Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20560
- 20579)
20560. For the record, I have been asked to
point out that the alternative proposals that have been agreed
with Havering supersede the assurances that we gave to the Committee
in the response to its initial decisions which was that, "The
Promoter will provide a new access ramp complying with modern
standards for access for people with reduced mobility at the south
side of Romford Station. The new ramp will be built to the west
of the existing door, providing access to the south end of the
mezzanine level subway of Romford Station". That was the
original undertaking, that assurance will therefore be removed
from the Register of Undertakings and Assurances and will be replaced
with the one that I read out earlier which the Committee has in
front of them and I hope that is satisfactory to the Committee.
20561. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much, indeed, Mr Elvin. Would the agents of the London Borough
of Havering like to respond?
20562. Mr Lewis: This is becoming a rather
pleasant habit, coming back before the Committee and saying how
pleased we are about the London Borough of Havering, I fear this
might be the last time, so I will make the most of it.
20563. Sir Peter Soulsby: We will savour
the moment.
20564. Mr Lewis: We are particularly
grateful to the Committee and Mr Meale in particular, who is not
here today, for providing the clarification which the Council
sought back in February on Romford Station and, of course, we
are very pleased with the Promoter's response again.
20565. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much indeed for that. We switch then to the members' list which
we have today which is to hear the case of the London Borough
of Tower Hamlets.
The Petition of London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
Mr Richard Drabble QC, appeared on behalf of the
Petitioner.
20566. Mr Drabble: I appear, as you know,
for the London Borough so I am glad to say that the only task
that I have today is to make a relatively short statement which
certainly will not take you to your designated coffee break, I
will be well in advance of that, which I hope the Committee is
happy to hear rather than the reverse.
20567. The statement reads as follows: The purpose
of this short statement is to describe the current position in
relation to the issues raised in the petition against the third
additional provision. There have been constructive discussions
between the Council and the Promoter. These have resulted in a
number of undertakings and commitments which have been set out
in letters from the Promoter to the Council dated 21 February
2007 and 7 March 2007. So that the position is clearly understood
by the Committee, and importantly is clear on the record, it seems
sensible to place those letters before the Committee, which I
think has been done.
20568. Dealing with particular paragraphs of
our petition, paragraph 22 in relation to Hanbury Street, the
requirement for the Hanbury Street shaft. The Council recognises
that the Promoter is still developing a detailed ventilation and
emergency intervention strategy for the tunnels and welcomes the
undertaking given by the Promoter in the letter of 21 February
which the Committee will find on the third page of the letter.
The Council is particularly pleased that the Promoters have assured
the Council that they will continue to work on the detailed strategy
which will include consideration of whether the proposed Hanbury
shaft is still required and further that the Promoter is willing
to explore alternative proposals which could obviate the need
for an intervention shaft anywhere in Spitalfields.
20569. Alternative shaft location: The Council
recognises that in its announcement of interim conclusions the
Select Committee has decided that Hanbury Street is the appropriate
location for an intervention shaft in Spitalfields, albeit that
the decision is based partially on incorrect noise information.
However, in view of the importance of noise impacts on the community,
the Council wishes to ensure that the Promoter's noise predictions
are to the highest possible standards of accuracy for all construction
sites in the Borough.
20570. The Council welcome the undertakings
given in 21 February letter, but the Promoter will continue to
liaise with counsel in respect of construction noise impacts at
Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street to enable the Council to review
the Promoter's noise impact assessments. Further, the Promoter
will ensure that the nominated undertaker applies Best Practicable
Means, as defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act
1974, to all of his activities and will obtain consents from the
Council where required.
20571. The promoter confirmed to the Council
on 21 February their intention to carry out the Crossrail project
so that its impact is as assessed in the Environmental Statement.
The Council is very keen to continue the dialogue with the Promoter
and is pleased that the Promoter recently provided copies of the
noise model files associated with the AP3 noise calculations to
the Council. The Council wishes to be confident that the predicted
impacts are indeed a robust assessment and indeed considers that
it owes a duty to local inhabitants to ensure that this is the
case, given that we found, after a considerable degree of work
on our part, a degree of error or inconsistency on an important
issue, the correction of which led to different results emerging
in the SES3 erratum published recently. Whilst we would like to
take the latest results at face value we feel obliged to scrutinise
the details so that we can have confidence in the results.
20572. The Council also welcomes the Promoter's
undertaking of 21 February that there will be no surface work
or surface plant operating at the Hanbury Street shaft at night,
save insofar as it may be necessary to safeguard the works, or
in an emergency. The Council will discuss the extent to which
the Promoter anticipates night time activity to safeguard the
works but we would expect the Promoter to be able to provide sufficient
assurance.
20573. Paragraph six of the Petition relating
to restricted mobility access to the western entrance of the Isle
of Dogs Station. The Council welcomes an assurance that has been
given by the Promoters in the letter of 7 March that it will work
closely with the Council, the Canary Wharf Group and Docklands
Light Railway Ltd to develop and implement improvements to the
pedestrian route between the popular DLR footbridge and the western
entrance of the Isle of Dogs Station, having regard to the need
of people with restricted mobility. It also welcomes the confirmation
that the Promoter has no objection to a further lift being provided
by others at the eastern entrance of this station.
20574. Paragraph 12, Isle of Dogs. The Council
recognises that the Crossrail Noise and Temporary Rehousing Policy
has been revised and new provisions are being included in the
Code of Construction Practice. It also recognises that a revised
working hours policy has been agreed and incorporated in the Construction
Code.
20575. As the Committee is aware there are now
two possible construction methodologies on the cards for the Isle
of Dogs. The Promoter claims that the revised construction proposals
would have no significant impacts, however, the Council has not
yet received the requested detailed noise information and therefore
cannot be certain of the Promoter's claim.
20576. Consequently, the Council seeks an undertaking
that the Promoter will continue to liaise with the Council in
respect of construction methodologies for both scenarios and in
respect of the construction noise impact for both scenarios at
the Isle of Dogs in order to enable the Council to review the
Promoter's noise impact assessments.
20577. I would also like to draw your attention
to the undertakings recorded at the top of page three of the letter
of 21 February to the effect that the Promoter undertakes to carry
out full liaison and consultation with residents and businesses
located to the north side of West India Dock, including the Museum
of Docklands, before implementing measures for mitigating the
impact of construction work on the Banana Wall and that if we
use reasonable endeavours to mitigate the impact, our local residents
and businesses work to the Banana Wall in the event that the works
are implemented.
20578. An undertaking has been provided in the
letter of 7 March that the Promoter will continue to liaise with
the Council in respect of the construction methodology noise impacts
and other environmental impacts at Stepney Green. It is also indicated
that if they decide to tunnel from Stepney Green it will share
with the Council any view of the relevant environmental impacts
on Stepney Green in comparison with tunnelling from Pudding Hill
Lane using the Environmental Statement methodology.
20579. Finally, in relation to Stepney Green,
I should mention the Stepney Green worksite. Both parties are
committed as recorded in the letter of 21 February to working
together with a view to developing proposals to reduce the size
of the worksite and to retain the existing Astro Turf pitch on
a permanent basis if possible.
| 
