Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16820 - 16839)

  16820. Paddington—Committee Decision: Issues regarding Paddington Station will be dealt with in detail in our report. At this time, we ask the Promoters to replace the footbridge at Westbourne Terrace with one that fully complies with modern safety and disability standards for users. We would also like to thank the Promoters at this time for their helpful decisions on dust mitigation in their area.

  16821. Promoter's response: The Promoter will bring forward an additional provision to enable the replacement of the southern span of the Westbourne Terrace footbridge with a new structure and the addition of a series of ramps complying with modern standards for people with reduced mobility at the southern side of the railway to provide access to street level.

  16822. Christchurch, Spitalfields and Bow Bell Church Stepney—Committee Decision: Similarly, the Committee was pleased with the undertakings given by the Promoters to both these churches. However, we wish to clearly state for the record that these churches should receive top-tier mitigation, they should not be expected to pay for the monitoring of any impact on the structures of the churches due to the tunnelling. We expect the Promoter to pay for the independent assessment and monitoring of both these churches during the works.

  16823. Promoter's response: The Promoter agrees. The Promoter assumes that the reference to Bow Bell Church is in fact a reference to St Dunstan and All Saints Church, as this was the church the Committee heard evidence from on day 34, 18 May 2006. The Promoter would like to confirm that the commitment to protect St Dunstan Church given by Mr Tim Mould to the Committee on day 34 applies equally to Christchurch, Spitalfields.

  16824. Spitalfields, and, sir, this is broken down into different sections—Committee Decision: The Committee heard a great deal of concern from the people in the Spitalfields area, especially those affected by the Hanbury Street shaft. This is something we will focus on in detail in our report. Needless to say, we do agree that the Hanbury Street shaft is the appropriate area for the shaft. At this stage, we are concerned that there has been a certain lack of clear information about the project in the area and we feel that a certain amount of action is necessary in the locality immediately. We are concerned that local residents feel there are times when they have not been properly informed and times when they were poorly advised during the consultation process. This has led to huge concern and distress in the local area about the extent of the Crossrail project. We have heard all the evidence put to the Committee and wish to make it clear that the scale of the work and the length of construction in the area have been largely overstated. We believe that the Crossrail project must revisit the problems in the Spitalfields area. We want the Promoters to set up a monitoring body with Tower Hamlets Borough Council and representatives within the community, especially those from the local schools affected by the works. This body must meet monthly in order to provide up-to-date information to local residents about the project.

  16825. Promoter's response: The Promoter agrees and has already acted on the concerns of the Committee. Invitations are to be sent for a first meeting in October. It is the Promoter's intention that this body should meet monthly.

  16826. Committee Decision: We would also like Crossrail to open up a one-stop shop in the area for the duration of the works to enable local people to report concerns and help ensure that the works by the contractor meets with dust and noise requirements set out by the Promoter in the same way as it has been very helpful in the Paddington area. In this respect, we would like this office, working with appropriate government agencies, to advertise how local individuals wishing to work on the project may apply for the jobs connected with the project in Whitechapel and elsewhere.

  16827. Promoter's response: The Promoter accepts this decision.

  16828. Swanlea School—Committee decision: We understand that the Promoter has reached an agreement with Swanlea School regarding the hours the lorries in the area will operate. This agreement must apply to any road which a school faces onto in the area. We are particularly concerned with access to Buxton Road and the traffic entering Valance Road. We want the Promoter to ensure that it employs staff to enforce access rules 24 hour a day. We are concerned that the large number of asthma sufferers and those with other respiratory illnesses should be protected from sources of dust which we understand to be the highest indication of these particular illnesses in the UK. With this in mind, we expect staff securing the roads to ensure that access is only given to lorries properly and securely covered and that access is only given to lorries strictly where necessary. We expect the safety and health of the children and local residents in that area to be the Promoter's first priority. The Promoter must provide a regular liaison meeting with each school to monitor these arrangements and to support the schools during the full period of the work. We also expect the Promoter to work with other government departments, particularly the DfES, to ensure that the schools in the area are in no way disadvantaged by the works.

  16829. Promoter's response: The Promoter has written to the Committee to clarify whether the Committee intended for the Promoter to look at alternative proposals to avoid seeking access to their proposed work site through the school premises. The Promoter is preparing an additional provision that would enable such an alternative access and intends to bring this forward. The Promoter acknowledges the Committee's concern in relation to Buxton Street treat and traffic entering Valance Road and will ensure that appropriate measures are taken in agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to control vehicular access on a 24-hour basis. The Crossrail Construction Code will require all vehicles carrying loose or potentially dusty material to or from worksites to be fully sheeted. The Construction Code forms part of the environmental minimum requirements that the Promoter will make binding on any nominated undertaking. The Promoter will work with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to develop is a strategy for the lorry routes that take into account the nearby sensitive uses, such as schools. Where a proposed Crossrail lorry route passes any entrance to a school that is not currently subject to heavy goods traffic, the Promoter will restrict the hours during which Crossrail construction traffic will operate and/or introduce appropriate traffic management measures to be agreed with the Council. These measures will include a 30-minute prohibition on Crossrail construction traffic when pupils are arriving at school and a 30-minute prohibition when pupils are leaving. The exact hours will be agreed on a case-by-case basis for each school. The Promoter will seek to work with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and other Government departments, such as DfES, to ensure that schools in the area are not disadvantaged by the Crossrail works.

  16830. Historic Buildings in Spitalfields—Committee Decision: We also heard a great deal of evidence about Listed buildings in the Princelet Street area. We want the Promoter to come back to the Committee in the autumn and demonstrate clearly that an individual assessment has been made of each Listed and historic building in the area and that appropriate mitigation has been put in place.

  16831. Promoter's response: The Promoter has done a considerable amount of work to ensure that the settlement impacts of the works on all buildings, including Listed and historic buildings, have been adequately assessed and appropriate mitigation put in place.

  16832. The Promoter can confirm that settlement assessment reports have been produced that consider every individual structure within the predicted zone of influence along the route. The results of this assessment process are reported in one of two ways, both of which are described below. Listed buildings are those buildings which are on statutory lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest compiled by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, on advice from English Heritage. The Promoter can confirm that an individual report for all Listed buildings in the Spitalfields area has been produced. An individual report was considered appropriate because these buildings are statutorily protected and because they have been selected by English Heritage as being of national importance.

  16833. The individual report included a heritage appraisal, which established a detailed understanding of the historic character and significance of the building concerned, in accordance with the criteria laid down in PPG15, and in particular identified any feature of particular architectural or historic interest or sensitivity, for example, delicate plasterwork or fine stucco mouldings. Proposed mitigation in this area consist of monitoring and following best practice during tunnelling works to minimise the generation of ground movement at source. During the selection of mitigation, due regard is being given, and will continue to be given, to the sensitivity of the particular features of the building which are of architectural or historical interest and the sensitivity of the structure of the building to ground movement. Further, these assessments, as explained to the Committee, will continue to be reviewed as the detailed design progresses. All other buildings have been reported in a series of settlement reports. Whilst presented in a different format from the Listed building reports, they calculate settlement and building damage in the same way as the individual assessments. The Promoter confirms that appropriate monitoring and mitigation for these buildings will also be provided. With respect to the internal inspections, these will be undertaken for all buildings within a 10mm contour as part of the production of the schedule of defects prior to the commencement of works regardless of the form of report produced for that building. The Promoter will also undertake an internal inspection of buildings within these contours that are on the English Heritage Building At Risk Register to ensure that any particularly sensitive aspects of these properties are considered in the assessment process.

  16834. Monitoring—Committee Decision: We will expect the Promoter to monitor these building throughout the tunnelling process and for a minimum of seven years thereafter following the completion of the process. Equally, we expect the Promoter to pay for the repair of any damages that occur due to the tunnelling and associated work. These buildings must be repaired in manner appropriate to the age of the building.

  16835. Promoter's response: Acknowledging the Committee's particular concerns in the Spitalfields area, and subject to securing all necessary consents, the Promoter agrees to continue monitoring in the Spitalfields area for a fixed seven-year period after the tunnelling excavation works and to use the data obtained as a control case to validate settlement trends across the scheme as far as it is practical to do so. The Promoter confirms that under the settlement policy any material physical damage arising from ground settlement associated with the nominated undertaker's tunnelling works will be made good at no expense to those affected and that particularly in the case of Listed buildings, repairs will be carried out to a standard and quality commensurate with the age and fabric of the building.

  16836. 61 Princelet Street—Committee Decision: In respect of the Petitioners who are the owners of flats within the building at 61 Princelet Street in Spitalfields, Alistair and Eleanor Ferguson, Ms Hamilton and Mr Collins and Ms Hatoum, we recognise that these people will be extraordinary affected by the Hanbury Street shaft. We want the Promoter to take steps to ensure that these properties are compulsorily purchased and to provide the Petitioners with individual letters of comfort guaranteeing that the flats will be bought before the work begins.

  16837. Promoter response: The Promoter accepts the Committee's judgment that the occupiers of the flats within 61 Princelet Street are likely to be extraordinarily affected should an intervention and emergency access shaft be constructed in the Hanbury Street. The Promoter has written to the owners of the flats within 61 Princelet Street, undertaking, in the case of a shaft being constructed at Hanbury Street broadly as proposed, to purchase their properties no sooner than nine months before the shaft works begin.

  16838. Liverpool Street Station—Committee Decision: The Committee has been asked to consider a variety of issues at Liverpool Street Station. We are sympathetic to the argument for enhancing ticket hall facilities at Liverpool Street Station. We have carefully considered the three final options present to the Committee and have decided to ask the Promoter to amend the Bill to enable options 3c and 7b with the extended gate line, removing the necessary retail units, to come forward as an integral part of the Crossrail project at Liverpool Street Station. We were not convinced that it was reasonable to pursue option 4. Equally, we are not persuaded that the implementation of option 7b should be delayed.

  16839. Promoter response: The Promoter accepts the Committee's decision and will bring forward an additional provision to enable options 3C and 7b.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007