Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17700
- 17719)
17700. Mr Mould: I understand that it
has. There is always a problem, of course, when one thinks one
has explained, whether one has done so effectively. Please do
not misunderstand me. We very much understand the genuine concerns
which these Petitioners have. We know about the sensitive location
of their property in relation to the running tunnels. It has been
explained to the Committee just now. I can point out to the Committee
how the process works to their advantage and to protect their
position. This has been set out in a little detail in the Petition
response document, but it is helpful just to remind the Committee
of how it works. The stage 3 assessment process, in the case of
this building, has not yet been undertaken, so that is work to
come, but it will be done, because that is what our policy and
our commitment under this information paper requires. Plainly,
we will fully involve and embrace the Petitioners in that process,
so that they are aware of and are participating in the exercise
and have that reassurance which you just mentioned to me.
17701. Mr Binley: Can I come back to
you, again through the Chairman. It seems to me that there is
work to do here. It seems to me that Mr and Mrs Wheeler need to
be totally reassured. I believe that what you have pointed out
to us will, if properly explained to them, be understood and accepted
by them. But it needs to be properly and carefully explained,
because evidently Mr and Mrs Wheeler are simply lay people and,
with respect, most of what you have read out is couched in specific
language. It would seem to me that there is a need to get together.
If you did that and talked together, then Mr and Mrs Wheeler still
have time to come back to us if they still have concerns which
are not dealt with. Does that sound sensible?
17702. Mr Mould: You have taken the very
words out of my mouth.
17703. Mr Binley: I am delighted.
17704. Mr Mould: As always in these matters,
you anticipate what I have to say. We have had meetings with the
Wheelers; we need to have another meeting. We will arrange for
Mr Black, our settlement expert, to meet with them. It seems to
me that the sensible thing is for this to take place in the context
of explaining to them and offering them the benefit of the settlement
deed. You have heard us mention the deed in the past. They are
the freehold owners of their property, as I understand it. The
property is plainly one that falls within the qualifying criteria.
It is right over the running tunnel, so there is no question of
any distance criteria and the difficulties there. The risk category
that it is in now, the fact that it is going forward to this phase
3 assessment on the basis of a moderate risk having been identified
under the stage 2 process means that it falls within the embrace
of the criteria where a deed is available.
17705. Let us deal with it that way. Let us
offer them the deed, explain how that picks up formally, and in
a contractually binding scenario, the provisions for monitoring,
review, preventative measures and so forth that we have explained
to you in the past.
17706. Chairman: That is helpful.
17707. Kelvin Hopkins: I want to be reassured
that Mr and Mrs Wheeler would have the opportunity to come back
to us if they wish.
17708. Chairman: From the Chair, yes.
17709. Mr Mould: I think that is a matter
for the Committee.
17710. Kelvin Hopkins: On the second
point, I was hoping to ask Mr Berryman about noise mitigation.
He referred to slab track and the maximum possible noise displacement
for those sections which go under houses very close to the surface.
17711. Chairman: I expect it is Mr Thornely-Taylor.
17712. Mr Mould: It is Mr Thornely-Taylor.
I will say a little about that. If you would like me to I can
certainly call Mr Thornely-Taylor to explain this.
17713. Chairman: If we are doing one
suggestion, which is wholly appropriate, which is to go away and
have a bit more conversation, it might also similarly be done
with noise abatement in that respect. That could also be brought
back at a point in the future. What I would like to deal with,
however, is the lack of consultation, in the remaining minutes
that we have left.
17714. Mr Mould: Can I have a minute
on noise and then two minutes on consultation? On the question
of noise, the position is that we carried out our predictions,
as you know, in relation to all properties on groundborne noise.
The predictions in relation to this property are that of 32 dBA
max. As you know, we are designing to a standard of 40, so we
are well within the design criteria. Mr Thornely-Taylor reminds
me that is inside or close to the level for a studio. Our predictions
are that this is going to be a satisfactory level.
17715. That does not involve any assumptions
as to special track form; that is based on the standard track
form that we have explained to you in the past. That is the position.
In relation to noise from the construction sites, the construction
sites which I think they are concerned about is the Wick Lane
site, which Mr Berryman explained earlier on, which is just around
the corner from their property. There we are proposing a 3.6 metre
high noise barrier for the duration of that site, and our assessment
is that that will provide sufficient mitigation to provide a satisfactory
environment, so a mitigation of sorts will be satisfactory.
17716. Chairman: That is admirable, but
I think we have got to agree the plan is very, very clear that
Crossrail should go away with Mr and Mrs Wheeler and discuss with
them both of the issues, both noise and also the liaison over
their concern.
17717. Mr Mould: We will continue that
discussion.
17718. Chairman: Can we now come to consultation.
17719. Mr Mould: What I can tell you
in relation to this is this: that this part of the route was not
actually fixed for consultation until the summer of 2004, so we
were not in a position to know what we were proposing for the
route until the summer of 2004. We then went out on the second
round of public consultation, which we have told you about. Part
of that exercise involved over 200,000 invitations to information
centres and exchanges being distributed through letterboxes of
residents and businesses near to the proposed routes, and all
relevant railway stations. My understanding is that that involved
a distribution to properties which lay over the line of the proposed
route. That exercise would have been undertaken in relation to
this property as it would have been any others in this part of
the route the first time and at the second round of public consultation,
because until then there was not anything to consult upon. So
that coincides with what you were told about information coming
to the notice of these Petitioners in the early autumn of 2004.
| 
