Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18285
- 18299)
Ordered: Council and Parties be called in:
18285. Chairman: Can I first of all welcome
everybody here again. I see a number of familiar faces on both
sides of the fence. Can I say, we are here today to listen to
the additional case for and against the additional provisions.
I will be quite firm on repetition, and in that respect, Ms Cove
has very kindly given to you a list of speakers which has been
drawn together so that repetition will be avoided. I will remind
everybody who is making their case today that we cannot revisit
areas we have already dealt with, and I will be quite strong about
that. Can I also remind everybody that at a suitable point, about
11.30 or 11.45, we will suspend for a short time so that people
can get a coffee, and then we will return shortly after that.
Mr Elvin, I understand you would like to present the outline of
today's Petitions.
18286. Mr Elvin: Sir, I have not got
a great deal to say. Today and first thing tomorrow you are scheduled
to hear further Petitions from Spitalfields' residents and their
representative associations. The issues they appear to raise,
both from their Petitions and correspondence received over the
last day or so and there has been a heavy flurry of correspondence
in the last couple of days, strongly suggests to our minds that
firstly if you look at Jil Cove's letter of yesterday, setting
out who is going to deal with what, the issues are issues the
Committee has already heard two weeks of evidence on and are not
related to AP3 at all. In fact, as the Committee may recall, AP3
does not propose any changes in the alignment or in the location
of the ventilation shaft. It changes the tunnel launch positions
and it has changed the tunnelling strategy. That was dealt with
the last time in any event and, indeed, to hear such matters would
involve rearguing issues dealt with on days 38 to 43 last June,
including matters such as impacts of the proposed shaft and residents,
construction impacts, alternative shaft locations, alternative
tunnel alignments, settlement, health, these were all matters
dealt with last time. The Committee, as you are well aware, gave
an interim decision on the grounds of the Petitions dealing with
these matters on day 53. What you said in paragraph 16575 was
that you agreed that the Hanbury Street shaft was the appropriate
area for the shaft. There were other recommendations, such as
setting up a panel, to which I will come back to in a moment,
but you also heard evidence from Mr Berryman on days 38 and 39
and from Mr Thornley-Taylor on noise on day 39. You may recall,
although it may be a distant memory, that the first supplementary
Environmental Statement of May 2005, chapter six, described the
various alternatives to the Hanbury Street location and gave the
reasons for the choice, and that SES3, which was published in
November, and it is now amended as I indicated to the Committee
just over a week ago, deals further with the comparison between
Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street and the southern alignment
because we promised, if you recall, during the course of the last
hearings that we would publish further environmental information,
which we have done, and that does not give rise to petitioning
issues because it is in the SES and is not part of an AP, so there
is no petitioning issue. It is simply fulfilling our promise that
we made during the last set of hearings to publish further environmental
information upon which there was public consultation.
18287. That is a matter which will be made available
to the House on Third Reading. I made overall submissions to the
Committee at some length on days 43, paragraphs 11678 to 11743,
and in written form in document P100. Our position on the issues
which are set out in Ms Cove's letter as have been spoken of by
these various people have already been dealt with in the areas
I have mentioned and in our submissions. Finally, I would point
out that to depart from the issue which the Committee has already
issued its decision on regarding the location of the shaft would
entail significant additional delay if the Committee were to proceed
now to allow further debate on the Hanbury Street versus Woodseer
Street option and a further AP be required, then of course the
progress of the Bill would be delayed for many months. Indeed,
I am sure the Committee would have told us, having heard the two
weeks of evidence last year, if they had thought the proposals
ought to have been altered and, indeed, as I have indicated, you
told us that they did not. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the
only new issue which appears to have arisen is the implementation
of the Community Liaison Panel, and that is not strictly speaking
a petitioning matter either because it is simply our seeking to
give effect to the request of the Committee as part of the interim
decisions to set up better community liaison. There have been
various debates as to whether that has been done properly. You
have received letters of complaint. We have submitted a report
which sets out what we think has happened. It is a matter for
the Committee whether you wish to police your own interim decisions
and hear detailed evidence on it. I have here Mr Clinton Leeks
who has been responsible for driving forward that Community Liaison
Panel, and if the Committee would wish to hear from him in due
course, I can get him to explain a little further what has happened
and what is proposed for the future. I am more than happy to do
that if the Committee would find that useful at some point.
18288. Chairman: I think your final suggestion
is very apt and we will take the opportunity for that later. Ms
Cove very helpfully supplied us with a list of subjects which
will be dealt with by individuals. Can I repeat what I said a
little bit earlier, we cannot revisit areas that we have already
been to and decisions which have been made. Some things we were
asked before are not within the remit of this Committee to deal
with, the realignment for one. What I am going to do is allow
you, in the order that you have given, to make a presentation
on it and state your case. However, if it concerns matters which
have already been dealt with, I will allow you to make the case,
but then we will have to move on.
The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association.
Ms Jil Cove appeared on behalf of Spitalfields
Community Association.
18289. Ms Cove: Chairman, first of all,
before we start, as I said in my letter, it was provisionally
agreed, with the letter that I submitted to you yesterday, with
regards to the way we were going to be presenting the issues on
appeals but there is a slight change in order.
18290. Chairman: I have got that. I intend,
after you have concluded, to call them in the revised order.
18291. Ms Cove: Thank you. Can I just
say in answer to Mr Elvin with regards to the issues I want to
deal with, I was invited by the Committee clerk to come back to
you to explain about the situation regarding the Community Liaison
Panel so that you hear from our side.
18292. Chairman: We are very interested
in that.
18293. Ms Cove: Also, I am discussing
health issues here this morning and they do cross AP3 and the
Environmental Statement because health is an issue which covers
the whole of the things, and we are very concerned about the lack
of action from Crossrail with regards to any forward-taking of
the original health impact assessment that I was so critical of
last time. I do not intend to be very long so I hope you will
hear what I have to say.
18294. Chairman: Let me pause you for
a second. I have made the decision that we are willing to listen
to your concerns, however whether we go into detailed evidence-gathering
and experts being called is another matter. Certainly do make
your case.
18295. Ms Cove: Chairman, I have handed
in five documents to which I will be referring and would ask you
to have those to hand when I talk about it. Chairman, I am pleased
to be able to say today that Spitalfields' Petitioners have agreed
to speak on the issues and not go over the same things. We are
going to be specifying specific areas that we are greatly concerned
with. We are also going to be presenting to the Committee a number
of undertakings which we would like to hear Crossrail's view on
and see if we can get some agreement today on those particular
issues. I have mentioned the order that we have set them out in
and I would like to say that although the undertakings I have
produced on document 1 are presented on behalf of Spitalfields
Community Association—
18296. Chairman: For the record, list
that as A204.
18297. Ms Cove:—they are submitted
on behalf of the entire whole of the Spitalfields community and
they are not just on behalf of the Spitalfields Community Association.
We believe the Community Liaison Panel and the site-specific Health
Impact Assessment groups must be established, both the other major
construction sites in Tower Hamlets, Stepney and the Isle of Dogs
as well as in Spitalfields. Can I say again on the Community Liaison
Panel, we did welcome the Committee charging Crossrail with the
task of establishing a Community Liaison Panel along with other
community groups, and the Community Association at Spitalfields
were keen to engage in a positive and fruitful dialogue through
this panel. I will not reiterate what I set out in my letter which
I sent to you on 29 November, Chairman, and forwarded to the Committee
clerk on 15 January. I will also not repeat what I have set out
in my Petition on paragraphs 15 to 19. However, before dealing
with the Crossrail response, which I understand you have had,
I need to say that our view of the Community Liaison Panel is
that members should not only reflect the community but be transparently
selected by the community in order to have a mandate from and
credibility with the community. If it is not established in this
manner, the Community Liaison Panel becomes a misnomer and is
meaningless. We strongly object to the Crossrail selective-secretive
interpretation for selection of panel membership.
18298. I want to deal with Crossrail's responses
to the Community Association's Petition in sequence, and I understand
that has already been sent to the Committee. I believe that response
is both misleading and disingenuous. As I refer to it, I have
handed in numbered paragraphs and underlined the quotes that I
would like to refer to, it is number 4 in your small bundle. Paragraph
1.4 quotes: "A number of Petitioners appear to believe that
the purpose of the body (which I assume they mean the Committee
Liaison Panel) is primarily to engage with the Petitioners and
meet their specific concerns rather than with the wider community
and some appear to consider that its purpose should be achieved
through debate at public meetings". This interpretation is
completely refuted by SCA and other community groups and we are
bemused as to how Crossrail could have reached such a conclusion
as there has never been any discussion between the community and
Crossrail on the purpose of the Community Liaison Panel. At the
first meeting in October, Crossrail produced a draft remit which
we found quite unsatisfactory. I was then invited to submit a
further draft remit for the Committee. I did that, but because
of the decision of the Community Association's AGM on 28 November
on behalf of that association that I should not attend further
meetings, I did not send in the draft remit that I had prepared
so Crossrail have not got the faintest idea what the community
sees to be the function of this Community Panel. We believe the
function of the Panel is that members must all have equal status
and there must be a frank exchange of views. It is very important
that we are provided with relevant and up-to-date information
in order for the community to fully understand the impact of Crossrail
and to seek appropriate undertakings to mitigate harm and protect
the community from the impact of a major construction site.
18299. We want to discuss this information on
serious concerns, including site-specific issues such as: health,
safety, dust, traffic, noise, pollution, vibration, settlement,
et cetera, and we are of the opinion that the Panel should follow
best practice and be built on precedent set by the Kings Cross
community. Paragraph 2.1 says: "Representative of the local
population" (which is 58 per cent Bengali) "in line
with the Committee's request, rather than Petitioners who are
predominately white European". As a Community Association,
we are deeply offended by the racist insinuations of that remark.
Spitalfields is a close-knit racially harmonious community and
it seems that Crossrail are trying to drive a wedge between the
community groups by alleging that Petitioners either are not representative
or are not concerned about the impact on the entire community
irrespective of race. Crossrail has never investigated the ethnicity
of any community groups, and I should tell you that apart from
the Spitalfields Small Business Association, which is predominately
an ethnic minority organisation, both the Community Association
and the Woodseer and Hanbury Residents Association have a substantial
number of members from both Bengali and Somali communities.
|
