Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18820
- 18839)
18820. Let us just test that. Map C7(i).[2]
This is from the main Environmental Statement, volume 4A. Let
us look at the area of Liverpool Street as it goes towards Hanbury
Street. We can see Hanbury Street is at the far right of the picture.
We can see that the alignment of Crossrail as it comes through
here goes under a vast area of listed buildings: it goes under
the Barbican, it goes under Finsbury Circus, it goes in close
proximity here in Finsbury Circus to a Grade II* listed building.
The categorisation of listed buildings in the Hanbury Street area
are majority Grade II, are they not?
(Mr Palin) Yes.
18821. There is one Grade II* building in the
middle.
(Mr Palin) And there is
a church.
18822. There is Christ Church, which is Grade
I. I explained yesterday that the alignments have to avoid Christ
Church, for obvious reasons. This is a project which has to go
through a dense area of conservation and historic residences.
It is the point Mr Binley made earlier. You cannot just say Hanbury
Street is more unique than the rest, if that is a correct use
of language. You have only two listed buildings which are not
regarded as so special, by and large, in historic and architectural
terms that they get either II* listed or Grade I. Of course, Christ
Church is Grade I because it is of the highest quality and importance.
You have one Grade II* building, which means it is exceptional,
but in terms of its national significance it compares to many
of the areas the rest of the track goes under, does it not?
(Mr Palin) The exact point
I was trying to make is that it is not simply about listing and
the grading of these buildings; it is about the fact that Finsbury
Circus is occupied entirely by office buildings, but the area
in question, Spitalfields, is a residential and mixed community.
That gives it value which, in my mind, raises it above certain
other areas that you have pointed out.
18823. I am content to stand with the Secretary
of State's national listing programme, which assesses buildings
on a national scale, because we are not just dealing with a local
project here, we are dealing with a project which we have consistently
said is of national significance. Of course, if the alignment
were changed (can we go to map 8(i), please), this is Hanbury
Street here, going into Whitechapel Station.[3]
If it went a little to the north it would hit the Fournier Street
Conservation Area; if it went to the south it would go through
other residential areas as well as business areas. There is nowhere,
if we are going to build a railway station which connects with
Whitechapel Station, which everyone else seems, apart from a number
of associations in this area, to think is a desirable feature
for interchange and in order to make the project work, including
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, unless we are going to say
Whitechapel Station is not to be preferred at all and Parliament
has decided it should be, then we are going to have to take the
tunnels under a densely-populated area. We are in central London.
That is inevitable, is it not?
(Mr Palin) So that explains why
you are building a ventilation shaft in the heart of a narrow
network of streets rather than in many more open areas or wider
thoroughfares.
18824. Have you read the reports as to how the
sites were comparatively assessed?
(Mr Palin) No, I have not.
18825. Mr Elvin: Thank you very much.
Re-examined by Mr Carpenter
18826. Mr Carpenter: I would like to
ask Will if there is anything that has been said that he would
like to comment on.
(Mr Palin) Not other than to make the point
that, as I said, we are not merely talking about grading and listing
and historical significance of architecture, we are talking about
something, in my mind, far more important and deeper than that,
and that is a community that has been established for over 400
years.
18827. Mr Carpenter: Thank you.
The witness withdrew
18828. Chairman: You have dealt extensively
there with the locality of Hanbury Street. Are we going to deal
with matters in the new round of amendments which have been made,
or are we going to repeat—
18829. Mr Carpenter: No, all I wish to
talk about is on conservation issues. My second concern is that
the Promoter only made certain information available about alternative
tunnel alignments recently. After the existence of these documents
was discovered we requested them, once we worked out their significance,
as they showed the Promoter making contradictory and unsubstantiated
claims about the southern route, which we feel cannot be relied
upon. I appreciate the difficulty of the Select Committee to accept
the views of people like me, who are non-expert, and for this
reason and for clarity our Association has asked if we can call
an expert on this issue, and I would like to call my next witness,
who is Michael Schabas.
18830. Mr Elvin: My only point is this;
he is an entire surprise so far as the Promoters are concerned.
We have had ample communication with these residents over the
last week or so. Not only do they not have the courtesy to send
us a copy of their submission but they do not even have the basic
courtesy, given how much they have complained about lack of communication
in the past, it does strike one as a little odd, that we have
not even had any indication that an expert would be called, nor
what the subject matter would be.
18831. Chairman: I have to say, Mr Carpenter,
it is extraordinary that you will be bringing an expert in prior
to doing any ... . You have requested documents and having found
you needed the services of an expert you have not actually relayed
that kind of information to ... Any court of law, let alone here—
18832. Mr Carpenter: I think the difficulty
is I did inform the Committee yesterday I would be calling witnesses
but I did not realise I had to say they were expert or not.
18833. Chairman: You have got an expert,
you have clearly had in your mind questions which you need to
refer to a document, and you have hired an expert to do it. It
is normal practice to exchange, discover and reveal papers that
you are going to bring up in the course of a hearing like this
to the other side. It is not "Catch us if you can";
it is really trying to give both sides the opportunity to examine,
refute or agree.
18834. I am going to allow you to go forward
today with this but I may give the Promoters time to review any
questions which are raised and then come back to the Committee
at some point.
18835. Mr Carpenter: Certainly, that
is fine. I do apologise.
18836. Chairman: I just want to hear
Mr Elvin.
18837. Mr Elvin: Can I just add that
this, quite apart from the fact it is going back on the material
which was dealt with in the summer, is departing from the principle
of the Bill. The House has approved the limits of deviation at
Second Reading; alignments along the lines that seem to be suggested
and the issue of the southern alignment is completely outside
the principle.
18838. Chairman: Can I just respond to
that? I made it clear yesterday that there is no question of us
rerouting at all. I made it absolutely perfectly clear that decision
has gone but we will hear evidence where there were mitigations
in relation to the AP3 changes. We have heard some of that but
much of what is just about to be put forward is on matters concerning
realignment or possible realignment. This is outside. Where I
am interested is there has been an accusation that wrong-doings
are afoot, and I would like to listen to that, albeit briefly,
and then make a judgment. If it is being presented to the Committee
I do not want us to say we are not going to accept it and then
give recourse to the courts.
18839. Mr Elvin: I understand that completely.
I am only seeking to remind you of the context.
2 Crossrail Ref: P136, Crossrail Environmental Statement,
Liverpool Street Station-Key Environmental Features, Map C7(i),
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-ES16-031). Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P136, Crossrail Environmental Statement, Whitechapel
Station-Key Environmental Features, Map C8(i), billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-ES16-034). Back
| 
