Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16620
- 16639)
16620. Chairman: That would be helpful
anyway. Mr Payne, how much more do you have on this compensatory
evidence to do with your presentation?
16621. Mr Payne: I do not think a great
deal.
16622. Chairman: We will proceed.
(Mr Winbourne) I might say,
Chairman, I would like to see that note and I hope Mr Payne would
have a right of reply.
16623. Mr Payne: Why do you say that
level of claim, Mr Winbourne?
(Mr Winbourne) Even where
you only have tunnels, not stations, the effects will be severe.
16624. How severe? I have been told that it
will be light. Has there been concealment?
(Mr Winbourne) They compare
all the time the much smaller Jubilee Line Extension and they
have concealed, or not brought forward, some heavy damage claims
which I have referred to in the bundle.
16625. Can you specify the danger signs for
my block?
(Mr Winbourne) This is the most important point.
By simple arithmetic and by analysing the little sectional Mott
MacDonald line drawing provided by Crossrail to you on 23 September
2004 as Listed Buildings Assessment.[30]
One can see that the dimensions are confusing. Mott MacDonald
show 29.6 metres dimension from ground level to the central point
of a reduced circle representing the tunnel, or 26.6 metres from
your lower ground floor level. But those twin tunnels are each
eight metres in diameter. I refer you to Professor Mair's evidence
when he showed you the Channel Tunnel boring machines. There is
a picture of it. Eight metres is the diameter of the tunnel and
that includes extra depth but that does not include compensation
grouting, which is a huge band surrounding it. Eight metres in
diameter, so from the centre—I am being very pedantic here
deliberately, Chairman, I hope you will bear with me—add
another half a diameter or radius of four metres of extra depth
and beyond that each tunnel has five metres surrounding irregular
band width of concrete compensation grouting to add, making altogether
nine metres from the tunnel centre to the bottom of the works,
18 metres in total diameter. Therefore, on Mott MacDonald's figures
the total depth from the ground level to the bottom of the Crossrail
tunnelling works, the bottom end, is about 35.6 metres or 32.6
metres from Mr Payne's lower ground floor. As your 1830s buildings'
brick footings are another four feet six deep, and I have seen
the original plans Mr Payne has got as the owner, or, say, 1.4
metres below the floor level, those old footings, old brick 1830s
footings, are only 34.2 metres from the bottom of the entire works
in-between. Conversely, coming upwards from the bottom to the
top of the Crossrail work measures 18 metres. As I said, the irregular
top level of each tunnel works, because you do not quite know
where the compensation grouting is going to go in the soil, is
also nine metres from the tunnel centre point which leaves you
with heavily pressurised concrete grouting only 16.2 metres or
less straight down from your 1830s brick footings or, say, around
50 feet. Crossrail running trains' vibrations might well be felt
right through the building. I imagine you might get regular train
vibrations, whatever Crossrail witnesses may assert purely from
subjective predictions, because you are directly above one tunnel,
close to another, which has been recorded. I gather that you already
hear and feel the much smaller Central Line 80 metres away and
I understand from Mr Payne that has been recorded by Westminster
City Council but they have not answered further inquiries from
him. As the tunnels are only a platform width's apart, and you
can see the drawing anyway but the drawing minimises the widths
of the tunnels and everything, possibly the compensation grouting
from both tunnels might actually touch, might be merging together,
and connecting physically according to the ground conditions en
route. If there are fissures in the clay or whatever this will
happen, as sure as God made little apples. That would compound
vibrations. I am talking about pure basic fourth form physics.
16626. What about our buildings cracking up
from structural settlements?
(Mr Winbourne) That is likely,
maybe virtually certain. Crossrail will tell you 21mm ground movement,
which is just under an inch, an inch is 24mm, is negligible for
ground settlement and somehow acceptable, which I say is rubbish.
It may have to be accepted, but it is not acceptable. Also, their
calculations seem to rely upon the Jubilee Line Extension, not
the full-sized comparable tunnels of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
where up-to-date information ought to be available by now. Even
so, I have direct professional experience of a twisted and steel-framed
building with one inch cracks from the Jubilee Line Extension.
Imagine if that had been 1830s traditional load bearing brickwork
stucco houses like yours, and then imagine the tunnels, or whatever,
are two and a half times as big, physically two and a half times
as big, never mind what physicists would do with exponential changes.
16627. What about mitigation works? Will we
get help from others affected?
(Mr Winbourne) You will get some help but not
a lot. The big property groups are employing Ove Arup and others
to see that their likely damage is minimised. They are agreeing
wherever they can to suit themselves, and that is okay, I do not
blame them. They may actually want Crossrail, so they may be catering
to each other and they may be neutral so far as your greater damage
is concerned and you can stew in your own juice perhaps and so
can a lot of other people.
16628. Mr Winbourne, apart from other serious
Crossrail issues for my Petition of cost, routing, environmental
issues and structural damage, do you complain about other authorities
and, if so, why?
(Mr Winbourne) Yes, and
I propose to skip through this quicker, Mr Payne. For years various
Council leaders and others have been sort of Crossrail `groupies'
and there has been massive press and PR support. During the previous
Bill period, and, Mr Chairman, you may find this a bit surprising,
at the consultation meetings run by Crossrail, the Westminster
Planning Officer would come in and sit with them virtually as
part of the team.
16629. Can you point to any overriding fatal
flaws in Crossrail's plan? Is there any one particular issue which
should put back Crossrail's programme for further consideration
regardless of all else?
(Mr Winbourne) Yes, it is the danger at Oxford
Circus which they are not addressing. There have been failures
of duty on all sides by not addressing Crossrail's predictable
worsening of serious overcrowding in Oxford Circus Station and
Oxford Street. Years ago, public safety issues caused Crossrail
to be shut out of any direct connection to Oxford Circus with
a proper double-ended station. Ever since then, those continuing
problems have been sidestepped by the planners. A separate Crossrail
station entrance in Hanover Square will not prevent passengers
who want to change trains simply walking between, as Crossrail
admit. One can compare large numbers in the City walking 200 metres
from Cannon Street to the Bank which is not a prescribed interchange—ludicrous.
The Oxford Circus problems were recorded in the minuted meeting
on 12 December 2001, a copy of which has been annexed, between
Crossrail and a five-man team representing the then Residents'
Association of Mayfair.[31]
Crossrail's response has been to confuse the problem by diverting
attention with odd descriptions of my plans of the Cavendish Square
scheme named mysteriously as `The Wigmore Alignment' by them.
Their plans are neutered with the large brownfield Cavendish Square
car park shown as a working area only and not an Oxford Circus
Station expansion site, so they also cut out the key issue of
Oxford Circus Station being an interchange with Bond Street. This,
in my opinion, is done to protect Crossrail's unsustainable Brook
Street, Mayfair alignment for their Bond Street Station, because
if you accept the alignment of Cavendish Square and Wigmore Street
because it is superior, their alignment goes out of the window.
16630. Chairman: At what point are we
going to concentrate on your properties and Paddington? At the
moment you seem to be all over the central London area. I think
you have made the point, and I think that you can accept that
separate points on the alignment have actually been made, but
we are here today to hear a Petition about how it affects your
property.
16631. The second thing is in relation to Mr
Winbourne's comments about `groupies' in relation to councillors.
If that is the case, which is lodged, then Parliament is too because
Parliament has taken the view that Crossrail is good and it has
given us the line to work to. What we can do is alter it here
and there, but we have been given a task and Parliament has decided
by and large on that task, so we cannot alter it all. We can alter
parts of how that is arrived at, but certainly the route is not
going to be redesignated.
(Mr Winbourne) Sir, we were
about to come on to how it affected the block.
16632. Well, please do.
(Mr Winbourne) Can I just
interpose and say this because I am saying this with the greatest
deference to Parliament, please understand that: I have already
told you that I think you and Parliament have been sold a pup
about what the alternatives which have been looked at were.
16633. You made that point the first time.
(Mr Winbourne) Yes, but
the other point is this: that I have read that direction a number
of times and it refers to the stations. I do not think it refers
specifically to how you get to those stations and I simply politely
point that out again because serving those stations, I do not
think the scheme should go ahead until they have addressed the
problems in that and I will come to that in a minute. Then seriously,
but this is obviously up to your Committee and Parliament and
I can only make suggestions to you, Parliament is sovereign, the
Crown is sovereign and I understand that and, as I said earlier,
there is no question of lack of deference to Parliament, but I
was referring to one or two individuals when I talked about groupies
and I was not thinking about Parliament.
16634. Well, let's skip on in particular to
Paddington and deal with that.
16635. Mr Payne: To keep matters as brief
as possible, how do you see the main topics dividing up?
(Mr Winbourne) First of
all, for you, the immediate concerns for you and your home block;
secondly, environmental issues and best practice for scheme implementation;
and, thirdly, wider issues and best transport solutions. In London
there has to be a proper compromise between the transport issues
and the good of the environment and this includes advanced compliance
with UK and EU environmental law.
16636. What is best practical practice please,
in your opinion?
(Mr Winbourne) There are
generally environmental and construction issues which will apply
to any route chosen and which ought to be prescribed as best practice
before you start, not in answer to complaints late in the day.
This should be addressed to get the least worst effects on people
or the best answer leading to a preferred route. That should have
been done first, but it was not. Crossrail even entered into advanced
property deals, 17 it appears from their own evidence and probably
some from the outset.
16637. Having identified and prescribed best
practice, what else should follow?
(Mr Winbourne) The optimum
route or routes should be chosen with the least stress and best
overall transportation results, but there would be some trade-offs
even before public consultation.
16638. Can you point to cases of public best
practice along your lines?
(Mr Winbourne) I am going
to skip a bit here because it was in my previous evidence when
I explained how we did it when I was at the GLC and it is in my
CV, but the same sifting of having two or three routes and people
looking at it applied to the M25, rival cross-Channel schemes
and so on. In London, the Jubilee Line Extension was rerouted
partly under mainline railways. Equally, the Channel Tunnel Rail
Link was rerouted in response to a public inquiry to run under
the North London railway. More recently, and this is one my office
is dealing with at the moment, for Yorkshire Water's Hull waste
water tunnel scheme, and this is for a three-metre internal diameter
sewer tunnel under that city, which is much smaller than Crossrail,
but the principle is identical, there were three main alignments
and there were sub-alignments on that which were circulated. Ove
Arup and other engineers were involved, well-known firms, and
I think it might have even included Mott MacDonald, but that is
not important, they were all top firms. It was all circulated
and then it was down to public consultation with the alternatives.
That has not been done either.
16639. How do you see the underlying difference
in procedures with Crossrail?
(Mr Winbourne) In about
1988, there was basically lobbying by two main property groups,
one for King's Cross and one for Tottenham Court Road. Rosehaugh
& Stanhope were for King's Cross and MEPC were for Tottenham
Court Road, which got selected and a lot of their then property
interests were all along the route and you find them repeatedly
in this area. The West End estate agents were all happy. Mr Schabas
has already told this Committee that the Halcrow route took only
six weeks to plan in 1989 and we have all been stuck with it since.
The engineers were invited to plan under areas of shallow, traditional
brick foundations and footings, just like yours, to avoid piled
buildings with some construction savings, but with other heavy
losses arising instead. Nobody thought to explain otherwise to
the engineers, as far as I can see. The 1991 Safeguarding Directions
and the Drivers Jonas Environmental Statement of the time were
put together afterwards in support. Drivers Jonas, by the way,
identified some very weak ground in Brook Street, Mayfair, and
I have not looked back to see how it applies in your area. Meanwhile,
their economist repeatedly stonewalled enquiries about whether
there would be development gains because there are not very much,
apart from to the people selected and he only said, "Crossrail
would underwrite existing property values". The answer to
that is yes, when it is finished, but not with all the hassle
in between.
30 Committee Ref: A184, Building Response Assessment
25-28 Hyde Park Gardens (including 22 Stanhope Terrace), Section
A-A Details (WESTCC-35905-008). Back
31
Committee Ref: A184, Crossrail meeting with Residents' Association
of Mayfair, meeting note, 12 December 2001 (WESTCC-35905-067). Back
|
