Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17319
- 17339)
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
17319. Chairman: Today we will be hearing
two petitions, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Eleanor
Street Travellers All Residents Group. Before we start, if we
are here at 11.30 we will take a short break for coffee and then
come back. Mr Mould, would you like to outline the first case.
I hope yesterday was a good day for you!
17320. Mr Mould: It was indeed, and it
is very kind of you to mention it, but back to real life now,
which is also delightful. Sir, I do not think I need to say very
much about the first petition. Mr Drabble is here on behalf of
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. I believe he is going to
make a short statement to the Committee explaining the borough
council's position in the light of recent correspondence that
we have had with them in relation to their outstanding petition
and concerns. Rather than take outstanding petition concerns and
rather than take time anticipating what he is going to say, I
think the sensible thing is to hand over the floor to him and
then I can respond to that.
The Petition of London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Mr Richard Drabble, QC appeared on behalf of
the Petitioner
17321. Mr Drabble: Chairman, Members
of the Committee, as Mr Mould said, I simply wish to make a relatively
short statement expressing the borough's position in relation
to the second additional provision as it has developed in the
light of correspondence and largely to read things on to the record,
if I may do that. You will know that the borough's Petition in
relation to the second additional provision related to three issues:
The Eleanor Street Traveller's site, the noise and vibration policy,
and the H.A.M & Wick Sewer diversion. The council's Petition
contains 15 specific objections and in preparing its Petition
the council repeated a number of the objections contained in the
first Petition, for example in relation to traffic management
consultation. As the Committee may recall at its hearing in June,
the council only gave evidence on two of its original 35 objections.
This is because the Promoter has given a number of assurances
to the council which would have dealt with many of the council's
objections. However, in order both to protect the council's interest
and, most importantly, to provide both transparency in what the
council regards as essential reassurance to the local community,
the council has asked the Promoter to provide formal legal undertakings
on all matters that have been agreed. The Committee will, of course,
recall that it requested the Promoter to provide such undertakings
to all Petitioners.
17322. The council has accordingly sought undertakings
in respect to dealing with its objections to AP2. Following continuing
pressure from the council the Promoter has finally provided a
formal letter of undertaking by 11 October 2006 and another dated
16 October 2006. Although these documents will appear to meet
the council's concerns there has been insufficient time to consider
them in detail. It seems to the council inevitable that some further
attention will have to be given to the detailed wording of the
undertaking and we trust that the Promoter recognises this and
will acknowledge this.
17323. Notwithstanding receipt of these letters,
the council would like to draw the Committee's attention to our
original objections on the undertaking which we believe we have
received from the Promoter. The purpose for doing this is both
to place the matter on the public record and most importantly
to provide reassurance to local people that their concerns are
being dealt with.
17324. The letter of 11 October records the
fact that the Promoter has given contractual binding undertakings
contained in a deed to some land owners affected by Crossrail
and invites the council to indicate whether there are some undertakings
contained in the letter which it wishes to be treated in the same
way and which is suitable for the same treatment because they
affect property matters. The council welcomes this invitation
which it will respond to in due course.
17325. Just a word about the Eleanor Street
Traveller Site. We are very pleased that the Promoter has accepted
the council's preferred proposal for the relocation of the travellers
and most importantly that the residents are also satisfied. The
council is also pleased that the Promoter accepts that the traveller
site will be treated as a special case in terms of the noise and
vibration policy should the nominated undertaker's construction
methodology trigger entitlement for noise insulation. Finally,
positive ongoing discussions are now taking place with the Promoter
and the residents on a practical arrangement for organising the
relocation of the site.
17326. Noise and vibration policy: this is a
matter on which the borough is acting as lead authority on behalf
of a number of councils affected by Crossrail. A great deal of
discussion has taken place with the Promoter on the policy, particularly
in the last few months.
17327. Considerable progress has been made during
negotiations in clarifying and revising the policy. The promoter
has, as a result of the negotiations, revised the mechanism for
triggering noise insulation to include a clearer assessment process
which better reflects the protection that will be afforded to
those residents that live near the proposed construction sites
and currently enjoy quieter environmental conditions.
17328. At the request of the council's environment
health team, the Promoter has extensively revised that information
paper known as IPD9, Noise and Vibration Mitigation Scheme. This
paper will now better inform residents about how the scheme works
and how they may be entitled to receive additional environmental
protection. The Promoter has confirmed the mitigation scheme may
identify properties which trigger noise insulation that are currently
not being identified in the Environmental Statement as being expected
to receive noise insulation nor as having a significant noise
impact. This is because the final eligibility will depend on the
more detailed assessment process that will be undertaken once
the nominated undertaker's actual construction methodology and
environmental management plans are known.
17329. Other issues included in the revised
information paper D9 include the fact that residents will now
be given the chance to choose double-glazing rather than secondary
glazing as a form of noise mitigation. A new protocol has been
introduced to provide a fairer and more easily understood system
of entitlement for noise insulation in buildings for long facades.
17330. Finally, residents who are eligible for
noise insulation who have existing secondary or double-glazing
will be given advice on whether its condition is adequate with,
if necessary, the Promoter bringing it up to standard.
17331. The boroughs collectively are now satisfied
that the policy provides greater protection for those affected
by noise. Tower Hamlet's environmental health team will continue
to work with the Promoter to include refinements of the supporting
documentation to the scheme to ensure that it fully reflects the
improvements and clarifications established during the constructive
negotiations.
17332. H.A.M & Wick Sewer: the impact of
the sewer on residents in the Bow area of the borough remains
the council's major concern in respect of the second addition
of provision. The original bill proposal relocated the sewer outside
the borough and thus was not a matter of great concern to this
council. However, the revised proposal now only affects Tower
Hamlets. As a result, the council has given very careful consideration
to the position it should take in front of this Committee. The
starting place is that the construction impacts in Tower Hamlets
will be particularly severe. For a period of nearly two years
there will be construction activity taking place on seven separate
sites within a 400 metre corridor between the Manhattan building
and Payne Road on the east side of the borough. Furthermore, the
Pudding Mill Lane worksite will be just across the borough boundary
in Newham.
17333. The Promoter's supplementary Environmental
Statement recognises that the revised proposals have significant
adverse construction impacts on the borough. The council would
like to draw the Committee's attention to those impacts. It believes
that it is essential that the Promoter takes all available steps
to minimise and mitigate the impacts.
17334. In Grove Hall Park, it proposed to construct
a shaft to provide access and egress from the new sewer. This
is a small park but it is the only area of open space in this
part of the borough. As such, it is very heavily used by local
people as well as by local schools. In recognition of its heavy
use, the council has secured substantial capital funding for improvements
that were programmed to be spent during the next two to three
years. The council has commissioned a landscape proposal for Grove
Hall Park and a master plan is being prepared. This is still work
in progress but it would seem that the scheme as it currently
exists would not be significantly prejudiced by the Crossrail
proposals. The council is anxious to ensure that Crossrail undertake
to reinstate both parts of the park affected by the proposals
and the specification within the emerging master plan. The letter
of 11 October does contain an undertaking that the site will be
reinstated having regard to the reasonable requirements of the
master plan.
17335. Construction of the H.A.M & Wick
Sewer diversion will have significant noise and visual impacts
in the park during the six month construction period. As a result
of this impact, both the council and local residents have been
strongly opposed to the location of a shaft in the park. There
have been considerable discussions and negotiations both with
the Promoter and Thames Water to seek to secure the removal of
the shaft from the scheme. However, Thames Water has advised the
council that the shaft is essential in meeting Thames Water's
health and safety responsibilities towards their employees while
working underground.
17336. Although we understand that such underground
working is unlikely to take place more than once in every ten
years or more, the council has had to weigh up the adverse construction
impacts for a six month construction period against minimising
the risk to Thames Water's employees. It accepts that very considerable
weight will, of necessity, be given to health and safety issues.
17337. Reluctantly, we have concluded that the
balance must lie with the health and safety of underground workers
and so the council has withdrawn its objection to the principle
of the shaft subject to a range of mitigation measures which have
been agreed with the Promoter. These include an undertaking to
consult the council on the exact location of the shaft and manhole,
and undertakings relating to the management of the haul route
and vehicular access.
17338. Manhattan and Lexington buildings will
also be significantly affected by construction works that will
take place right next door to people's homes in these buildings.
The seriousness of the impact is demonstrated by the fact that
28 of the properties may qualify for temporary rehousing for a
period of 15 weeks. The residents will also lose total access
to their car park for three nights as well as suffer serious inconvenience
throughout the construction period.
17339. In view of this severe impact, the council
requests that the Promoter makes more effort to develop proposals
to reduce the scale of the work site at this location and the
construction impacts on local residents. We are seeking a similar
undertaking that was given by the Promoter in relation to Hanbury
Street when the Promoter agreed to minimise the size and impact
of the work site. We do not believe there is any difference in
principle between the parties on the issue and some comfort is
given in the letter of 11 October. However, this is an example
of a case where some further attention may have to be given to
the wording.
| 
