Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17480
- 17499)
17480. The information that they have presented
us with, I would say, has been biased in favour of their proposals.
We are also now having to deal with documents that I would say
should have been available to us before the Bill was presented.
Nearly every week we get something else that we need to wade through
and work out whether it has implications for us. All this should
have been available well before, and I am sure you will appreciate
that whilst Crossrail and our local council and others have lots
and lots of technical support available to them and a good deal
of money, we have to do this in our own time and take time out
of our lives and time off work in order to appear before you.
17481. I mentioned earlier some of the language
that they have been using. They talk about temporary impacts and
they describe the permanent impacts as "residual". I
do not know about you but "permanent" sounds a lot more
serious than "residual". They also talk about significant
impacts being somewhat limited but they have not described how
they define what a "significant impact" is versus a
not significant impact. You also heard from counsel earlier what
it was "necessary" to do. I would like to suggest it
is for the Select Committee to determine what is "necessary"
and that what Crossrail is telling you is what they propose. Also,
of course, their proposals impose huge negative impacts on existing
sites, owners and users for a projected benefit that is as yet
uncertain and unfunded.
17482. I also ought to mention that counsel
talked about who the Fairfield Conservation Area represent; we
represent all the residents living in the conservation area, and,
as I have said, in due course that is expected to be 3,000 properties.
17483. There has been talk about how long we
will have to put up with Crossrail. The sewer diversion, as proposed,
is expected to last 22 months, then seven years for the Crossrail
development itself and then Crossrail itself for ever more. The
Crossrail tunnels, the route was largely presented to us as a
given and if you look at the area and think, "Why have they
chosen the route they have chosen? Why haven't they tended to
have a lesser effect on domestic properties and a greater effect
on commercial properties?", it is almost as if they have
targeted domestic properties over commercial properties.
17484. There is this obsession with being at
the surface at Pudding Mill Lane Station. Quite honestly, no one
knew anything about Pudding Mill Lane Station until its association
with Crossrail. Crossrail have not been able to tell us how many
people actually use Pudding Mill Lane Station at the moment, but
it is very few. What I would like to do is put up a view of the
Pudding Mill Lane portal.[23]
This slide is not, for some reason, running north to south. The
A12 which runs roughly north to south runs along there and the
proposed Crossrail tunnels are running this way, west to east,
and this is Pudding Mill Lane Station here. Because, they say,
the track of Crossrail needs to be at the surface at Pudding Mill
Lane, therefore, that is the justification for the depth of tunnels
that they propose in this area and they are proposing tunnels
as shallow as 11 metres in this area here.
17485. In the next slide, this is a mock-up
of what the tunnel will look like underneath 1 Baldock Street
underneath which it is proposed to travel and that is to scale.[24]
That house is 5.84 metres wide and the internal diameter Crossrail
propose is 6 metres. Now, that is the internal diameter. The external
diameter is wider than that and I understand that even today Crossrail
cannot tell us precisely what the external diameter will be. They
are certainly indicating a further 0.7 of a metre and it may be
wider than that, and obviously it may vary according to site circumstances.
17486. Clearly there will also be dust and dirt
from the portals as the development gets under way. There will
be noise, vibration and the risk of subsidence and inevitably
there will be impacts on the quality of life.
17487. Now, all of this has been presented to
us as an absolute, but I seem to recall only recently that end-to-end
tunnelling was non-negotiable, that they could not possibly do
it, yet now they are doing it, so I would suggest that reasonable
and responsible variations here too are also legitimate.
17488. The extent of the impact on Fairfield
Conservation Area is in direct proportion to the depth of the
tunnels and the area. As I said, I believe it targets domestic
properties over commercial properties. It pays scant regard to
the ground conditions and levels. You will recall the plan of
the Conservation Area which you saw earlier. There is a fall of
a number of metres from north to south and another fall of a number
of metres from east to west in the Conservation Area and the land
immediately behind this property which backs on to the A12 falls
by 2 metres, so there is a substantial change in levels in the
area and yet the tunnels will be rising at their maximum gradient,
so Crossrail propose.
17489. It is also difficult to establish what
the full extent of the impact will be because the designs are
still under way.[25]
Crossrail, in their proposals, have used pre-existing guidelines,
such as noise levels as a justification. It is okay to make a
load of noise in the Conservation Area because it is already subject
to considerable noise from the A11 and the A12. Well, that sort
of argument suggests that a brass band makes no more noise than
a single trombone. What is fundamentally reasonable and responsible
just has not been considered. That is astonishing, that difference
in height between somebody's domestic property and the newly built
tunnel. It would be different if a new developer decided, "Okay,
we'll take the risk of building over a pre-existing tunnel and
we'll build accordingly", but that simply is not the case
here because these domestic properties, circa 1900, they have
negligible foundations. All the more recent developments in the
area, including the ones at the bottom of Baldock Street which
are circa 1993/94, they have very substantial foundations. Numbers
27 to 69 Baldock Street have 25-metre pile foundations. Their
pile foundations would progress through the whole of that tunnel
to double that height elevation and that is why Crossrail have
avoided those sorts of development in favour of circa 1900 domestic
properties.
17490. Then of course Crossrail's proposals
go on to create further engineering problems which themselves
have to be resolved and that is how we get to the proposed sewer
diversion. Crossrail say they have looked at a number of options
and the proposal they have come up with is the least worse. What
they are proposing is a further tunnel travelling under the same
area as is already substantially affected by Crossrail at a depth
of 8 to 12 metres. Now, somehow or other they are going to have
to make sure that the Crossrail tunnels just manage to skim underneath
the sewer diversion that they propose will be pre-existing by
this point, but if they were going at a reasonable and responsible
depth, it would simply not be necessary to divert the sewer at
all and all of the negative impacts of the sewer diversion would
go and the majority of the negative impacts associated with Crossrail's
own tunnels and operations would also go. The sewer diversion
over and above the Crossrail proposals impose multiple worksites,
and you have seen all the worksites.
17491. Then security provisions—they are
proposing that some of the sites will have 24-hour security, of
necessity, they will have telecommunications connections, they
will have lighting, and the other sites will be patrolled so that
there will be access and egress. The area is going to look like
it is part of the night-time economy. From what we understand
from their proposals, the majority of the noise mitigation is
associated with daytime, not night-time, works and yet they propose
six months of night-time working for which they propose little,
or no, noise mitigation. There will be associated lorry movements
and there will be loss of parking so that substantial vehicles
can get along the narrow streets which you have seen, and there
will be temporary use and permanent loss of a proportion of the
park, and you have already heard about the value of the park.
There will be a permanent impact on the park and some of that
impact just cannot be quantified because it is about the statement
of worth that digging up the people's park makes to people who
use the park and to people who know of the park.
17492. In relation to the park, Tower Hamlets
has an Open Space Strategy. It has recently introduced it and
it has identified that there is already a substantial under-provision
of public open space. Let's face it, were it not for Victoria
Park, which you saw, and Mile End Park, another large park slightly
off the map to the west, then the relationship of residents to
park space would be even less. There are also EU guidelines which
aim to safeguard, and increase, the existing provision, and the
Mayor of London has defined as one of his 100 public spaces Grove
Hall Park. For many, the park is in lieu of usable back gardens,
which you have already heard. What you have not heard is that
we have been in discussion with the Council and with Leaside Regeneration
about improving the park and dealing with some of the balancing
act that needs to take place about the level of use and how different
types of use need to be accommodated. That funding of, and proceeding
with, those improvements is now in question.
17493. Crossrail have made great play in our
discussions a week or so ago with them about the lack of availability
of a worked-up design for the park. Well, there is not a completed
design for the park, but there has been substantial consultation,
although a lot of that work has been put on the back burner because
of Crossrail's proposals and, let's be honest, Crossrail have
not got a completed design for anything either. Clearly there
will be safety implications because what Crossrail are currently
proposing is that they have shared use of the park while the works
are under way.
17494. If we can have the next slide please,
you have seen this one before, what they are proposing is that
they will bring vehicles in and out, but they do not know how
many vehicles yet, they are not entirely sure, and that will be
under way while the park is in use.[26]
Clearly that little child we saw earlier will not be able to run
around willy-nilly with lorries coming in and out of the park.
I suspect that his parents will not even be inclined to visit
the park because it will essentially be a worksite. What Crossrail
say is that they will have a banksman who will undertake traffic
control, I suppose. We cannot even understand why there has not
even been an effective dialogue between Crossrail, Tower Hamlets
and Leaside Regeneration about all these issues and how, we would
say, if the other proposals proceed, never mind the sewer diversion,
there should be some benefit to the local area and that benefit
could best be vested in the park.
17495. Crossrail have presented to you their
worksites, and perhaps I could have slide 23 please.[27]
We have also been in discussion with Crossrail about the impact
of this worksite on a regularly used pedestrian and cycle access
along here which will take you into the park and down to Tesco's,
which is just off the map, and again it seems a comparatively
safe route, a predominantly traffic-free route. Crossrail's original
proposals were that they would simply block it off for 22 months
and pedestrians and cyclists could use what they call `an alternative
route', an alternative route over here, a pre-existing route which
they would otherwise choose not to use. We have been in discussion
with Crossrail and they have modified their proposals. They are
now saying that there will be occasions, they believe, when pedestrian
and cycle access has to be completely prevented, but for much
less than 22 months and they are now suggesting a month or so.
They say, "We cannot commit that such closures will not happen.
However, we will use all reasonable endeavours to keep Brick Lane
open to pedestrians. In reality, we believe there will be a requirement
to close this road to pedestrians for approximately one month".
We consider that it should be possible in this day and age to
avoid any closure whatsoever.
17496. I should have mentioned, in relation
to the park, Tower Hamlets' presentation yesterday which members
of the Committee may recall, but I think it is useful to emphasise
exactly the point that Tower Hamlets were making in relation to
a shaft in the park. Tower Hamlets accepted that very considerable
weight will, of necessity, be given to health and safety issues,
but they also recognise that the proposals for the sewer do not
just relate to safety access, but they also relate to repair and
maintenance and that there is concern about settlement associated
with the sewer diversion as a consequence of constructing the
Crossrail tunnels themselves.
17497. If we could go to slide 28 please, Crossrail
have presented to you what they think is the least worse or the
best option, depending on what language you prefer to use, but
if the Committee determines that there should be a sewer diversion,
then a better alternative that myself and colleagues just worked
out by looking at a map would have no negative impact on the park
at all.[28]
Gone would be the worksite in the park and any necessity for the
access and mitigation and all the rest of it. Instead, there would
be an access shaft at the bottom of what is currently a vacant,
derelict site, 212 Bow Road, and a further access, also currently
a derelict site, but one of the sites that is subject to planning
permission which Crossrail tell us they are already in discussion
with about these deep pile foundations which either they propose
the developer would deal with, depending on timing, or Crossrail
would need access to the land to deal with themselves. Now, that
proposal with two access shafts gives you a shorter maximum length
between tunnels, it gives you two interim access points instead
of one and it does away with the need for any negative impact
on the park. If it was determined that it was necessary, depending
on how this site was subsequently developed, that there needed
to be a gate access from the park to the access point for the
purposes of safety, I can see no difficulty in that.
17498. You have also heard talk of the impact
on the Manhattan Building and that impact is in fact very, very
substantial to the extent that Crossrail are proposing that 28
of the properties may well qualify for temporary rehousing for
a period of 15 weeks. The residents will also lose total access
to the car park for three nights as well as suffer serious inconvenience
throughout the construction period. I have brought with me a petition
signed by a number of residents of the Manhattan Building which
I would like to make available to the Committee.
17499. I am sure that, previous to this, there
has been a great deal of discussion about noise and vibration.
Crossrail have indicated that residents living above the tunnels
will hear the trains as they travel through and I bet that somebody
living above a tunnel that is only 11 metres below their property
will be substantially disrupted. It is also worth noting that
when representatives of Metronet appeared before the GLA Transport
Committee, Keith Clark of Metronet said, "Anyone who has
been to the theatre in London knows that you can hear the Tube
in most London theatres", and then went on to say, "and
also feel it". Now, Crossrail have not quantified the extent
to which the tunnelling or the use of the tunnels will be heard
and felt by residents in the area, but I would suggest that it
is substantial and it is in direct proportion not just to the
depth of the tunnels, but to the extent of their subsequent use.
Below-ground noise and vibration may also be expected to affect
residents neighbouring the terraced properties, but Crossrail
seems to have been fixated on only those residents who live directly
above the proposed tunnels. Now, I am not a technical expert,
but I know that if you drop a stone in a pond, the ripples radiate
outwards right to the edge and if it is a substantial splosh,
then the ripples work their way backwards as well. The terraced
properties in this area are bound together; their support is not
by virtue of substantial foundations, but by virtue of the fact
that they are leaning against each other.
23 Committee Ref: A193, Fairfield Conservation Area
Residents Association, Pudding Mill Lane Portal-Crossrail proposals
(TOWHLB-29105-018). Back
24
Committee Ref: A193, Fairfield Conservation Area Residents Association,
Baldock Street (TOWHLB-29105-025). Back
25
Committee Ref: A193, Fairfield Conservation Area Residents Association,
Pudding Mill Lane Portal-H.A.M. and Wick Sewers Diversion, Amendment
of Provisions-Revised Scheme (TOWHLB-29105-026). Back
26
Committee Ref: A193, H.A.M. and Wick Lane Sewers Diversion-Sketch
9, Grove Hall Park Worksite Layout (TOWHLB-29105-027). Back
27
Committee Ref: A193, Fairfield Conservation Area Residents Association,
Crossrail- Months 17 to 18½ (TOWHLB-29105-023). Back
28
Committee Ref: A193, Fairfield Conservation Area Residents Association,
H.A.M. and Wick Lane Sewers Diversion (TOWHLB-29105-028). Back
|
