Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16660
- 16679)
16660. Chairman: You have mentioned there
that no matter how much use is made of floating slab track, it
is not going to make a difference, yet item 3 of the Petition
is asking specifically for the use of floating slab.
(Mr Winbourne) I think,
with respect, sir, in this case what I am saying is that floating
slab track should be a given anyway, unless you are going under
roads and parks where there is no one to bother and if they can
vary it and save money, okay, but under offices, houses, shops,
wherever people happen to be, I think there should be floating
slab track as a given, number one. Number two, I have direct experience
of building in Southwark which the Committee can visit and see
the cracks and feel the vibrations. That building is still standing
and I referred to it in my previous evidence. What happened there
was that compensation grouting quite obviously connected vibrations
not from the Jubilee Line in that case, but it was after the shockwave
of the Jubilee Line went through and so on and the grouting started
that they connected the main line to the building when the vibrations
started right away from the main line long before the Jubilee
Line was finished. If you get physical connection, this is what
happens and that building shuddered and shook and as a result
became useless for its purpose as a recording studio. We are dealing
with Mr Payne, but I have seen evidence previously about recording
studios and it has all been fudged. You are probably going to
hear some more, I am informed, later from people in Soho, so it
is possible I might be back.
16661. I am not quite sure if that is a yes
or a no.
(Mr Winbourne) Yes, the
answer is by all means it should be there if you are going under
residential areas anyway, but I very much doubt whether it will
be enough for Mr Payne's building for all the reasons I have given.
16662. Mr Payne: Just because of the
size of this tunnel and the concrete that surrounds it.
16663. Chairman: I just found it unusual
that you should be petitioning for floating slabs and then criticising
their use in your Petition.
(Mr Winbourne) Sir, can
I answer that straightaway. Mr Payne wrote his Petition long before
he came to me.
16664. Mr Payne: I have very little left
now, sir. Have we finished, Mr Winbourne?
(Mr Winbourne) Yes, as far
as I am concerned, unless there are any questions anyone wants
to ask.
The witness withdrew
16665. Mr Payne: There has been very
little consultation on alternative alignments. Mr Norman Winbourne's
Cavendish Square option should be properly considered. The evidence
suggests that there are problems concerning noise and vibration
from other recent schemes, such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
and the Jubilee Line Extension. I am used to some noise from the
much smaller Central Line and, therefore, I seek an undertaking
that the Promoters utilise the most modern form of floating slab
track. Reliant on avoiding the social costs this puts on Westminster
City Council and local amenity groups, my experience has found
them lacking and, therefore, my faith is not entirely with them.
Crossrail is to be a 24/7 rail link. Currently the only sound
which may possibly wake my slumbers is the sound of the nightingales
in the gardens that surround. This puts a heavy responsibility
on the Select Committee to make the right recommendations. Thank
you for listening to my humble Petition and this concludes my
submissions.
16666. Mr Mould: Sir, insofar as noise
and vibration are concerned, in contrast to the Central Line which
is a rigidly fastened track system, as you have heard from Mr
Thornely-Taylor, the proposed construction techniques in relation
to the Crossrail railway beneath the surface are to up-to-date,
modern standards and the expectation is that deploying those standards,
including where necessary floating slab track, will achieve a
noise environment within residential and other properties at the
surface over the railway which we predict to be acceptable. We
are not, I should say, proposing at this stage that it would be
necessary to install floating slab track at this location because
our predictions do not justify deploying that technique, but,
as we have made clear in evidence to the Committee, in any location
where the standard system that we propose is predicted during
the detailed design causing levels of groundborne noise exceeding
the relevant assessment criteria of 40dB(A)LAmax,S, an enhanced
track support system will be installed, so that is the approach
that we are taking, of which the Committee is well aware from
the evidence of Mr Thornely-Taylor. We have explained that we
have assessed the propensity for disturbance due to vibration
due to the operation of the underground railway and Mr Thornely-Taylor
has given evidence in relation to that. Suffice to say that our
assessment has shown that that is not predicted to give rise to
disturbance or substantial impact to those residing at the surface
over the running tunnels.
16667. Turning briefly to settlement, if I can
cut through what you have heard about that, you have been shown
at page 7, I think it is, of the Petitioner's exhibits an extract
from the Listed buildings assessment carried out by our consulting
engineers in relation to the Petitioner's properties.[32]
That is in accordance with the settlement policy and process,
of which you have heard a great deal of evidence during the course
of these hearings, and you see from that that the prediction from
that assessment is that the building in question will not suffer
any appreciable damage. Cutting through the point, the Petitioner's
company is entitled to call for a settlement deed under our policy
and, as part of that process, it will be open to the Petitioner
through his advisers, if he chooses to do so and wishes to do
so, to make representations to us in relation to the assessments
which have been carried out and, with that point having been made,
I do not propose to take the Committee's time correcting some
of the factual areas which have been put forward in relation to
the assessment carried out thus far. It seems to me that is better
dealt with through that process rather than troubling the Committee
with that at this stage. Those, I think, are the points which
have been raised in relation to the Petitioner's property itself.
16668. In relation to the other matters, suffice
to say that the Committee has heard evidence from Mr Berryman
in response to the Residents' Association of Mayfair Petition
on Day 24 in relation to the consideration of alternative alignments.
Mr Berryman dealt with, amongst other things, Cavendish Square
at paragraphs 6787 to 6794 and, in summing up our position, Ms
Lieven dealt with the matter at paragraph 6853 and it may just
be helpful to remind the Committee that what we said was, "So
far as our consideration of alternatives is concerned, we have
over the past years considered alternatives in very considerable
detail and at the end of the day it comes down to a professional
appraisal that the alternative schemes do not provide sufficient
additional benefits, and in most cases provide no additional benefit
and, indeed, additional disbenefit. In particular, they do not
relieve the overcrowding on the Central Line, they produced other
problems on other lines . . . " and so on. I will not bore
the Committee any further by repeating matters, but those are
the points I wish to make in relation to that.
16669. Kelvin Hopkins: I have a question
or two on the floating slab track. I can well believe that Crossrail
will be far less noisy than the Tube lines, particularly the old,
cut-and-cover, rattling Circle Line and so on, but nevertheless
it is going relatively close to particularly a basement or lower
ground-floor flat. Would it not be reasonable to err on the side
of generosity to residents by putting in a floating slab track
whenever it goes clearly close to where people are living rather
than trying to trim, because I know that there is a cost to incur,
but to trim the cost which, compared with the overall cost of
the project, is fairly small, but putting in floating slab track
erring, as I say, on the generous side to residents in this particular
case rather than having to fit retrospectively following complaints
or whatever which might be much more difficult? It may be a technical
question which is better addressed to Mr Berryman rather than
to yourself.
16670. Mr Mould: Well, Mr Berryman, as
is his wont, has been whispering in our ear and it may be sensible
if I do ask him to deal with that. Yes, he has said what I thought
he might. The point is that we do not judge there to be any material
benefit from taking the line that you have suggested and I think
Mr Thornely-Taylor has explained to the Committee that the approach
we take is that we have a design criterion which is what it will
be designed and maintained to which is, as you know, 40dB(A)LAmax.
Achieving that, and in the case of this Petitioner predicting
to achieve well below that, by an appropriate form of track design
will actually produce an environment that is, on experience, acceptable.
That being the case, and as we expect to be able to achieve that
without the need to resort to the cost and increased maintenance
liabilities associated with the installation of floating slab
track, it simply is not, we say, justified. Using the more conventional
methods that we are proposing will achieve an environment that
is, objectively viewed, acceptable for this and other residents
in the vicinity, so it is just not a valuable additional design
step for us to take. That is our answer to that point.
16671. Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr Payne, the last word?
16672. Mr Payne: I just think that I
and my expert witness have shown that there are some doubts as
to the tunnel which is about four times as big as a small tunnel
and even though the Central Line is very old and it is built on
old, wooden foundations and that Crossrail will have a smooth
track and all the rest of it, it is just the size and looking
at the physical size of it and the evidence, I just feel that
Crossrail feel that maybe they will recalculate later and fine-tune.
At the end of the day, for the residents trying to sleep at night,
trying maybe to run a business from home or whatever, really there
are going to be some very big social costs. I just have no faith
in the current specification they have provided. Thank you.
16673. Chairman: That concludes the hearing
on that Petition. We now move to Petition Number 91 of the Open
Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association.
The Petition of the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers
Association.
Mr Eugene Suggett appeared as Agent.
16674. Chairman: First of all, I have
got the wrong representative on my list.
16675. Mr Suggett: Thank you, sir. Yes,
I was going to say something about Mr Selwyn's absence in a moment.
16676. Chairman: Ms Lieven?
16677. Ms Lieven: Sir, I think it might
be helpful to the Committee if I made a quick opening because
this is a totally different issue on a different bit of the route.
The Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers, as I understand it,
appear effectively on one issue. They may have a few more general
points to make, but there is one substantive issue before the
Committee which concerns what is called Dog Kennel Bridge which
is a bridge on the western section of the route. Perhaps Mr Fry
could put up on the scanner a map.[33]
It is an area of the route the Committee, I think, has not spent
much time on. Dog Kennel Bridge is a bridge which is not a road
bridge and it lies between, it is difficult to see on this map,
Iver Station and Taplow Station and the motorway is the M25, just
so the Committee has some kind of sense of the geography of this.
In respect of Dog Kennel Bridge, the Bill scheme is to demolish
the bridge and not reprovide a bridge. In all other cases where
a bridge is to be demolished, it is reprovided. There have been
two issues about Dog Kennel Bridge.
16678. Firstly, it is one of a number of bridges
which were originally designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel which
have been known generically through the project as the `Brunel
bridges', four of which the Committee may have realised were Listed
by English Heritage in April 2006. Dog Kennel is one of the Listed
bridges. That is one aspect.
16679. The other aspect is that of pedestrian
access. So far as the Listed building issue is concerned, there
have been very extensive discussions, which the Committee happily
has not had to be involved in at all, between ourselves and English
Heritage as to how to approach these bridges because, as Mr Berryman
will explain, the reason that Dog Kennel Bridge has to be demolished
is to provide the overhead electrification on the Great Western
Line with sufficient clearances. There has been, as I said, very
considerable discussion and engineering input with English Heritage
and an agreement has been reached with English Heritage by which
two of the four Listed buildings can be saved and two of the four
still have to be demolished. There are two non-Listed Brunel bridges
which can also be saved. English Heritage are happy with that
decision and have indicated so quite clearly in writing and, I
have to say, it has been a position that has been reached after
many meetings and much discussion. This is not something that
English Heritage has come to lightly. Buckinghamshire County Council
also raised the issue of keeping Dog Kennel Bridge and decided
not to appear before the Committee after English Heritage agreed
the position with the Promoter. Sir, so far as heritage issues
are concerned, they have effectively been agreed with those bodies
which are primarily concerned with them.
32 Committee Ref: A184, Building Response Assessment
25-28 Hyde Park Gardens (including 22 Stanhope Terrace), Building
Response (WESTCC-35905-007). Back
33
Crossrail Ref: P117, Location of Dog Kennel Bridge, Iver (SCN-20060726-001). Back
|
