Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18320
- 18339)
18320. Tower Hamlets is referred to again in
this document when it is stated that, "Due to the levels
of deprivation in Tower Hamlets residents in this borough are
more susceptible to any activities that will have a potentially
negative impact on the health of the population. This is most
visible in the lower life expectancy of residents in Tower Hamlets."
18321. I have quoted these extracts in order
to support the eloquent and very graphic evidence that was given
to the Committee by Dr Safir, who is a local GP of 33 years' standing,
and I would refer the Committee members to his evidence in paragraphs
10399 to 10429 in the transcript. I was going to quote to you
some of his evidence that is set out in those transcripts so that
they are put alongside Crossrail's own supporting documents.
18322. Dr Safir said: "We have an enormous
amount of unemployment, an enormous amount of housing problems,
which I will touch on, an enormous amount of illiteracy, and I
hear today counsel saying about all the documents that have come
through and they are bilingual and everything, but we have an
enormous amount of Bengali people who are illiterate in their
own language." He went on to say, "They are also, not
wishing to be racist or rude in any way, totally unaware of the
concepts of health, housing or major impacts on social undertakings
that would have perhaps influenced different populations. I imagine
an awful lot of my population would have no idea what Crossrail
is about."
18323. Just to emphasise the points that Dr
Safir made, he said, "I would like to touch on the health
issues and the social issues by just saying that Spitalfields
is a medical disaster area. I called the health authority in six
months ago to point out our problems of disease entities and prevalence
of diseases and they were absolutely amazed, so not even our health
authority have really understood the problems we are facing in
the deprivation of Spitalfields. This is compounded by the ignorance,
the non-compliance, the difficulty in understanding concepts,
the difficulty with language even though we have interpreters
in our surgery—we are dealing with a very unique population
who really are not on the same wavelength as all the people in
this room, and that has to be taken into account when we are talking
about impact on population."
18324. He said, "What is going to happen
with the Hanbury Street project, it is going to have a major,
major, major, major impact on the Spitalfields community, far,
far more than any other community of similar population."
And, "There is no concept of health wellbeing in the area.
As I say, every disease entity—asthma, chronic obstructive
airways ... we have enormous amounts. We have the worst of the
worst. I was at a recent meeting and unfortunately they did charts
of hospital admissions and the cost to the health authority, and
unfortunately on the top of the list my name came `top of the
pops'—most admissions, most expense, most everything for
hospital admissions due to lung disease."
18325. Quoting again from him, "What I
would like you to do, in a nutshell, is accept the fact that our
population is going to be far more affected by the Crossrail project
in Hanbury Street than any other population that I know of because
of all the problems I have said, because of the non-compliance.
The devastating effect on the Hanbury Street project will affect
far more residents than I think people understand."
18326. Finally, he says, "I would say,
number one, that this is a very highly sensitive area at the moment
with the Muslim population, and I think we need to retain race
relations. I am not aware of any detailed assessment of health
issues that have already gone through that Crossrail have asked
for. I am sure that there is going to be a big impact on the health
of my population. I feel that there is a different route that
can be taken that does not involve Hanbury Street. I am not political,
I do not know the ins and outs, but there is a different route
that could be used that would totally avoid the Hanbury Street
population."
18327. This graphic description of health problems
in Spitalfields from a GP of many years, together with those parts
of Crossrail's own Health Impact Assessment supporting document,
has still not prodded them into action to even begin setting up
site-specific health groups for Spitalfields.
18328. We say that this cannot be allowed to
drift along without some action by Crossrail, so today, on behalf
of the community, I am seeking the following undertakings from
the Promoter: that Crossrail should immediately begin the task
of carrying out a site-specific Health Impact Assessment for the
Hanbury Street site to consider existing health problems by creating
a Spitalfields Health Impact Assessment panel. This Health Impact
Assessment panel to include representatives from the following
groups: Towel Hamlets Primary Care Trust, Tower Hamlets Public
Health Trust, Tower Hamlets Mental Health Trust, Tower Hamlets
Council's Health and Overview Scrutiny Panel, the Patients Forum
for Primary Care in Tower Hamlets, the GP from Spitalfields Health
Centre, district nurses, health visits and all other relevant
health professionals.
18329. In addition, we would request that the
Select Committee would consider charging Crossrail with the task
of establishing similar sites for specific HIA panels for both
of the two other major construction sites in Tower Hamlets, Stepney
and the Isle of Dogs, with GP representation from the health centres
local to each site. We also ask Crossrail to provide resources
for independent monitoring of the impacts and applying the lessons
learned on the CTRL project in addition to allocating independent
experts to deal with the likely impacts to ameliorate health impacts.
Thank you.
18330. Mr Elvin: Sir, it is quite apparent
that the key problem, so far as the community liaison issue, arises
from the insistence by local residents on having a public meting
at which everyone attends, rather than a representative meeting.
I will call Mr Leeks in a moment just to explain the position,
but the intention has been to take forward the health impact assessment
through the liaison panel. Of course, as you will be aware, the
doctor attended the December meeting, and Mr Leeks will tell you
what transpired. The difficulty the doctor has is that if the
community representatives will not participate his input is not
going to be terribly helpful because he needs the community to
assist as well.
18331. All of the matters which appear to have
given rise to difficulties flow from the insistence not on a liaison
panel but on a public meeting. Crossrail does not intend to host
any public meetings but it has made it perfectly clear that there
is nothing to prevent the local representatives from getting together
on their own and electing representatives for the panel; it is
not Crossrail's role to say who should or should not be on the
community liaison panel, it is for the different aspects of the
community to choose their own representatives—that is the
nature of these things. Unless they do, Crossrail cannot really
do very much in terms of taking it forward.
18332. What we were not aware of until what
has just been said was that there was a cost issue standing in
the way of the community having its own public meeting. What I
am told is if that is really the case and all that is stopping
the community or the Petitioners, or whoever it is who wants to
hold a public meeting to choose their representatives, is the
cost of hiring the venue then Crossrail will pay the reasonable
costs of hiring such a venue, to allow the community to chose
its representatives, but that point has not been raised with us.
18333. Chairman: So Crossrail are prepared
to facilitate such a meeting?
18334. Mr Elvin: Yes.
18335. Chairman: Has any thought been
given, perhaps, to involving the local authority in hosting that?
18336. Mr Elvin: We have tried. I will
get Mr Leeks to explain to you the position. There have been discussions
with a number of community representatives and persons in the
community, but it is better rather than I tell you that he tells
you, in a moment. I make it clear, if the residents wish to have
a public meeting Crossrail does not intend to host a public meeting;
it is for the community to choose their representatives, but it
will pay the reasonable costs of the venue for such a meeting
to be held, if that is proving a difficulty. As I say, had that
issue been raised before then it could have been addressed before.
18337. However, all these issues that flow from
it, such as not driving forward the health impact assessment,
not involving the community in these issues, arises because there
has been an insistence that the panel sit by a public meeting,
and public meetings have not proved constructive in the past,
which is why, I assume, the Committee thought a representative
panel would be the appropriate way forward. Crossrail has only
made initial invitations because Mr Leeks saw his role as setting
up the panel and getting it up and running, with the view that
it should then be self-governing and he could depart. Crossrail
might be represented or take part in the meetings but it is for
the community to run its own panel through its own representatives
and elect its own chairperson. That has not yet been done, for
the reasons that we set out in the report. I will call Mr Leeks
in a moment.
18338. I just want to mention one point where
there is misunderstanding. The amendments to the Environmental
Statement which I announced to the Committee two weeks ago have
now been publicly advertised, and copies were supplied to the
community the week I indicated they would be. It is not correct
to say that they indicate that noise will be worse at Hanbury
Street; they say nothing of the sort. Could Mr Fry put up paragraph
3.5.7 of the original version of the third SES.[1]
There you will see, in the first line: "Construction noise
modelling of each site predicts that 12 residential properties
would be likely to qualify for both temporary rehousing and noise
insulation at Hanbury Street and no significant residual noise
impacts." There was then a consideration of Woodseer Street,
and you will see the numbers 12 and 79, and the view was that
Woodseer was slightly greater adverse impact than Hanbury Street.
18339. The change arose as a result of reconsideration
of mitigation factors, and if I can just put up on the scanner
the corresponding paragraph, you will see in the first sentence
it reaches the same conclusion: "Twelve residential properties
for noise insulation; no significant residual noise impacts".[2]
What has changed is that applying what were reconsidered as the
mitigation methods would reduce the impact slightly at Woodseer
Street, so the comparison shifted from slightly in favour of Hanbury
Street in noise terms to slightly in favour of Woodseer Street
in noise terms. The Committee will remember from what Mr Thornley-Taylor
and Mr Berryman both said back in June (or may remember it by
the transcripts) that the question of the selection of the location
did not turn on relative environmental impacts, it turned on the
engineering problems of an alignment which would take you to Woodseer
Street. You will recall the problems with the piling at the Bishops
Square development. That has come out with, broadly, what Mr Thornley-Taylor
told the Committee in June: that the noise impacts would be broadly
similar.
1 Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement
3, Design Options-Woodseer Street Shaft Site, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-SES303-029). Back
2
Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement 3 (Amended),
Design Options-Woodseer Street Shaft Site, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(SCN-20070130-011). Back
|
