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.
| 
