Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18560
- 18579)
18560. Chairman: We are grateful that
you have re-emphasised that on the record.
18561. Ms Jones: Could I just make a
few comments on what Mr Elvin has said? Yes, you can always sue
outside the terms of the contractual commitment under the settlement
deed, but it is very expensive and stressful. Again you would
have to fund those costs in advance, so I am asking that that
commitment which Mr Elvin has referred to is put into the settlement
deed and given to the individuals.
18562. Chairman: Ms Jones, we have got
your view on that.
18563. Ms Jones: Could I just ask what
will happen now? Will you consider the undertakings that I have
asked for?
18564. Chairman: Let me briefly go through
it. The evidence from here today will be considered by the Committee
in full and we will come to our decisions and we will make those
decisions known to all Petitioners and to the House, and we will
do that in our own time whenever possible.
18565. Ms Jones: Perhaps I could hand
you a bit later a full list of the undertakings so that you have
them in front of you.
18566. Chairman: Yes, thank you. We will
resume at 2.30.
After a short adjournment
18567. Chairman: The next Petition we
will hear is Robin Tutty and others, Ms Zoe Hudson.
18568. Mr Mould: I am reading from the
helpful note we had from Ms Cove, and we understand that Ms Hudson
is going to speak on specific health matters. That is all I know,
I am afraid.
The Petition of Robin Tutty and others.
Ms Joe Zoe Hudson appeared on behalf of Robin
Tutty and others.
18569. Ms Hudson: Thank you. I would
like to point out that I am here representing 46 members of the
Spitalfields community of mixed age and ethnicity. I would like
to say that I have got the utmost sympathy for the Committee whom
I am sure when they were elected did not envisage having to spend
over a year listening to both Promoters and Petitioners about
a resurrected project that has been on the boil for the last ten
years. I will be brief. I have spent the weekend reading through
the Health Impact Assessment and various amendments and provisions
and it fills me with great sadness. Page 11 of Crossrail's report
states that: "Tower Hamlets in particular has a young population
which is sensitive to environmental disruption and has the highest
levels of unemployment, poor health and low quality housing along
the route. Furthermore, the borough has the lowest life expectancy
in London".[18]
You heard this morning that Dr Safir, the local GP, gave evidence
to the Select Committee on 14 June last year in which he detailed
the unique socio-economic deprivation in the area? Spitalfields
is joint top in the UK for social deprivation. The extent of disease
entities is prevalent in the area. It has every single disease
entity under the Chronic Disease Register. Even the Health Authority
has not understood the complexity.
18570. Spitalfields tops the lead for lung disease,
most admissions, most expense, and the biggest indicator of premature
death. Obviously the route has to go through some part of Tower
Hamlets, and I know the area well, I am a senior clinical lecturer
at Barts and The London Medical School and have lived and worked
in the area for over ten years. I devote a lot of my time promoting
health and physical activity within the borough. When I run around
Tower Hamlets I see large areas of non-residential areas in the
borough. The Committee have been around the Hanbury Street site
and have seen that it is slap bang in the middle of a very dense
residential area. As Dr Safir stated, up to four families will
live in a four-bedroom flat, 20 to 30 people within a residence.
Density calculations do not account for that.
18571. We worry about provisions for dust et
cetera, but this will not ameliorate the level of lung disease
during construction and will further increase it and the area
is already tops for lung disease. Access to the site is by narrow
roads. Brick Lane has experienced diversions for water mains replacement
recently, and the very same roads that will be used to access
the site have been blocked by normal size lorries unable to negotiate
these small streets. I watched last year as Crossrail produced
plans of lorry access to the Hanbury Street site and they have
underscaled the size of the lorries. How could anyone think that
Hanbury Street could be a suitable site for a shaft, never mind
a tunnelling site which was originally envisaged? Let us take
the most deprived population and hammer them even more.
18572. Knowing these facts, I am not sure how
anybody can sit very comfortably, and I do not want to be part
of a society that can knowingly do that to such a vulnerable section
of society.
18573. On a final note, I have personal experience
of sitting on these types of processes. I was and am adviser to
the London 2012 Olympic bid which was partly won with the strength
of the health and legacy aspects. Having sat on developmental
meetings where ideas are discussed you end up seeing ideas are
suddenly on the minutes and they may become facts set in stone
with no future reference to their origin, rightly or wrongly.
I have in my mind that when this route was devised it was done
in a planner's office with redundant plans which in no way conveyed
the nature of the area and no site visit. That can make sense
of this nonsense. I understand that the route is picked and then
the various health impact environmental reports et cetera are
undertaken. Undertaking individual provisions in this instance
seems wholly inadequate for the overall equation of the shaft
site location and a uniquely deprived community. It seems to appear
at worst a cynical ploy as they are already so deprived it is
not going to matter, or at best incompetent, and I am not sure
if we will ever know the answer to that.
18574. I would like to thank the Select Committee
for their patience and trust them to look after this community.
18575. Mr Mould: Sir, this morning you
reminded the meeting of the decision which the Committee has already
expressed in relation to route alignment, and in particular you
will have had in mind the Committee's decision which is to be
found at paragraph 16824 from day 58, which is the day on which
we responded to the interim decisions, which made it clear that
you accepted the case for Hanbury Street as an appropriate site
for the shaft.[19]
I do not want to go over that ground again, indeed this morning
you indicated that would not be helpful at this stage. As regards
health impacts: Mr Elvin made some comments to you in relation
to that earlier on as indeed I think Mr Leek did. I would also
draw attention, for the record, to what I said about that at paragraph
10942 on day 41, when we were last considering the Petitions of
those who represent bodies within Spitalfields.[20]
The particular point I was making there was that the Health Impact
Assessment process is an iterative process and is one which is
underway but by no means has it been completed. A further point
which the Committee may find of some value to be reminded of is
that it is a process which is being undertaken in accordance with
current guidelines laid down by, amongst others, the Department
of Health. We are seeking to apply best practice in conducting
that assessment process and indeed will continue to do so as the
process develops in relation to Crossrail over coming months.
18576. I think Mr Elvin said a little this morning
about how we propose the Liaison Panel locally should play a part
in that process as it applies to Spitalfields. That is all I propose
to say in response to this Petitioner, unless there is any other
point I can help you with?
18577. Chairman: Would you like to come
back on that?
18578. Ms Hudson: I think I would like
to make two points. It is a bit of a sequencing issue, is it not,
in terms of they obviously have to pick the route and then do
the impact assessment? Has the consequence of any of these impact
assessments had, rather than just making provisions and undertakings,
fundamental changes to original plans, or is it just part of the
process?
18579. Chairman: There are things which
we are very interested in and we think they are a vital part of
the process, but we are here to listen to evidence and whatever
people's concerns are, what the plans which have been presented
are, and if Petitioners have a view on it then we have got to
look at the views which you are expressing and take a decision.
18 Crossrail Health Impact Assessment, Community Profile,
January 2006, www.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-GEN04-013). Back
19
Para 16824. Back
20
Committee Ref: A206, The Spitalfields Society comments on SES
in respect of Noise (SCN20070130-001). Back
| 
