Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17680
- 17699)
17680. Mrs Wheeler: There is another
page, page 2.
17681. Mr Wheeler: As you see, it talks
about certain things, including on the page which is up at the
moment, "Result of settlement, slight" at the top of
the page, that the maximum sound would be 40 decibels and that
where trains run across continuous welded track, it would be on
a resilient basis. Having found things out later, we know more
about this welded track and the other things which you all know
about, so it sounds as though everything is okay from this letter.
17682. Mrs Wheeler: The main point about
the letter is that it does not answer any of our questions at
all. They are just stock phrases that are lifted from many of
the phrases we heard in the first letters they sent us. We got
no further forward with our 17 questions. We went back to Tower
Hamlets and asked if they had had any information.
17683. Chairman: I note the lack of consultation,
but is there another section to your Petition which you wish to
make?
(Mrs Wheeler) Yes. The main thing is the
tunnel underneath our house—the one tunnel, in particular,
directly underneath our house. We wanted to talk about the work
sites which are directly alongside the house and on the Blackwall
Tunnel Approach Road behind us. That is basically it.
17684. Are they questions for Crossrail or are
they opinions which you have on moving the tunnel?
(Mrs Wheeler) Worries. Am
I supposed to be asking questions of Crossrail? Do I make statements
or ask questions. I would rather have Crossrail answering questions
as I go through.
17685. Chairman: I think the best way
forward is to pause your Petition, ask Mr Mould to do a response
and then get Mr Berryman to answer a few queries.
17686. Mr Mould: We will be as flexible
as we can. I understand the concerns about the consultation and
I will say what I can in relation to that, but, as I understand
it, the real concerns that the Committee will want to grapple
with are what it is that the Petitioner wants the Committee to
do in relation to the scheme that is before the House. Is there
some positive action that the Petitioner wants of the Committee
in relation to settlement matters, for example? Is there some
particular mitigation that is required in relation to groundborne
noise? I think it would be helpful to have a short summary of
what it is the Petitioner wants the Committee to require of us,
so that we can then deal with that.
17687. Chairman: Mrs Wheeler, have you
put your worries and your concerns to Crossrail already at any
point?
(Mrs Wheeler) We met with
Crossrail on Monday and asked them about the tunnelling and they
told us more about the tunnelling.
17688. Do a quick summary of your worries and
concerns, then we will move to Mr Mould and then we will get Mr
Berryman in. Mr Mould might be able to deal with some of those
concerns himself and then we can pick up and respond to that.
Perhaps you would do a summary on your major concerns.
(Mrs Wheeler) The foundations
of our house, we feel, cannot withstand having a tunnel just 11
metres underneath us. It has simple brick foundations. We went
to the borough planning office, because we hoped to find out more
about the structure of our house, and we spoke to a planning officer
who said they were likely to be just simple brick foundations.
On Monday we spoke to a tunnelling engineer who did not know what
the foundations of our house would be and yet they have planned
their tunnel to go 11 metres underneath us and it seems the house
will have to put up with the consequences. We do not feel as if
our house has been assessed at all really for this damage. It
is sort of after the event: after the route is planned, after
the route is drawn up, after all the depths have been decided
on, then they will come and look at the house.
17689. Mr Binley: Mr Chairman, might
I ask, through you, a question. We have a Petition from Mr and
Mrs Wheeler that lists their concerns, quite clearly, and it lists
the response from Crossrail, quite clearly. Are there specific
points in that response you disagree with, so that we can specifically
understand the points you accept and recognise are wrong or whatever
and the points you feel you disagree with and that there is real
argument there?
(Mrs Wheeler) We have not
been given any details about how our house is going to be monitored
at all.
(Mr Wheeler) We know that
the tunnel is going to be 11 metres. We know that the diameter
of the tunnel is wider than our house. We received information
which says that as such. I do not know what 11 metres is. It could
be the width of this chamber.
17690. Chairman: As I understand it,
this chamber is about 7.5 metres in height, so it is this height
and half again.
(Mr Wheeler) Yes. It is
very close to us and that is a major concern of ours. We also
feel in relation to the noise—as it says here: "a maximum
sound noise of 40 dB"—you can hear 40 dB. We have been
told that a sound studio is 30, 32 or 35 dB or something, but
you can hear that noise. With it being so close, that is a major
concern. We were told but the tunnelling engineer that the diameter
of the tunnel is such that, where it starts in Pudding Mill Lane,
they do not know how it is going to operate until it goes into
the ground in what it is going to hit, so there is a certain amount
of deviation. If that machine hits softer ground, then we have
been told they would stop and investigate, and, if our property
starts to move, we have been told they would start and investigate.
If the monitoring equipment—because we categorise for monitoring
equipment—detects movement or the house has started moving,
then it has already started moving. It is like detecting something
after something has happened or is happening. So we are very worried.
We are very worried. We have also been told that, at 11 metres,
it is the least distance below any house on this route or the
cross-Channel tunnel route. It is the least distance that any
residential property is on the London Crossrail Link route. We
feel that we are in direct threat from the tunnel and everything.
I cannot talk about the noise, because I am not a noise person.
I cannot talk about the vibrations, because I am not a vibrations
person. But everything that probably has been mentioned to you
before now, we feel concerned about. So we cannot go through our
petition, as you have said, and raise everything. They have answered
all the questions but we are still concerned and we still believe
that with something so close there will be absolutely no doubt
that we will know it is there. We feel that we will know it is
there, even if we cannot . . .
17691. Mr Binley: I get the feeling that
what you really need to understand is that Crossrail understands
the problems you face and needs to give you comfort, reassurance
and guarantees all through, in terms of the areas you are talking
about. You feel they need to do that because you did not invite
them in; they invited themselves in. That is the situation, is
it?
(Mrs Wheeler) Yes.
17692. Mr Binley: Then it might be useful
if we hear from them.
17693. Chairman: Do you have a specific
request, as well as finding out information, for extra foundations,
monitoring equipment, noise—
(Mrs Wheeler) Yes.
(Mr Wheeler) When we spoke
to Crossrail on Monday, they said that they cannot do anything
for us because their bill does not cover it. Is that right?
17694. I suspect what we do now is move to Mr
Mould to sum up, and then, hopefully, we will get an opportunity
where we can ask some questions and we can make judgments. The
only alternative to that is that I ask you to go away and meet
with Crossrail and come back at a later stage. I am not quite
sure that is going to help very much because you have already
met them and discussed things. I think it is probably best to
proceed today. Are you happy with that?
(Mr Wheeler) Yes.
(Mrs Wheeler) All right.
17695. Mr Mould has the right to represent the
Promoters. Mr Mould, would you like to respond?
17696. Mr Mould: Yes. I will come back
to consultation and deal with substantive issues. There are two
main points: settlement and noise. This is picking up on points
that have been made in the Petition response document—which
Mr Binley had in front of him, I think. As the Committee knows,
we have a process in relation to settlement which involves a continuing
risk assessment exercise in stages, and, in relation to the Petitioner's
property, we have reached the stage 2 settlement assessment process.[55]
If we turn to page 2 of this document—this is familiar territory—you
will see that set out. At 2.32, you will see that that involves:
"A generic area-wide assessment of settlement . . . "
and so on and so forth.
17697. To cut to the quick, the upshot of that
stage 2 assessment in relation to the Petitioner's property is
that their property has been identified as falling within risk
category 3. The risk categories are set out on page 10 of the
information paper D12. Risk category 3 means that there is a moderate
risk of damage resulting from the tunnelling works and that is
characterised as: "Cracks may require cutting out and patching.
Recurrent cracks can be masked by suitable linings. Repointing
and possibly replacement of a small amount of exterior brickwork
may be required. Doors and windows sticking. Utility services
may be interrupted. Weather tightness often impaired." Then
the width of the crack is set out. There is purely a risk here,
on the basis of our current assessment of significant damage being
caused. We therefore move to stage 3. This property automatically
goes into the third stage.
17698. The third stage, if we go back to page
3 of the document, paragraph 2.41: " . . . each building
is considered individually in contrast to the first 2 stages .
. . " and it consists of a number of sub-steps. Effectively,
this is a comprehensive risk assessment of the individual building
concern. If you turn to page 4, we can see that it involves, amongst
other things, monitoring during the currency of the works, protective
measures being identified in order to address the risks which
have been identified in relation to the building, provision for
defect surveys in order to identify the physical state of the
building before the works begin, so that a fair assessment can
be made of any damage there has been caused during the course
of the works which then requires remediation at our cost.
17699. Mr Binley: Forgive me, Chairman.
May I interrupt you, Mr Mould. Has that been fully and properly
explained to Mr and Mrs Wheeler, who are clearly very worried
about their house, and rightly so?
55 Crossrail Information Paper D12-Ground Settlement,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
| 
