Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16860
- 16879)
16860. I assume there is going to be a greater
frequency of trains and longer trains and heavier trains, plus
the freight trains. How is that going to impact on the fabric
of the buildings along that road? It is the vibration. The noise
at the moment is not an issue. To me noise is what is in the air;
it is aerial. It is the actual physical structures rattling and
shaking that cause concern, so that problem has not been resolved;
it still happens. How is that going to get better? I really do
not know.
16861. I have also raised with Network Rail
the hazard of overgrown trees, which I felt were probably more
to do with the line than with me but I certainly did not want
trains derailing in my back yard. The trees are left to grow to
an extent where it is actually quite amusing to watch. It is like
watching a train go through a train wash or a car go through a
car wash and the trees are washing up the train as it goes through.
As a resident and as an infrequent but every now and then commuter
on the trains it does worry me. There are environmental issues
here. With the extra building are there going to be more trees,
what trees and what will be the maintenance of those trees? The
trees cause a problem in terms of leaf drop, et cetera, on our
side as well as on the train track side, and also, the length
to which the branches grow and overhang. There have been uprooted
trees as well. About two years ago a tree actually did collapse
across the line.
16862. Those are the problems. I really cannot
see that an holistic approach is being taken to this. It is not
just about, "Oh, let us get a train in and private investors
and maybe local authorities benefit". I do not know who is
benefiting in the long run, but there is an environment out there
and I cannot see how it will benefit in the long run.
16863. Even that consultation process, it is
so paper-intensive. I have a full-time job, I have two children
who do their swimming, their gymnastics, their music lessons and
when I come home, the last thing I need is to see communications
like this coming through the door for me. I do not open it, I
am terrified by it because first of all I am thinking, "What's
going to be in it?", and in this case it was three of these
files, which I think was an error, but it was a waste of paper,
a waste of postage. Then the technical information in there, are
they really telling me that I must read through that to understand
what they may or may not do? There is no way I can really do that.
At the end of the day, what I or any other householder who is
going to suffer a significant impact wants to know is exactly
what the impact is, what we would be left with and then we can
have a proper yea or nay negotiation about it. At the moment I
feel as though I am fighting against something which is not exactly
in a proper form that I can touch and feel or really see. I just
know it is something and I do not like the feeling that it is
leaving with me. In conclusion, that is Petitioner 133's story.
I do have concerns about the impact on lifestyle. I do believe
that no matter how it looks, it is not the most wonderful suburban
estate or whatever, but it is where I live and I have worked very
hard to achieve what I have. There are conflicts between Crossrail's
plans and other government priorities as well, for example, its
impact on stronger cohesive communities. To me, this will break
up communities. In terms of decent homes, I cannot see that my
property is going to benefit or other people's property and we
surely must suffer worse vibration problems and, to be honest,
I do not really know how the house has stood up and I keep wondering
if I should go into construction or something, but it has stood
up. I cannot see more trains making less of an impact. Obviously
there are government priorities around greener environments and
so on. We do not want more concrete. We actually do suffer some
flooding if we get a heavy downpour. I do not know how well you
know the area, but where we are, we are quite low level and my
understanding from some of the people who have lived there for
a long time is that at the back of the garden where the train
track is, that was riverbed some time ago, so actually we do every
now and then suffer flooding and I think the last one was just
last year. The church itself is still suffering, carpets and stuff
have not been relaid, and they are still collecting money to do
their improvements. So we do suffer problems and the more concreted
over, the less trees and less ground that we have, I cannot see
that we are contributing to greener environmental priorities.
That is me, my family and my concerns. Thank you for your time.
We do trust that you have really heard what I have tried to say
and that you will give serious consideration in your deliberations
to these things. Thank you.
16864. Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed for that refreshing presentation. Ms Lieven, would you
like to respond?
16865. Ms Lieven: Well, sir, I was going
to call Mr Berryman very briefly to explain the position.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
16866. Ms Lieven: Mr Berryman, the Committee
is extremely familiar with you, but perhaps you could introduce
yourself to Ms Cousins.
(Mr Berryman) I am the Managing Director of
the company established to build the Crossrail project.
16867. Can you start, Mr Berryman, by explaining
why we need Ms Cousins' garden?[6]
(Mr Berryman) Yes, there are
two reasons. First of all, as you mentioned in your introduction,
we expect to widen the railway here to provide four tracks instead
of the current two. We also intend to provide a noise barrier
along the southern boundary of the railway. That means that we
have to take about three metres of Ms Cousins' land at the bottom
of the garden. The garden is about 42 metres long. It is eight
metres wide for most of its length and 20 metres at the end, so
we will be taking a strip about 20 metres by three metres along
the very end of her garden. In addition to that, there is a public
sewer which runs diagonally across the two plots of land which
are mentioned. There is a public sewer which runs down this right
of way and then diagonally across the piece of land here and under
the railway, and as we are widening the railway embankment in
that area, we will need to strengthen that sewer. It is a 300mm-wide
sewer, so it is quite a substantial piece of work. That means
we will need to take temporary occupation of all of that triangle
of land and then permanent occupation of the strip about three
metres wide down here. Unfortunately, that means that the building
which stands on Ms Cousins' land will need to be removed.
16868. Have we examined alternatives?
(Mr Berryman) Well, we have,
but there is not a lot we can do because the sewer actually runs
directly under the garden and directly under the building and
it is where it is, so there is not a lot we can do about it. As
far as widening the railway is concerned, again we have to work
with the existing railway corridor and there is not too much we
can do about that. As I said earlier, we will be providing a noise
barrier there which may ameliorate some of Ms Cousins' concerns
about the existing railway operation, but there is not much we
can do about actually taking the land.
Examined by The Committee
16869. Mrs James: You mentioned three
metres. Would that be running the whole length of the track there?
(Mr Berryman) It is three
metres in that way, so a strip along here about three metres wide.
16870. Are all those properties in that street
affected similarly?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, every
one would be.
16871. Chairman: The sewer runs from
the housing and diagonally across that site which is marked?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
16872. We were told there was a cesspit slightly
higher than that.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, these
are two different things. Between these two houses here, there
is a right of way or a paved area in any event and the sewer runs
down that paved area and diagonally across there. It comes up
this road here and down there. Now, this is a trunk sewer, not
a sewer for individual houses, so there are no individual house
connections in it. It is a big sewer which serves the whole of
this Abbey Grove area, so I imagine that when the outhouse was
built or the garden building was built with the need to put a
toilet in, you normally would not be allowed to tap into a sewer
like that.
16873. The reason I am asking is could not one
of the benefits be that the cesspit would be joined into the main
sewer line?
(Mr Berryman) I am not sure
that Thames Water would let us do that. It would require the construction
of a manhole in any event at a minimum which may cause even more
disruption. We could certainly investigate it, but I would have
to say, without going into the details, unless there is something
I really have not understood, I would think it extremely unlikely
that a connection could be made.
16874. It just seems that if it is there and
if it is a problem, part of the gain exchange could perhaps be
incorporation.
(Mr Berryman) We will certainly
look at that, but, as I say and I reemphasise, I think Thames
Water's reaction would not be very favourable.
16875. Kelvin Hopkins: It looks as if
on the north side, the left-hand side of the diagram, that there
were four tracks originally. Is that right? Is it reinstating
what was a four-track railway?
(Mr Berryman) No, I understand that it never
actually was a four-track railway, but the land was acquired for
making it a four-track railway. That is one of the reasons why
you see the very strange plot numbering down here and the ownership
of this land is actually odd. Normally the garden of a house would
be all one plot.
16876. To make it a four-track line, you feel
you have to take extra land on the southern side to make it wider?
Is that right?
(Mr Berryman) We are taking
extra land on the southern side and on the northern side, so we
are widening symmetrically. There are houses on both the north
and the south side.
16877. So the track bed, if you like, never
used on the northern side was not sufficient for two tracks?
(Mr Berryman) At that particular
location, it looks as if there was a used track there, but in
fact there is not. It never was a four-track railway, but always
a two-track railway.
16878. But that was left for the possibility
of construction?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, there
was always the possibility that it would be widened. At this particular
location, you can see there is a road on the north side of the
railway, but further along there are houses which back on to it.
16879. So you have to take some land to the
south as well as the north?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
6 Committee Ref: A 191, Oblique aerial photograph
showing location of garden building at 71 Abbey Grove (GRCHLB-13303-002). Back
| 
