Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18660
- 18679)
18660. Mr Mould: Of course, I understand
that, and I will make sure that anything material in relation
to that is relayed to you. I certainly do not accept that there
is any need for anything further to be said to the Committee in
relation to noise.
18661. Chairman: The reason why I raised
it is because they have come back to petition again because they
have been very, very unhappy with what they thought was the guarantees
which they thought they had been given and then found those to
be unsatisfactory. It is legitimate because everybody has the
right to re-petition.
18662. Mr Mould: Well, I will not go
into that, but I understand why they are here. Sir, I just must
remind you, and Mr Elvin again has kindly highlighted the passage,
that in paragraph 10090 I informed the Committee that the prediction
in relation to the Petitioners' property as regards groundborne
noise, located, as it is, just to the north of the eastbound running
tunnel at Wilkes Street, is that the groundborne noise would be
less than 30dB(A)LAmax and I mentioned the relationship between
the noise predictions and the design criterion which Mr Thornley-Taylor
has explained to the Committee, and of course I was there comparing
that with the design criterion of 40dB(A)LAmax which Mr Elvin
has mentioned again to you during the course of his submissions
this morning, so I need not say any more about that; the comparative
predictions and the design criterion and the relationship between
the two is self-explanatory.
18663. Chairman: Would you give a check
on that settlement issue?
18664. Mr Mould: Of course, we will do
that.
18665. Chairman: Mrs Critchley, do you
want to come back?
18666. Mrs Critchley: No, I think your
questions have satisfied us, Chairman, thank you.
18667. Chairman: Our next Petitioner
is Mr Roy Adams.
18668. Ms Jones: I am afraid he has had
to go, so he will try and rearrange for tomorrow morning.
18669. Chairman: Mr Elvin, has there
been any liaison in respect of someone disappearing from the list?
Mr Adams has had to leave.
18670. Mr Elvin: I was entirely unaware
of that. No one has mentioned anything to us.
18671. Ms Jones: He probably did not
know that he needed to inform you. He had to rush off to another
meeting.
18672. Chairman: Yes, I understand that
and we will get in touch with Mr Adams, but I have to say that
this is a very arduous process, a very long process and it is
a very time-consuming process in terms of not only for the Members,
but also the House, so to reschedule things, we really do need
to know if anybody is going to depart and leave us without time,
and we may lose time today because of that. As I say, it is a
very expensive thing on the public purse, so we will be in touch
with Mr Adams and perhaps try and rearrange it, but perhaps you
could pass on to him our disquiet at his departure.
18673. We will move now to the final case today
which is the case of the Spitalfields Small Business Association
and Ms Kay Jordan.
The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
Ms Kay Jordan appeared on behalf of Spitalfields
Small Business Association.
18674. Mr Mould: Whilst Ms Jordan is
coming up to the table, might I just deal with that outstanding
point which you asked me to clarify. What I wanted to do was double-check
that what I had told you in paragraph 10087 was accurate. What
I said there was that the results of the settlement assessment
process, as regards the property of the previous Petitioners at
14 Wilkes Street, had indicated that there would be negligible
effects from the tunnelling works beneath their property and in
the light of that no further assessment was proposed. I am told
that was an accurate statement of the position and so that is
the evidence we thought we would give to you in relation to that.
18675. Chairman: I am grateful for that.
If the Committee can have a note on both of those two things so
that we may pass that on for the comfort of those Petitioners
who raised those points. Mr Elvin?
18676. Mr Elvin: As I understand it,
Ms Jordan will be dealing with the small business interests in
the proposed route. I will repeat again, as I have said already
on a number of occasions today, the alignment issues were looked
at in considerable detail in June and indeed Ms Jordan raised
these issues then.
18677. Chairman: Ms Jordan?
18678. Ms Jordon: I will be considering
small businesses because that is who I represent. The SSBA is
a social enterprise which has tenants who own small businesses
with well over 100 tenant members now, and we also represent small
business interests in the Brick Lane and Whitechapel area. It
is in the context of our concerns that whilst we are appreciative
of the fact that we have not got the Pedley Street spoil in the
area, we still feel that the size of the shaft which is proposed
at Hanbury Street and the works that are proposed at the Whitechapel
Station will have a dramatic impact on the economic life of our
area. We are exceedingly concerned about it because Crossrail
appears to think that the only thing that matters in our economy
is Brick Lane and this is not true. It is in that context that
I am talking. Otherwise, I am talking about our Petition, and
our Petition was specific in its content about why we felt that
the revisions on the Whitechapel Station were not necessary, and
why we felt that the route alignments through the SES3 had not
been covered. That is what I want to talk about, not a line in
general but those specific things.
18679. I have complicated things for myself
because in rushing out this morning, having slept in, whilst I
brought the drawings and I numbered them up, the documents that
I am referring to, which I had carefully reduced in size in order
to give to you, I have gone and left in my house. I have no solution
other than to pass it around. I do have some notes that can refer
to them. I am referring to the drawings so there is not a lot
here, but I did provide the documents behind those.
| 
