Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18600
- 18619)
18600. If you turn to the comparison with Woodseer
Street, paragraph 3.5.7, "Construction noise modelling of
each site predicts that 12 residential properties would be likely
to qualify for noise insulation at Hanbury Street and no significant
noise impacts." Remember, again, that of those 12, three
are the ones so extraordinarily affected that they had to be bought
out. Going on, "Near the Woodseer Street site four residential
properties would be subject to significant noise impact."[23]
Please also ask yourselves if any of those properties at Woodseer
Street are likely to be so extraordinary affected as at Hanbury
Street? The answer is no because there are no properties which
are so close to the site. Please also note that this analysis
appears to ignore commercial properties, of which there are a
large number at Hanbury Street.
18601. So less impact and possibly significantly
less impact at Woodseer Street, and less people overall significantly
affected.
18602. So what was the Committee told when it
was making its decision? And this is the important thing: upon
what did you base your decision? Day 38, paragraph 9517, Mr Berryman
says, "As far as noise is concerned we think the impacts
are pretty neutral, much the same on Hanbury Street and Woodseer
Street ... There is really nothing to choose between them on noise
grounds."
18603. Day 39, paragraph 9918, Mr Thornley-Taylor,
"It is possible we may find there is a higher residual significant
effect at Woodseer Street than Hanbury Street. It is unlikely
to come out better from the noise point of view." But it
does. It may not be hugely different but, nevertheless, if you
compare the two Woodseer Street has a lower impact.
18604. On Day 53 Mr Elvin, in paragraph 11730
says, "The noise impacts will be comparable although different
residential properties will be affected, notably a large number
of flats facing the Woodseer Street site." Incorrect. With
the mitigation three flats and possibly none with further mitigation.
18605. So we have a situation where the noise
assessments on which the Committee made its decision were wrong.
If you had two sites and all other criteria were the same would
you choose the one where less people—it does not matter
how many less—were affected by noise, or a site where some
people are so extraordinarily affected that they have to be rehoused?
The answer must be the former, that is Woodseer Street. Indeed,
on Day 39 paragraph 9872, when discussing having to take people
out of flats around the Hanbury Street site, counsel says, "It
is a pretty unpalatable option and something you would want to
avoid if you could, is it not?" And Mr Berryman says, "Yes,
of course." So if you chose Woodseer Street you would not
have to rehouse anyone, and you would not have to buy out the
flat owners at number 63 Princelet Street, and potentially only
four properties with noise mitigation would be affected.
18606. In our opinion this all supports the
retro-fit approach which we fear has been applied by the Promoter
from the outset, that is select the route and then do the analysis
in such a way that it does not jeopardise the original choice.
This is clearly the case when you come to look at the southern
route, which the Promoter has considered in response to the undertaking
given by WHRA, and which Kay Jordan for the SSBA will detail for
you later.
18607. I want to take you through the lorries
because, again, I know that in the decision you thought that the
Petitioners had been overstating the problems. I want to take
you through the points on the new SES on lorry movements. SES3,
paragraph 3.4.54: " ... an average of 32 lorry movements
per day for the peak construction period of nine months ... At
other times typical lorry movements around 12 movements per day
are still expected."[24]
Paragraph 3.3.14: "The main construction works at Hanbury
Street under the revised strategy will be phased over 46.5 months
with the major civil works over 25.5 months. Peak activity, the
sinking of the shaft will take place for nine months of those
25.5."
18608. I now want to look at what the Committee
was told by the Promoter in its evidence. Day 39, paragraph 9812,
Mr Berryman: "We are showing one a day for the duration of
most of the works with possibly two a day for a few months, but
I would be very surprised if our heavy lorries exceeded that number."
Mr Elvin, summing up on day 43, paragraph 11735: "The main
construction of the shaft is now likely to be two years at worst
case with only 15 lorries a day, dropping to a single vehicle
no more than once a day after two years." So the Committee
reached its decision having been told that there would be 15 lorries
rather than the 32 now referred to for nine months; and having
been told that after two years there would be one rather than
the 12 now referred to. Tower Hamlets will allow working hours
of eight to six, Monday to Friday, and that was substantiated
by Mr Berryman on Day 38 at paragraph 9576, where he says: "This
will be a normal daytime site." Day 43, paragraph 11738,
Mr Elvin says, "Core working hours are to be eight to six."
Mr Elvin goes on to say that movements of lorries will not take
place at night. So ten hours in all per day. Also, I think there
was an undertaking given to the schools that the hours would be
further restricted because of the neighbouring schools. So we
can assume ten hours at best. A lorry movement is two journeys—one
arriving, one leaving. The point was made by Mr Elvin that the
lorries will follow a circular route, but this is actually irrelevant
to those around the shaft site—they will be affected by
both the arrival and departure. They will experience an arrival
or departure of the lorries every nine minutes for the peak period
of construction. If my maths serve me right that is ten hours,
divided by 60 to give the minutes, divided by 64, which is the
number of journeys, which equals nine. During the space between
those nine minutes the lorries have to be unloaded and loaded.
Is that possible? Otherwise, even if you assume that the traffic
routes are circular it still equates to one every 18 minutes.
18609. Please also bear in mind that although
the point was disregarded by Mr Elvin in his summing up there
will be future oversite development and that will extend the construction
activity. Please also bear in mind that none of these estimates
take into account construction delays—and I have never seen
a building project that does not have substantial construction
delays. So we do not think that the problems have been overstated,
we think they have been understated by the Promoter and that the
Committee has made its decision on incorrect evidence supplied
by the Promoter.
18610. So is the situation any less difficult
at Woodseer Street? Day 39, paragraph 9881, counsel: "Traffic
management is acknowledged to be an advantage of the Woodseer
Street site?" and Mr Berryman answers, "Yes. I have
to say it is a marginal advantage." But it is an advantage
all the same, which we would say becomes a greater advantage the
more traffic movements there are; and of course the evidence presented
before you understates the number of traffic movements by a huge
percentage.
18611. So we now have a situation where on the
new evidence Hanbury Street has greater impact in terms of noise,
displacement of residents and traffic management.
18612. I will turn very briefly to the vexed
issue of the listed buildings, the seven-year monitoring—which,
thank you, for which you have asked the Promoter to give an undertaking—the
further assessments and protective measures for some of them,
the 25dcb requirement for noise insulation to Christ Church, together
with the potential damage to 40 or 50 listed buildings under the
Hanbury Street alignment. Day 39, paragraph 9861, counsel says
to Mr Berryman: "So far as it is possible to avoid tunnelling
under or close to listed buildings, that is something that the
Promoter recognises it would wish to do, is it not?" and
Mr Berryman says, "Yes." So you now have greater impact
at Hanbury Street: the noise, displacement of residents, traffic
management of the site, and listed buildings.
18613. Turning now to the size of the site,
you will recall that the Promoter provided three different options
for traffic access, only one of which had lorries on site and
this was shown by the Spitalfields Society to be impossible. In
reply, the Promoter said that its very detailed drawings of three
options still needed more work. Where is that work? No one has
seen it. Is it possible? So is Woodseer Street any easier? Day
39, paragraph 9873: counsel says: "Woodseer Street, of course,
is a larger site and you can see that from the guidance we have
looked at. That is acknowledged to be an advantage of the site
in the June 2006 report, is it not?" Mr Berryman said: "Yes."
18614. So we now have Hanbury Street, which
has a greater impact in terms of noise, disruption to residents,
traffic management, site size for construction working. Not only
does it have a greater impact on environmental grounds but it
provides more difficult working conditions for the Promoter. This
is not my argument; this is the evidence which has been given
by the Promoter in the new SES combined with the previous evidence
given in the summer.
18615. So why is Hanbury Street still the preferred
option? The Promoter says engineering issues, but where is the
evidence to support this? Two firms of eminent engineers, Arups
for Tower Hamlets and Whitby Bird for the residents, did not agree
with the conclusions reached by the Promoter and said that the
case for Hanbury Street was not proven. I am asking the Committee
to satisfy itself on proper evidence before making any final decision
that the engineering difficulties are such as to prefer Hanbury
Street.
18616. To summarise: the only engineering issue
is the requirement, if you follow the Woodseer Street alignment,
to pass under the Bishops Square building, which has deep piles.
You may not need to; nothing has been produced which says that
an alignment is not possible which avoids the piles of Bishops
Square. On Day 38, counsel for Tower Hamlets asked Mr Berryman
if an iteration (which I think is another drawing of the line)
along those lines had been done. Paragraph 9554, Mr Berryman said,
"Something very similar has been carried out". Counsel
said, "Have we seen it?" Mr Berryman said, "You
have not seen it". You will remember that this is the one
issue which Mr Berryman said had had many man years devoted to
it and yet they had not shared this with Tower Hamlets with whom
they were in long discussion.
18617. I would ask the Committee to demand that
the Promoter provides that iteration, which, after all, the Promoter
says it has, to find out if that alignment works and to optimise
it. Then you have no engineering difficulty at all and a better
site on all the grounds referred to above.
18618. Let us assume that that iteration does
show that an operational curve is not possible and you still have
to go under Bishops Square. So what? On Day 38 Dr Bowers, who
is an expert on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project, said that
it is possible that the tunnels would need to go deeper, but that
they had seen no evidence, and even if it was necessary it might
be the case anywhere along the line, depending on the ground conditions.
So the perceived problem is not particular to this area, and that
even if this did prove necessary, as Dr Bowers said in paragraph
9347, "Both construction and noise mitigation would clearly
be possible using well-established tunnelling and railway noise
mitigation technologies. This arrangement is well within the bounds
of past construction experience on other tunnelling schemes".
18619. We would say that the Promoter is going
to have to do that all along the line; it never knows where it
is going to actually come across pile buildings. So the engineering
difficulty may not be there at all and, even if it is, it appears
to have been grossly overstated.
23 Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement
3, Mitigation and Residual Impacts, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-SES303-020). Back
24
Committee Ref: A212, Tunnel Alignments East of Liverpool Street,
Feasibility Study Report, Volume 2-Whitechapel Station (SCN-20070130-016). Back
|
