Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17620 - 17639)

  17620. Mr Mould: Mr Berryman, the point was raised about the existing diagonal route across the path—you will recall that the question was put—towards the memorial garden?

   (Mr Berryman) Yes.

  17621. Do you want to say anything about the arrangements to review that?

   (Mr Berryman) We have adjusted the boundary of our site compound slightly, which you can see there, so that that footpath can be kept open and access to the memorial gardens can be maintained as now.

  17622. Thank you, Mr Berryman.

  The witness withdrew

  17623. Mr Mould: Now, sir, there were points raised about noise impacts and Mr Reuben Taylor is ready to call Mr Thornley-Taylor to deal with those.

  17624. Chairman: We are in tune with all of the arguments on noise actually.

  17625. Mr Mould: Then just to sum up very briefly, and I will not take that long because you have heard the issues dealt with in some detail, firstly, there is the question of the need for the diversion of the H.A.M. and Wick sewer. Our submission is that the case for that diversion being required and justified in the context of the Crossrail scheme is clear in the light of the evidence you have heard from Mr Berryman. Certainly the case against it, which has just been explored a little further in cross-examination, is, as a point of money, a choice between £3-4 million for the diversion and upwards, I think the figure was given, of £500 million by Mr Berryman for the inevitable deepening of Stratford station. One only has to mention those figures to see that is a clear-cut proposition. Certainly we would submit that the approach we have taken in relation to strategic issues means that the sewer diversion is clear and supported and Mr Berryman has explained the more localised question of the existing sub-surface constraints of the sewer, the River Lea and the need to find a way of resolving that clash, as I pointed out to you in opening this morning, between the existing H.A.M. and Wick sewer lines in the ground and the Crossrail tunnels as they begin to merge up towards Pudding Mill Lane. That case of course has been accepted, as you were told yesterday by the local planning authority, Tower Hamlets, in their presentation to the Committee.

  17626. Moving then from that to the case for the additional provisions now put to you, we have explained the reasons why we have moved from the Hybrid Bill to the additional provisions and we have explained that the need for the intermediate shaft in Grove Hall Park is one which has its basis firmly in the health and safety operational requirements of the statutory undertaker who would take on responsibility for the diversion of the sewer following completion of the works. I do not need to say more than to remind you of what was set out very clearly and unequivocally in the letter from Thames Water in that respect.

  17627. The Petitioners put forward the two shaft alternatives which are on the screen before you. You have heard Mr Berryman say that we have spoken to Thames Water about that and there is no significant operational requirement to be gained by that alternative. Our proposal is satisfactory and it meets their operational requirements.

  17628. So far as the environmental impacts are concerned, Mr Berryman has explained that in fact the two-shaft alternative is one which has significant environmental disbenefit over the Crossrail additional provision proposals and, in particular, it would involve substantial conflict with an already committed residential development in relation to the northern of the two alternative intermediate shafts, a development which we expect to be completed and occupied by the time that shaft would come to be built, and you have seen the visual material. The effect of that would be a worksite which would be surrounded on three sides by substantial and dense residential occupation and the environmental impacts associated with that need no further elaboration. Insofar as there is also a problem with prolonged interference with access to that new development and for those who would be in occupation of it, we expect (inaudible).

  17629. So far as the southern shaft of the site is concerned, Mr Berryman has explained the problems of getting access to that in the absence of Bill powers and the need for additional provisions if that package is to be a package of two. That shaft in isolation is not sufficient to meet Thames Water's requirements because it does not meet sufficient spatial distance in order to meet their health and safety criteria. Therefore, the alternative solution is not one which has operational advantages and it is one which has clear environmental and construction disbenefits.

  17630. The additional provisions scheme, on the other hand, is one which, whilst it will plainly have an environmental impact during the construction phase of some six months, as has been mentioned, in terms of its permanent impact, it would be, we would respectfully submit, negligible, a narrow hole in the ground, and we have explained that we have entered into, and will pursue, in close co-operation with Tower Hamlets and the community, all reasonable measures to minimise the impact of that site both in terms of duration and in terms of the extent and effect of the works.

  17631. I have mentioned to you earlier the undertakings referred to by Tower Hamlets yesterday. The upshot is that Tower Hamlets have told you that they are content for that proposal to go forward, subject to the those undertakings and arrangements we have agreed, and that embraces the reinstatement provisions that Mr Binley and Mrs James asked about earlier and about which I gave extra information in the light of yesterday's proceedings.

  17632. Touching briefly on other matters, we have addressed in general terms the question of settlement. We have assessed the combined impact of the sewer and the running tunnels in this location. That assessment has been shared with the Petitioners. We have explained the limited amount of night-time working and you know about our general approach to noise matters, both groundborne and surface noise, so I do not need to address that any further now.

  17633. In relation to general matters of enforceability and environmental control, as I said earlier, we have dealt with those already in a number of sessions and I do not need to take further time on that, as indeed have we dealt with the question of entitlement to land compensation. You have our compensation note which bears to a certain degree on the Petitioners' circumstances before you today.

  17634. Sir, the upshot then is that, along with the Borough Council, we would respectfully submit that the proposals which are now set out in the additional provisions for the diversion of the sewer are proposals that the Committee can recommend to the House. Thank you.

  17635. Chairman: Ms Bradshaw-Price, you have the last word.

  17636. Ms Bradshaw-Price: Well, I am not a barrister, but I feel, when I speak on behalf of the Residents' Association and all the people in the area, that it is defacing the park permanently. I think it is not respecting open spaces and whilst I understand that monetary considerations are really important, there is a big difference between £4 million and £400 million. It was not £500 million and I think he said between £3 million and £4 million. I just do not think it is always a question of money and I am not being naïve. It is a little park, it is a protected area, it is unique and there are not any other areas like it. There is lots more building going on. You saw from the Crossrail presentation that there is that big area there which is going to be another, I do not know how many, hundreds of houses and people coming into the area with no provision for open space. It has been taken away and not given back. I think that is all and there is nothing I can add to what I have said. Thank you very much.

  17637. Chairman: Thank you. Can I just say that even though you are not a barrister, as is no one on this top table, you have put your case very, very well. I know you have been through a bit of pressure today and it has been very arduous, but it is much appreciated.

  17638. That ends that Petition and we now move on to the second Petition which is Barbara and Tony Wheeler.



The Petition of Mrs Barbara Wheeler and Mr Tony Wheeler.

Mrs Barbara Wheeler and Mr Tony Wheeler appeared in person.

  17639. Chairman: Could we have the case outlined, Mr Mould?


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007