Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18580
- 18599)
18580. Ms Hudson: A lot of my colleagues
are presenting the micro issues and I wanted to give—as
I am representing so many more people—more of a macro overview.
I would like to make one last comment. It strikes me from a lot
of this morning that one of the fundamental issues is that Crossrail
seems to have failed to engage with the local community time and
time again. I heard talk this morning about correspondence and
I fail to see how Crossrail see that correspondence is going to
engage the community?
18581. Chairman: The part of where you
were talk about correspondence was in the evidence which was given
this morning where there seemed to be an impasse between one of
the Petitioners and the liaison between the parties, and what
I commented on there was to correspond at the very least. I think
exchanges of information, whether it be by a letter or voice,
are very, very important, this is all part of the process. What
you are here today for is to put forward how the people you represent
are dissatisfied with the process so far, and what you have to
do in the process of doing that is convince the Members of Committee
who are present today of your case as against that laid down in
the Bill as it proceeds. We will take whatever you say in consideration
of that, it is how well you make your case.
18582. Ms Hudson: I hope I have made
my case.
18583. Chairman: The next Petitioner
is Patricia Jones, again on behalf of The Spitalfields Society.
The Petition of The Spitalfields Society.
Patricia Jones appeared on behalf of The Spitalfields
Society.
18584. Mr Elvin: Again, from Ms Cove's
helpful letter all we are told is matters related to Hanbury Street:
compensation and settlement.
18585. Ms Jones: Please bear with me,
I will only take about 15 minutes of your time. If I could just
tell you briefly what I am going to talk about. Mr Elvin made
it clear when he stood up in his opening that there is not a question
of reopening or looking again at the alignment of the bridge because
it would delay the passage of the Bill and I fully appreciate
that on the evidence presented to the Committee before that you
have made your preliminary decision that Hanbury Street is the
best location for the ventilation shaft. But the SES3, which has
now been presented, shows that the selection of Hanbury Street
was based on incorrect evidence presented to the Committee. I
will take you through the SES to demonstrate that.
18586. The fact that a change in the alignment
may delay the Bill I do not think is particularly important when
I will show you that the decision was reached on incorrect evidence
which was put before you. I will show you that on the basis of
the new evidence Hanbury Street has greater environmental impact
than Woodseer Street and that the Promoter was incorrect in asserting
the opposite. In the light of that, I will ask you to consider
whether you now think that when the Promoter asserts that it has
looked as the southern alignments you believe that it has done
so objectively and accurately and whether the Promoter has really
tried to optimise a route so as to find a less harmful solution.
I say that it has not. It has continually tried to retrofit the
shaft and a route to the base case and that no final decision
can be taken until this exercise has been carried out. I will
ask the Committee to reconsider its previous decision in the light
of the new information in the SES and further information which
should be required of the Promoter.
18587. The analysis now on the basis of the
new information of Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street shows that
on environmental grounds Hanbury Street has the greater impact.
I think the Promoter accepts that if one site or route is shown
to be environmentally less harmful then it should be pursued unless
engineering difficulties outweigh the environmental impact. I
think that is a legal duty imposed on the Promoter.
18588. I will show you that there is no evidence
that Woodseer Street has the engineering disadvantages. We will
ask the Committee to demand additional evidence from the Promoter
so that it can be satisfied in the light of the new information
in the SES that there are the engineering difficulties that the
Promoter says there are, and that they are of such a magnitude
that it is a compelling reason to stick with the same shaft, notwithstanding
the greater environmental impact.
18589. I will show you that Hanbury Street has
too many construction difficulties associated with it and that
the new information in the SES shows that in the original evidence
given to the Committee the Promoter was understating the impact
of the works to a considerable degree.
18590. Overall I will ask—and please bear
with me because this is on the basis of the new information—you
to reconsider your decision with the evidence now before you,
and ask for further information from the Promoter before making
your final decision. I will dwell on Hanbury Street and Woodseer
Street, but only to show you that the evidence produced by the
Promoter upon which you relied in making your preliminary decision
is wrong in fundamental respects, and that Hanbury Street should
not be the location.
18591. If the decision is still to prefer Hanbury
Street then we would like certain undertakings from the Promoter
to support the evidence upon which it relies in arguing for Hanbury
Street.
18592. If I could give you these? I want to
go on very briefly to show you on the SES where I think have problems.
18593. Chairman: This document is A206.[21]
18594. Ms Jones: In the paragraph headed
"Noise", if we turn first to the noise assessments,
which you will recall had not been carried out when the evidence
was first presented or before your decision was made.
18595. In addition to the summary of the noise
assessments in the SES an errata statement was issued by the Promoter
last week, as I understand it in response to the continued efforts
by Tower Hamlets to question the noise assessments made by Mr
Thornley-Taylor. It is worth looking at those revised statements
in detail. If you could have paragraph 3.4.60 of the SES, it says—and
this is on Hanbury Street—32 properties will qualify for
insulation; but, of those, 20 so badly affected that they would
need to be rehoused.[22]
A further 30 would experience significant residual impact. So
that makes 62.
18596. If you go to paragraph 3.4.62, with noise
mitigation measures there are still 34 residential properties
which will be affected, eight so badly as to require rehousing;
and with further noise insulation 22 will still experience significant
residual noise impact.
18597. If we go to 3.4.63, with further mitigation
12 residential properties will still suffer significant impact
and are likely to qualify for noise insulation, and with that
in place, when you look at paragraph 3.4.64, apparently—but
somewhat difficult to believe bearing in mind that a number of
properties sit directly above the site, which some Members will
recall from their site visit—no residential properties will
experience significant residual construction impact. But of those
12 properties at least three of them are at 61 Princelet Street
and they are properties which the Committee had decided, and the
Promoter has accepted, would be extraordinarily affected.
18598. On Day 62, paragraph 16837, "We
recognise that these people will be extraordinarily affected,"
which was accepted by the Promoter. So is the Promoter correct
when it says that with mitigation no properties will suffer noise
impact?
18599. If you go on to paragraph 3.4.65 the
Promoter then suggests that it may not be possible to achieve
the mitigation, in which case 12 properties will still be affected.
21 Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement
3, Mitigation and Residual Impacts, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-SES303-020). Back
22
Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement 3 (Amended),
Design Options-Woodseer Street Shaft Site, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(SCN-20070130-011). Back
| 
