Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17500
- 17519)
17500. Crossrail also indicate that there will
be two lots of track-laying as part of the construction and one
lot of track removal as part of the construction because they
will lay first a temporary track and then they will remove that
and later replace it with permanent track. I would suggest to
the Committee that it is unreasonable for Crossrail, one, not
to know what the full impacts are, but at the same time recognise
that there will be substantial impacts on residents and, two,
not to ensure that they are entirely avoidable. We are back to
the scenario of who came first. It is a known risk if you develop
above a pre-existing tunnel; you are stuck with it and all of
the consequences if a tunnel goes ahead underneath a pre-existing
property.
17501. In relation to subsidence, Crossrail
tell us that they have allowed 1.7% in their calculations. Well,
1.7% over 17.75 metres, that would be the depth from the base
of their tunnel through to immediately underneath 1 Baldock Street.
Well, they are allowing for subsidence of a foot. We were also
told, very proudly, that the subsidence in relation to the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link was only ½%. That sounds very impressive,
but I recall catastrophic failure in Lavender Street, Stratford
where people's back gardens collapsed and people had to be rehoused
as a consequence. Now, in the example you have seen here, it is
not going to be someone's back garden which collapses, but it
could conceivably be 1 Baldock Street disappearing into the tunnel.
17502. Residents are also concerned with all
this development, a Promoter, an operator, sub-contractors and
so on, if anything happens at any stage, who is going to take
responsibility for it. It seems most likely that individual residents
will get caught up in having to deal with all those parties involved
and taking action themselves. The methods of operation and the
codes of practice should be such that this simply cannot occur,
that there are absolute assurances against catastrophic failure
or substantial subsidence and that if people do need to take proceedings,
then they are supported in doing so and are not left to their
own devices. There also need to be systems in place to ensure
full compliance and I understand that there is a specific local
monitoring group being set up or being proposed for the Spitalfields
area and we would suggest that a similar group would benefit our
local area.
17503. In relation to flooding and flood control,
if we can go to the next slide, this is a diagram Crossrail have
shown us in relation to subsidence and it seems to indicate that
there is a substantial subsidence potential both in relation to
the Crossrail tunnels and the sewer diversion and the two in combination.[29]
If we look at the next slide, you can see that there is a lot
of water in this area.[30]
I mentioned the falls in two directions, we have the Old and New
River Leas, we have canals, there is water seepage onto the A12
and tradition has it that there is a local spring in the area.
There are concerns both about flooding and about negative effects
on groundwater levels and the implications for the old trees in
the park and the potential for instability of properties and the
tunnels in relation to the water that will be in the area. Crossrail,
in one of their publications, have described a perched water table
and they have also indicated that they can predict how water will
move in the area, but it is clear that this is the main reason
why all recent developers in the area have had deep pile foundations,
and I remind the Committee of the 25-metre deep pile foundations
at 27 to 69 Baldock Street.
17504. In relation to hours of work, the hours
of work Crossrail propose conflict with local usage in the area
and in particular the use of the local school, Bow Boys School,
which lies there. The park and the local streets are regularly
used by young people to travel to and from school and they use
the park recreationally before school, at lunchtime and after
school. We understand that there are special measures in relation
to Swanley School in Spitalfields and we would ask the Committee
for the same sort of consideration for our area here.
17505. Also in relation to hours of work, Crossrail
propose 24-hour tunnelling and potentially there will be 24-hour
use of the Crossrail tunnels when they are completed. There are
expected to be night-time train movements in relation to disposal
of spoil from elsewhere, the extent of which is not now known
because most of that is related to interim shafts. Clearly there
will be daytime lorry movements and works. The night-time works
specifically associated with the sewer diversion that Crossrail
describe are seven weeks on the Blackwall Tunnel northern approach
and there will be traffic diversions in association with that,
Manhattan shaft three weeks, the retaining wall 15 weeks and then,
over and above that, Payne Road "significant night noise",
whatever that means. Now, I sleep at night and even though my
property backs on to the Blackwall Tunnel approach, I manage to
filter out that sort of noise which I do not find significant,
but the sort of noise that Crossrail are proposing will wake me
up and will wake up neighbours and other residents in the area
because it is unusual and it is a different sort of noise.
17506. That, therefore, and the extent of the
proposals must inevitably have negative health impacts on residents
living in the area. Short, medium and long-term day and night
tunnelling, worksites, lorry and train movements, security issues,
lighting, noise, vibration, potential subsidence, stress, dust
and dirt, progressive and cumulative impacts, these surely warrant
a more thorough assessment than has so far been undertaken. What
I suggest would be responsible is the avoidance, amelioration
and compensation or restitution where necessary.
17507. I have already talked about residents'
concerns about liability and responsibility. It does seem to fall
very much on the individual and were individuals to make a claim,
it seems likely that they would have to be dealing with action
after experiencing detriment and, in all probability, only to
the extent that such detriment might be mitigated or compensated
for and they would still have to live with the consequences. I
would suggest that compensation should be extended to all properties
that may be affected, not merely those that are unlucky enough
to be directly above a tunnel and should not be time-limited because
who can say precisely when detriment might occur and precisely
what might be the cause or the combination of causes. Property
valuations should be based on equivalent properties which are
completely unaffected by such development and I believe the Committee
should also consider compensation for property blight.
17508. Clearly there are going to be some legacy
issues and they are likely to be several, but also cumulative
in association with not just Crossrail's proposals, but also the
other developments and consequences in the area and uses of the
area.
17509. I mentioned the Olympics. My neighbours
support the Olympics, but we do have concerns about the impact
on us and we certainly have concerns about the impact in conjunction
with the impacts from Crossrail. I suspect there are likely to
be issues about community cohesion.
17510. I mentioned the statement of work in
relation to the park area and Committee members need to understand
that the extreme local impacts that we are talking about are in
contrast to the absence of local benefit. By their very nature,
these are people who are already living in London. They are already
using public transport to get to and from work and the like and
the benefit of Crossrail to them is likely to be small. But in
relation to the legacy, as Jacqueline mentioned earlier, there
really ought to be the same recognition of needs shown here as
in more the prosperous and influential parts of London.
17511. In relation to controls, I would like
to suggest that groundborne noise and vibration during and following
construction be kept to an absolute minimum by the use of the
most advanced technology and machinery, and the best possible
methods and equipment subject to stringent design standards; that
highest standards are met in terms of lifespan and maintenance
of this equipment. Nominated undertakers should be required themselves
to consult and be subject to compensation where designated noise
and vibration standards are breached. The best available measures
to ensure against subsidence, to control noise and vibration and
to minimise impact should be the ones that are adopted—we
should be looking at best possible practice here. The scheme should
not proceed until the highest standards of subsidence, noise and
vibration reduction and control are also in place.
17512. In Crossrail's proposals, they indicate
the setting aside of their existing regulatory framework and I
would like to suggest that that existing regulatory framework
only be set aside either where it is superseded by something superior
or otherwise only when absolutely necessary.
17513. Crossrail has stated that mitigating
measures are disruptive and inconvenient for the occupants of
affected buildings and may not be wholly effective in eliminating
the relevant impacts. Compensation should be paid where the relevant
standards and policies are breached and/or where detriment can
be established. What groundborne noise and vibration is reasonable
and responsible in this day and age should dictate the hours and
extent of operation of the tunnels whilst they are in use.
17514. In conclusion, it feels to me that the
area we are talking about is the equivalent of a person hanging
from a cliff. If a person was hanging from a cliff, I am sure
all of us here would go and help. We clearly would not walk up
to the edge and stand on their fingers. The community expects
the same level of consideration. We would like to see the Crossrail
tunnels go deeper and therefore have little or no negative impact
on the area. That would mean, presumably, not surfacing at Pudding
Mill Lane, but clearly surfacing at Pudding Mill Lane is no more
of a given than end-to-end tunnelling was non-negotiable, and
we would like to see no sewer diversion.
17515. If the Select Committee is persuaded
otherwise, we would like to see no negative impact on the park
by virtue of alternative access to the sewers. We would like to
see less practice for controls, construction, mitigation, compensation
and operation. We would like to see the trees properly safeguarded
and we would like to see a suitable monitoring body set up.
17516. Thank you.
17517. Chairman: Thank you for your comprehensive
restatement and elaboration of your petition. Could I deal with
the matter of the Petition you handed to us. We have studied the
guidelines and we cannot accept the Petition like that. It should
have been logged in a different place in a different way. However,
we will make a note of receiving it and pass it on to the Promoter
and to the local Member of Parliament who will be the most appropriate
people for dealing with it.
17518. Mr Mould: In a sense, compressed
into an hour and a bit we have had points which the Committee
has heard raised repeatedly in relation to a number of sites.
That is not a criticism. I am going to take it as read that matters
of general approach in terms of environmental controls and mitigation
of environmental impact during the construction phase, about which
the Committee has heard a good deal of evidence and received a
good deal of material from the Promoters, we do not need to rehearse
again. I do not mean any disrespect to this Petitioner, but those
matters have been dealt with. At that level of generality, nothing
in this Petition causes me to amend the evidence and submissions
we have already made.
17519. Sir, with that point made, I would like
to call Mr Berryman to deal with the site-specific concerns which
have been raised by the Petitioner.
Mr Keith Berryman, Recalled
Examined by Mr Mould
29 Committee Ref: A193, Fairfield Conservation Area
Residents Association, Generic Phase 2 H.A.M. and Wick Sewer Diversion-Lozenges
of Potential Damage (TOWHLB-29105-029). Back
30
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-29105-030). Back
|
