as lead authority, and the Promoter. Contrary to Mr Galloway
MP's suggestions, the lack of certainty in what was said on Day
40 simply arose from the fact that the agreement had yet to be
finalised with the lead authority, Westminster. Agreement has
now been reached on the issue and the Committee will be provided
with the final agreement. Can I say that what form it will take
will be an amendment to the Construction Code in that there will
be a new version of the Construction Code and there will be a
new working hours section, and it may well be that we can provide
you with the new working hours section ahead of the rest of the
Construction Code so that you can see precisely the terms that
are agreed. I have mentioned that the general core working hours
are to be 8am to 6pm and that 24-hour working is anticipated principally
for tunnelling. There are of course a number of exceptions to
that and they will be set out in the document which will be provided
to the Committee. That is not likely, we say, to have the impact
of surface working at the Hanbury Street worksite, and the removal
of spoil and movements of lorries at that site which will not
take place at night.
11739. Finally, on Whitechapel Station, although
some challenge the provision of a new station, the station is
a key interchange and its primary justification is the railway
issue of interchange and accessibility. Its provision was debated
at the instigation of Mr Galloway at Second Reading and, in his
view, did not enjoy the support of the Commons when it approved
the principle of the Bill. Whitechapel has been part of the scheme
from the outset and its provision is fundamental to Tower Hamlets'
support, and I give you references on Day 38 and Day 41 in paragraph
60 of P100.
|
