Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


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


 
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