|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 235-i HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the Tuesday 16 January 2007 Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Ms Katy Clark Mr Philip Hollobone Mrs Linda Riordan
Ordered: That Counsel and Parties be called in. 17768. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, can I start proceedings and wish everybody a happy new year and the best of past gone seasonal greetings, and remind people that we may be adjourning the Committee later in the morning for a short break so that people may have some tea or coffee. 17769. I would like to begin by just saying that we are going to hear the remaining Petitions on the paper in this session which is going through but I would like to remind everybody that we do not intend to listen to Petitions that have gone before but rather concentrate on the circumstances on their new Petitions, and repetition will be dealt with fairly briskly. Mr Elvin, would you like to say something? 17770. MR ELVIN: Yes, sir, and a happy new year to the Committee as well. I believe it is our first anniversary, which may be a cause for celebration or not, depending on how you feel! 17771. Sir, I have a number of things I need to say for the record this morning before we get to the first Petition, if that is convenient. As the Committee will be aware, the third set of additional provisions, which deals largely with the interim decisions made by the Committee in the summer, was deposited on 7 November last with the Private Bill Office, together with an Environmental Statement for the additional provisions and a further supplementary Environmental Statement. I propose to deal with those in accordance with the timetable in greater detail on Thursday morning. 17772. In accordance with that timetable, I will present the Committee with a summary of the case on the various additional provisions there have been, 1, 2 and 3. I have been in communication with your Clerk over the content of that and that will be Thursday morning. I also need to raise, as I say, a number of matters for the record this morning and to update the Committee. 17773. The first matter on which I want to update the Committee is the issue regarding the recommendation for a station at Woolwich. Sir, since the Committee last sat in October I am pleased to say there have been positive and constructive discussions between the Department, the London borough of Greenwich and third parties over the issue. The London borough of Greenwich and Berkeley Homes met the Department and CRL recently to discuss proposals for resolving the issues around the funding of the station. The London borough of Greenwich and Berkley Homes are now proposing these proposals in more detail for the Department to appraise. 17774. Clearly the Government would need to be convinced that any proposal was financially and operationally robust. The Department hopes to be able to say more once the current discussions are concluded, and we plan to bring the matter back to the Committee in good time before the scheduled end of the Committee hearings in line with the Secretary of State's statement to the House during the debate on 31 October. 17775. Sir, I also need to refer to the draft Register of Undertakings. The Promoter published the first draft of the Crossrail Undertakings and Assurances Register on 14 December and a copy of the Register was sent to all Petitioners along with a covering letter explaining the purpose of the Register and inviting comments from Petitioners. The purpose of the Register, of course, is to capture all the individual undertakings and assurances given to Petitioners into one single document. Whoever is given the role of implementing the project will be required to comply with the Register, and the Register will form part of the Crossrail and environmental minimum requirements, and an undertaking has been given that any nominated undertaker will be contractually bound to comply with the controls set out in the EMRs, and the Register includes all formal signed undertakings between the Petitioners and the Secretary of State, assurances given during Select Committee proceedings, undertakings and assurances given to Petitioners in letters between CRL and the Department or our Parliamentary Agents, and undertakings or assurances given in the information papers. 17776. The Promoter has sought to include in the first draft of the Register all undertakings and assurances that have been given thus far. However, in any process such as this, as I am sure the Committee will understand, with such a large quantity of documents and correspondence there is a potential for items to be overlooked. One of the reasons for publishing a first draft, of course, at this stage in the Bill's process is to give Petitioners an opportunity to let us know if they feel that an undertaking or assurance which they believe has been given has been omitted from the draft. We have invited Petitioners to inform us if they feel an undertaking or assurance has not been captured by the draft, and have set a deadline for comments of 15 February. There will be further opportunities for Petitioners to comment as it is intended that further drafts will be published at appropriate stages as the Bill progresses through Parliament, and the final Register will be published after Royal Assent. 17777. Of course, this in no way detracts from the promise we made to the Committee last year that we would write to all Petitioners after the Committee has finished to identify which of the generic assurances apply to individual Petitioners. 17778. Sir, lastly, the issue of the Barbican crossover. The Crossrail Bill currently makes provision for a crossover in the Farringdon area A crossover, as you may be aware, is an underground junction usually in the form of some large underground cavern to allow trains to pass from one tunnel to the other. That crossover was subsequently proposed to be amended by AP2. Following a detailed review the Promoter no longer proposes to construct either of the crossovers and intends to amend the Bill accordingly and invite the Committee in due course to delete the references to any crossover in that location. 17779. The crossover, sir, was originally included for two reasons: to help with recovery from operational service disruptions in the central area and to allow phased commissioning of all Crossrail trains. However, it would have been complex and expensive and is subject to a number of Petitions both in its original and in its second proposed form. 17780. In the light of major project changes that were made over the past year or so, particularly the proposals for a revised depot which is a matter I will be dealing with on Thursday, and a revision to the tunnelling strategy which the Committee is already aware of, CRL undertook a review of the need of the case for the crossover, it examined the usefulness of the crossover in facilitating various commissioning options, and with the revised tunnelling strategy and the revised depot strategy they concluded the crossover would not offer any significant advantage in the phased commissioning of Crossrail. They also carefully examined the operational benefits of the crossover on the various rail traffic or incident scenarios, and with modern rolling stock, operating practices and safeguards they concluded in the light of the changes to the various strategies there would be a relatively small number of incidents that would require the use of the crossover. So in the light of that it was concluded by CRL that the benefits of the crossover would now not be outweighed by the cost and construction risk of building the crossover cavern. This means, therefore, we do not need a construction work site in Aldersgate Street as proposed in the Hybrid Bill, and the work site in Moor Lane proposed under AP2. We will also not need to construct the temporary shaft in Finsbury Circus, and access tunnel from this shaft to the Crossrail location. The individual Petitioners interested in the Barbican crossover have all been individually informed that we are inviting the Committee not to proceed with the crossover. 17781. For the avoidance of doubt there are no work sites planned now other than for minor utility diversions between that for the east end of Farringdon Station at Lindsey Street and the work site at the west end of Liverpool Street station in Moorfields. I should just state that, while we are removing the crossover and inviting the Committee to delete it from the Bill, from AP2, and hence not using Finsbury Circus work site for crossover construction, Finsbury Circus is still needed, as it was in the first place, as a work site for the construction of the Liverpool Street station tunnels. One of the revisions to the work site under AP2 is to make minor adjustments to the location of the entrance which the City asked us to make to ensure greater protection of the trees in Finsbury Circus. That proposed amendment in AP2 to protect the trees remains, and that will be explained as necessary in due course. 17782. Sir, other than that can I just, again for the record, note there has been one change in the team of counsel acting for the Department and Promoters? Ms Rachel Bateson has left the team and, indeed, has joined Department for Education ‑ I am not sure if there is a lesson to be learned from that! ‑ and can I express the team's thanks to her. Although the Committee may not have seen her in the front line she has carried out a huge amount of work to assist the process behind the scenes and we are very grateful for all the work she put in during the main part of the Committee proceedings. Her place is taken by Mr Gwion Lewis. He will be fulfilling that role during the remainder of the Committee process, and that is all I have to say by way of introduction. 17783. CHAIRMAN: Can I, first of all, for the record welcome Mr Lewis to the work of the Committee and also put on record our thanks to Ms Bateson for all the activities that she undertook on our behalf or with Crossrail during the last sittings. 17784. Can I first say that I am extremely grateful that you started to put together the draft provisions for the agreements on the undertakings, because I think it is essential that we get those out as early as possible to the people that we heard Petitions from. 17785. Can I also welcome the good news that at last the Department and the Secretary of State are taking very seriously the views of the Committee and the importance of having the station. What I have said there is not to pre judge what will occur when we end up hearing the matters connected with that, but it is welcome good news for this new year. 17786. Mr Elvin, are you handling this next case? 17787. MR ELVIN: No. 17788. CHAIRMAN: So you will be disappearing ‑‑ 17789. MR ELVIN: ‑‑ at some point during the course of the morning. 17790. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 17791. MS LIEVEN: Sir, the next Petitioner on the programme was to be Mr and Mrs Wheeler, and I am not sure if they are here. 17792. CHAIRMAN: They are not at the moment, I am advised, but I am prepared to go to the following Petition and then call them a second time, and if they are not here then they have had their opportunity. 17793. MS LIEVEN: To be fair to the Wheelers we spoke to them yesterday and they were intending to come, and I do know that the there were problems on the District Line this morning because Mr Mould could not get to work, so I would not want there to be any criticism of them. 17794. I am quite happy to start with Mr Jeffery's Petition. It is quite close to the Wheelers so there is a good deal of overlap but we can deal with that first if that is the sensible way to go forward. Perhaps I can have put up exhibit O30. Now, the Committee may remember that it has been in this area before because, of course, the Wheelers attended before the Committee on Day 61 and the Committee adjourned their Petition. What we are concerned with here is the part of the route that goes under the Blackwall Tunnel approach road, so we are in tunnel here going from Whitechapel station which is well off to the west towards Stratford station to the east, and the Committee will remember that Crossrail comes up in tunnel west to east, goes under the Blackwall Tunnel Approach Road and under the River Lea and then comes out into portal a little way to the east, so the tunnel is rising here but still deep enough to get under the river. The reason this is an AP2 matter, and I expect the Committee knows all this, is that there is a need to divert the Ham and Wick sewers in this location in order to stop them clashing with the Crossrail tunnels. Originally we had a complicated scheme off to the east that involved the pumping station and in AP2 a new scheme was proposed which involves diverting the sewer, so the lines going left to right in the Crossrail tunnel (indicating exhibit O30) and the line going down is the diverted sewer. 17795. Just to orientate the Committee, the Wheelers own and occupy No 1 Baldock Street, and Mr Jeffery is the owner of a property in Wrexham Road. 17796. The only other point I would make in opening is that I will call Mr Berryman to explain the impact, or, indeed, the lack of it, of Crossrail on this Jeffery property but the crucial point to understand is that at Mr Jeffery's property the tunnel is some 15 m underneath the property. 17797. I will leave it there, sir, and move to Mr Jeffery to explain his concerns. The Petition of Mr Graham Jeffery. The Petitioner appeared in person. 17798. CHAIRMAN: You have not appeared in front of the Committee. Have you ever been in front of a Select Committee before? 17799. MR JEFFERY: No. 17800. CHAIRMAN: Take your time; we are more worried than you are, and just make your case. I understand you are representing your daughter? 17801. MR JEFFERY: That is correct. 17802. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. 17803. MR JEFFERY: Could I first apologise for my non attendance before the Committee on 18 October because of family health problems? It may have been passed on to you at the time. Those are far from resolved but I have made it here today. Because of those problems I do not think I have been as thorough in my preparation of my material as I would like to have been, but I will do my best. 17804. Could I say that in respect of our Petition we share wider concerns about the Crossrail project with, for instance, the Fairfield Conservation Area Residents' Association, who have appeared before you, but I on behalf of my daughter have tried to be fairly concise and specific about our concerns for No 48, Wrexham Road. 17805. Research before and after preparing the Petition has highlighted the fact for us that a construction of a tunnel will inevitably cause a measurable degree of subsidence and settlement, whichever term is most appropriate, at ground level. Research soon highlighted on the internet that settlement of the Jubilee Line Extension through the cities of Westminster and Southwark is well documented and has even been the subject of learned papers, which I think are referenced in Crossrail's response to our Petition. 17806. Relative to London Underground's rolling stock, and having been a regular visitor to London I have a fair idea of what noise that can generate, our concern is that this Crossrail terminal will be occupied by full sized electrical multiple units, not lightweight stock, going at speeds of up to 60 mph, and that must inevitably generate quite high noise levels at source. The wheel tracking interaction is well known and I have taken knowledgeable advice on noise level generation there. So the issue there is to what extent the noise and vibration will be attenuated by the track and tunnel structure with only 15 m, or possibly at most 16 m I am told in previous correspondence from Crossrail, of soil cover, which to use a sporting analogy is less than the distance from the edge of the penalty area to the goal line of the football pitch. 17807. Now, Crossrail in building this tunnel is effectively, as far as we are concerned, being given the right potentially to cause some degree of damage and long‑term nuisance to No 48 Wrexham Road, and we do not have the option of saying "Not in, or rather under, our back yard", because if it is not under ours it will be under somebody else's, so let's be responsible about it. For instance, if we were effectively unaware of the existence of the Crossrail tunnel under our backyard then obviously that would be acceptable and if, as an ideal, Crossrail were able to guarantee negligible damage, noise levels for instance, that would never exceed 40 decibels then I think we would be quite content. It is a question of how certain can we be of those levels being achieved. 17808. I am trying to express genuine concerns on behalf of my daughter and in the past few days, because she is abroad, she has come back to me via email with a few specific points. She is concerned in terms of a statement in the response to our Petition in paragraph 1, page 5 of Crossrail's response, stating: "... at this point" - that is beneath 48 Wrexham Road - "track level would be approximately 20 metres below ground" ‑ I think she is a little confused in terms of the 20 metres as the 15 metres is the tunnel ground, as previously quoted, 20 metres is to the tunnels railway. I think those two dimensions are consistent. She is concerned to know how far exactly the track level and/or the crown and the tunnel will be below ground in location of the property because my assumption is that is a significant variable that will have a bearing on both settlement and noise transmission. In paragraph 3 on page 5 of Crossrail's response it refers to their paper D 12, which is one of the appendices to their response to us, which is entitled "Ground Settlement". In paragraph 1.2 of paper D 12 there is a statement that: "the Promoter has already begun an assessment of the potential settlement along the route of the railway". We would be interested to know when the results of this assessment would be made available and how they may be communicated to us. Having posed this question, I understand from a telephone conversation with Mr Jonathan Baggs of Crossrail as recently as yesterday that some initial data may be available. 17809. Moving on, there is also a statement in paper D 12 which refers to differential settlement and that gives us cause for concern. The centreline of the tunnel passes at an angle under the back garden of No 48 which, as you can see from the plan, is one of a continuous row of Edwardian terraced houses and we are concerned that the position of the tunnel relative to the property and, as far as we are aware, the shallow foundations of terraced houses of that age are more substantial than we are led to believe. It is also relatively close to the River Lea, for whatever ground conditions there may be there, probably a high water table and the concern that would lead to quite significant and differential settlement. We would like to know what is being predicted there because the results of an initial assessment of the potential settlement are clearly of quite considerable importance to us and the effect on the property because presumably, having read the response, they would determine the need for a stage two assessment, the individual assessment of property stage three and even going on for a survey of the property which we understand from Crossrail in response to our Petition and appendices. Can I say ideally ‑ and I do stress the word "ideally" ‑ if we would wish to have a statutory requirement for damage due to settlement be restricted and negligible and proof of knowledge and with a preference obviously for protected works rather than remedial works, it is a natural inclination, sir, and I hope you would agree. 17810. In terms of noise and vibration, I want to state quite clearly in Crossrail's response to our Petition that there are no UK legislative standards or criteria that define that groundborne noise becomes significant. We are concerned that the defined noise and vibration levels in Crossrail paper D10, which is referenced in their response in the appendices and that is entitled "Groundborne Noise and Vibration". It points out that the defined noise and vibration levels merely constitute performance specifications and do not constitute the legislative undertaking on the part of Crossrail or the undertaker who will be performing the construction. My daughter's concern is that without legislative standards against whom and by what means would we be able to take recourse in the event noise and vibration levels were initially in excess of those performance specifications at the outset of the operations or were subsequently to increase to those levels in excess of those specifications during the course of the operation. 17811. Further on, in paragraph 11 on page 7 of Crossrail's response to our Petition there is a statement that: "the findings of the assessment show that the assessment reported in the ES", I think that is the Environmental Statement, "show that the adoption of these measures, that is the maintenance of rolling stock and conditioning of rails, is likely to result in the criteria for the performance specification not being breached at any location during the operation of Crossrail". We are concerned that there appears to be no requirement or provision for the monitoring and measurement of those noise levels, so we ask how noise and vibration be monitored during the operation of the railway by Crossrail to ensure that there is not an increase in the noise and vibration to acceptable levels over time as a result of the degradation of the rolling stock. 17812. Moving on, in paragraph 12 on page 9 of Crossrail's response to our Petition there is a statement that: "the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to provide the local authorities through whose area Crossrail's tunnel passes, details of the types of rail and or tracks support system proposed and its predicted performance in respect of vibration or groundborne noise. We are concerned there appears to be no requirement or provision for communicating directly with property owners and other immediately interested parties". Specifically, will the details of the type of rail and or track support system be made available directly to us by Crossrail or its undertaker or will Tower Hamlets be able to provide us with such details and when will those details be available? Again, expressing the ideal, our ideal would be to have a statutory requirement for noise levels never to exceed 40 decibels. Putting it bluntly, the intention of ensuring Crossrail and its nominated undertaker utilise the highest standards of noise and vibration attenuating rail and track support systems in the tunnel in that vicinity. Thank you, sir. 17813. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr Jeffery, have you any witnesses to call? 17814. MR JEFFERY: No, I have not. 17815. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if it would be possible to give a copy of your notes to the stenographer. It might be quite helpful and we will return the originals to you. 17816. MR JEFFERY: I have two copies with me. 17817. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 17818. MR JEFFERY: I have not read them verbatim. 17819. CHAIRMAN: Stenographers are very professional. It is just the odd word they may want. 17820. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I was going to call Mr Berryman first to deal with the settlement-related issues in general terms and then Mr Thornley‑Taylor to deal noise if that is acceptable. Much of the material will be that the Committee is quite familiar with in general terms but it would be useful, I suspect, for Mr Jeffrey to hear it again. Mr Berryman?
MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled Further examined by MS LIEVEN
17821. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, could you start by explaining to Mr Jeffrey what your position is with Crossrail, please? (Mr Berryman) I am the Managing Director of CLRL Limited which is the company set up by Government and Transport for London to promote the scheme. 17822. Could you start by explaining what Crossrail works will be undertaken in the immediate area of Ms Jeffery's property? (Mr Berryman) Yes. The main works, as you outlined in opening, are the construction of the running tunnels between the Pudding Mill Lane portal going down towards the junction at Stepney Green, which are these lines here, the dotted lines running east‑west. The tunnels there have an internal dimension of about six metres, external dimension about 6. 7. At the point at which they pass under Ms Jeffery's house they will be about 15 metres off cover above the tunnels, that is to say about two and a half tunnel diameters above the tunnels. There is another smaller tunnel to be constructed some way away from Ms Jeffery's house which is the sewer diversion, which you mentioned earlier. That is about a two and a half metre diametric tunnel. All of the tunnels will be constructed using what are known as "earth pressure balance machines" which is a tunnel‑boring machine which maintains the pressure on the face of the tunnel all the time to reduce settlement to the absolute minimum. 17823. So far as the settlement is concerned, has Crossrail undertaken a settlement assessment in respect of the Crossrail tunnels? (Mr Berryman) Yes, we have gone to stage two with the properties in this area. There was some concern about the combined impact of the two tunnels crossing each other; in fact when we did the analysis we found the effects were actually very small. We went to stage two and I think the study identified that the possible damage to this property would be in the negligible to slight area. I feel bound to say that in making our assessment we have used very pessimistic assumptions. Not to go into too much detail, we assumed about one per cent face loss which is what leads to settlement. In fact, on other projects, Channel Tunnel in particular, they have been achieving less than a third of that, so we are confident that the settlement impact on this property would be absolutely minimum. 17824. It may seem a very long time ago to the Committee, but in the distant past we had a session on settlement with Professor Mayer where he explained the basis of our protections. I would presume that applies here just as much in any other location. (Mr Berryman) Indeed. 17825. Just to try to put Mr Jeffery's mind at rest, assume that there is some damage. What steps would Crossrail take to make good that damage? (Mr Berryman) I set out the relevant Information Paper, I think it is D 12 ---- 17826. It is. (Mr Berryman) ---- which makes a commitment that any damage caused by tunneling would be repaired and that will be based on surveys before and after tunneling is done. It is a procedure that has been well tried on projects and has worked quite well. 17827. MS LIEVEN: I suppose really there are two key points here, first of all on the basis of our assessment how likely is it that there will be any settlement damage to this property? (Mr Berryman) It is very unlikely that there will be any significant damage. There may be hairline cracks or something of that sort, but it is extremely unlikely that there will be anything beyond that and it is quite unlikely that there will be hairline cracks. 17828. CHAIRMAN: Does that mean you surveyed all the property or are you just doing a general survey for the area? (Mr Berryman) Normally we get surveyors to come around before tunneling starts to check the condition of the properties because obviously there are some unscrupulous people who, after tunnelling is complete, will report structural damage to their buildings, so we have to do a survey before and after. 17829. MS LIEVEN: Just to be absolutely clear, the work that we have done so far to drawing up the assessment does not involve going into individual properties, does it? (Mr Berryman) No, indeed, those assessments are done just by inspections from the outside and obviously at the moment we are not particularly interested in the present condition of the properties. It is only immediately before we start tunnelling that becomes significant. 17830. The other key is point is if there is any damage, am I right in understanding that Crossrail will make it good? (Mr Berryman) Yes, absolutely. 17831. MS LIEVEN: Those are the only points I need to ask you, Mr Berryman. I am going to ask Mr Thornley-Taylor about the noise points. 17832. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jeffery, would you like to ask any questions? 17833. MR JEFFERY: Yes, Chairman. Through you, could I ask Mr Berryman whether he is saying that because the assessment has already been done it will move on to a specific survey of this property because it is almost over the line of the tunnel? (Mr Berryman) Yes, prior to the tunneling commencing, it is intended a conditioned survey of the property will be carried out so that we can ascertain if there is any damage caused by tunneling activity. 17834. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Berryman.
The witness withdrew 17835. MS LIEVEN: Could I then proceed directly to calling Mr Rupert Thornley‑Taylor.
MR RUPERT THORNLEY‑TAYLOR, recalled Further examined by MS LIEVEN
17836. MS LIEVEN: Mr Thornley‑Taylor, you and the Committee know each other well but it is for Mr Jeffery's purposes if I could introduce you as somebody with extensive qualifications in the assessment of noise and vibration and very extensive experience particularly in the issues around noise and railways. Is that accurate? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, I think it is. 17837. First of all, could we put up the noise contour map, which might need a bit of expanding. Mr Thornley‑Taylor, can you tell us what the criteria are for a property such as Ms Jeffery's and what is the assessed noise level? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) The
criterion is a maximum noise level due to the passage of trains which is 40 LA
Max slow, which is the maximum sound level using a sound level meter set to a
slow response and I think Mr Jeffery indicated that his daughter would be quite
content if she was sure that it would not exceed 40. We can see from these contours, which have been shown I think to
the Committee before, and have been done from portal to portal for the generic
case of a residential building with a single basement. It is probably true that 17838. Yes, I have got two plans I can compare with each other and it falls almost exactly on the blue line. (Mr Thornley-Taylor) In that case, the prediction is 30. 17839. The predicted level here is 30, is that right? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) That is right. 17840. If that is accurate, what type of disturbance, if any, is Ms Jeffery is likely to suffer from the presence of the train in the tunnel? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) If the Committee would cast their minds back to an exercise when we listened to 40, a 10 dBA difference is a halving of loudness, so it would be a very small effect indeed. 17841. One of Mr Jeffery's specific concerns and one of his daughter's concerns was how will noise and vibration be monitored once the railway is up and running? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor): There are two ways of responding to that. The first is when the railway is first commissioned there will be extensive measurement from end to end by all manner of parties, not just the Promoters, the designers of the track, the local authorities, it will be heavily measured because a lot of people will be very interested to see how the predictions have turned out. More importantly, and probably underlying Mr Jeffery's concern, is how over the years monitoring will ensure that it does not deteriorate. In the previous days of evidence before the Committee the issue of maintenance of the track was raised and, in fact, the London Borough of Camden has requested improvements for the wordings in IPD 10 about how the track will be maintained. It currently is being finalised as to what the ultimate new words will be to satisfy Camden's concerns, but generally speaking, there will be a continual process of monitoring not only the condition of the track, its components and the resilience for the rail which achieves these low levels, but also, most importantly, the condition of the running surfaces, the rail surface and the wheels to ensure that if they deteriorate, which they will, they always do eventually, they will be subjected to routine maintenance, rail grinding, wheel turning, in time to prevent the predicted noise level from being exceeded.
17842. Finally, I suppose the question which Mr Jeffery really wants answered is what if it all goes wrong and the noise does exceed the criteria set? What steps can be taken? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor): If it were to go wrong, it would be for one of three reasons. One would be a construction error, in which case it would be something readily apparent, the contractor would have been at fault and it would be put right. Another less likely possibility is a design error. For example, the wrong type of rail base plates had been installed for some reason. That also would be rectified because it would be contrary to the contract. The third possibility would be that there were some completely unforeseen local conditions, some large boulder between the tunnel and the house, or the building had piles which nobody knew about that come down to the proximity of the tunnel. In general, one has to say, it is a finite possibility but in this particular location it is extremely unlikely to occur. I cannot foresee any realistic prospect of that kind of cause of excess noise going on. Those are the three possibilities, apart from lack of maintenance, which I have spoken about already.
17843. Those are all the questions I have, sir.
17844. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jeffery, would you like to ask any questions?
Cross-examined by MR JEFFREY
17845. MR JEFFERY: If I may, please. May I ask what form of rail and road track is assumed in generating these noise contours?
(Mr Thornley‑Taylor): The contours assume from end to end that there is resilient base plate support for the rails. It is said in the Environmental Statement that in some places there will be a more effective form of track isolation where there are special requirements, but in order to produce contours which do not suddenly jump about all the contours in this exhibit are for resilient base plate support of the rail.
17846. It assumes resilient base plate support on the track but it does not assume resilient slack track as such?
(Mr Thornley‑Taylor): It does not. I would say in the event that it is found when the detailed design is carried out that for some reason in this locality the predictions are higher because it is discovered that there is some feature which causes these contours to become out of date and some new ones will be produced on the predictions being produced, if hypothetically they did show that the noise level would go over 40, then a higher degree of mitigation would be included in the track to prevent it. There will not be any residential property anywhere on the system that receives more than 40. If it is necessary to have any form of enhanced mitigation it will be provided during the design stage.
The witness withdrew 17847. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, would you like to make a final statement?
17848. MR ELVIN: I will, sir, but I will make it extremely brief. Of course one utterly understands Ms Jeffery and her father's concern in that they find a rather large tunnel going underneath their property. I will submit to the Committee that once one looks at the evidence there is really no reason to be concerned about this property. First of all on settlement, it has been assessed, it falls into the negotiable to slight category. If, despite that assessment, there is some movement then that would be remedied by Crossrail, and the detail of the process is set out in information paper D12 on noise. You have just heard the evidence. It is highly unlikely that there will be any disturbance from noise in this property from the operation of the railway. If the assessment was completely wrong for utterly unpredictable reasons then Mr Taylor has just been through the steps which could be taken. I would submit about this property that although one understands the Petitioner's concerns, there really is no reason to believe those concerns would be substantive.
17849. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jeffery, would you like to say anything else?
17850. MR JEFFERY: I have not prepared anything else, but may I take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to be able to appear in front of you and express our concerns.
17851. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. Can we call the next Petitioners, Barbara and Tony Wheeler? Ms Lieven, would you like to make any comments?
The Petition of Barbara and Tony Wheeler
The Petitioners appeared in person. 17852. MS LIEVEN: The Committee already knows where the Wheeler's property is. It is 1 Baldock Street, which I am indicating up there (indicating). This is the Blackwall Tunnel, Approach Road to its east. So far as the tunnel is concerned, the issue is very similar to that of Ms Jeffery. The tunnel is slightly higher because it is rising to get to the portal at the Wheeler's house. The top of the tunnel is some 11 to 12 metres below the Wheeler's house, so it is about a three metre difference between their house and the Jeffreys'. In terms of the impact, I think Mr Berryman would give the same evidence. The Wheelers are in a slightly different position overall in respect of the Crossrail project to Ms Jeffery's. If I can have put up doc 035. The Wheeler's property is there (indicating). I cannot describe it better for the shorthand writer, I am afraid. It is difficult to cross-refer between the two plans. In terms of the tunnel, there is no material difference in the position of the Ms Jeffery's but it is correct to say that during the construction phase the Wheelers will be impacted upon by the work site on Wick Lane and around the corner into Wrexham Road for a fairly lengthy period of time. I will call Mr Berryman very briefly to explain what will be going on but that is the only difference. They will have a construction impact which will be more direct than that on Ms Jeffery's property. Sir, I will leave it there at this stage, if I may.
17853. MRS WHEELER: I would like to read a short statement, please.
17854. CHAIRMAN: Mrs Wheeler, I have got a very low voice but your voice is even lower, can you raise it slightly for the Stenographer?
17855. MRS WHEELER: From our meetings with Crossrail, it is difficult to know what the exact impacts on our lives and our house are going to be. It is difficult for us to have confidence in predictions of noise, vibration and settlement effects. What we have wanted to hear is that we will have no noise, no vibration and no problems with settlement, but Crossrail cannot offer us that assurance. On the question of noise and vibration, we have been told that noise levels inside our house should not exceed 32 dBA. The explanation we have read and have been told is that at that level there is a low probability of adverse comment. Where exactly we will be on that low probability we will not know until after the tunnel is built. Thirty-two dBA is calculated as an average but does not tell us the peaks of the noise we may hear from trains running beneath us every two to three minutes at peak times. Crossrail believe they can achieve their noise and vibration targets by using standard continuous welded track beneath our home. We will not know if that turns out to be correct until after the tunnel has been built. If the noise and vibration levels are reached, the only recourse we will have would be financial compensation. If the choice of track turns out to be the wrong one it will not be re-laid. We would like to be assured that beneath our house, in view of the fact that we are only 11 to 12 metres from the tunnel, we would have the best available quality track to achieve the optimum reduction in noise and vibration. We are asking for floating slab track to be used and not continuous welded track. We would also like to know that the construction railway would be built to a sufficiently high standard to keep well within the desired noise and vibration limits. In view of the adverse impacts of the Crossrail scheme on our small neighbourhood it would be of benefit to all the residents of Baldock Street, Wrexham Road and Ridgdale Street who have tunnels beneath or near their homes to have floating slab track. We would like to outline our concerns about settlement. We are only 11 to 12 metres above one tunnel and Crossrail have the option to reduce that further with a three metre vertical deviation if they find it necessary. Our house is also only 11 to 12 metres away from the second tunnel, and settlement is predicted for 30 metres either side of each track. At the overlap the effects from each of the tunnels are added together. When we met with Crossrail's tunnelling engineer, he explained that as the house was directly on top of one tunnel we may be lucky, the whole house may drop in one piece, but with the second tunnel in such close proximity we think the house is at great risk of differential settlement. We have reached stage 2 of the settlement assessment procedure. The house is in risk category 3. In the Promoter's response document, paper D12, this is described as, "buildings might be at risk of sustaining damage in excess of acceptable levels", so we will therefore be going on to stage 3, a more detailed assessment consisting of a structural survey and successively refined modeling outlined in D12 of the Promoter's response document. That says, "To refine the analysis to see if a more accurate approach results in the risk of damage reducing to an acceptable level". We are not reassured by this. We would like an assurance that following the stage 3 assessment the basis on which the protective measures are decided will be on the basis of their being no risk damage, not an acceptable level of damage. Until the assessment is done, the risk of damage is unknown, but at this point we are asking for the highest degree of protective works to be done in terms of maximum and not minimum. As we understand it, the best way of stabilising the house which would reassure us would be to underpin it. We hope the Select Committee will be sympathetic when we request that the best mitigation measures are taken to lessen the impacts of the Crossrail scheme. The scheme has already caused immense disruption to our lives and caused us a great deal of stress at a time in particular when I am making every effort to avoid stress as in April I am expecting a baby. We have seriously considered selling our house as we are uncertain whether the house, with all the diversion works and work sites, the effect of construction, and operation of the railway, will be a suitable environment in which to bring up a young child. If the best mitigation measures for sound-proofing against the effects of work sites, noise, vibration and settlement are ensured it would make our lives more bearable, and should we feel it necessary to move house at some time, would safeguard the impacts on the house and enable us to sell it in a reasonable condition.
17856. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Can we have a copy of your statement? Do you have any witnesses?
17857. MRS WHEELER: No.
17858. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven?
17859. MS LIEVEN: Sir, if I recall Mr Berryman I will try to keep the repetition to a minimum. I hope Mr and Mrs Wheeler were here when Mr Berryman gave evidence. I am not going to ask him all the same questions.
MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled Further examined by MS LIEVEN
17860. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, can you explain, in terms of the assessment of a settlement first, how the Wheeler's property differs from Ms Jeffery's property? (Mr Berryman): Principally because the tunnels underneath this property are shallow, under the other property there is about 15 metres of cover and under this one there is about 12 metres, so you are getting closer to the property with this. I believe I am right in saying this is the closest point at which tunnels go to residential property on the route, although there are a number of other locations where escalators amongst other things with stations go even closer than this. That is the reason why the settlement is different. 17861. What category has the Wheelers' property been assessed into? (Mr Berryman): It is being brought up to stage 2 at the moment and I think, as Mrs Wheeler just said, is eligible for stage 3 assessments.
17862. I know we have been through this in the past but certainly it is rather faded in my memory, can you take us through what stage 3 means? (Mr Berryman): There are a number of differences. The principal one is that stages 1 and 2 settlement are based on what is called "green field" so the assumption is there are no buildings there and how will the ground behave if there are no structures on the building. Going to stage 3, we take into account the structural strength of the building and the way in which it will behave as the settlement occurs. Almost always when we do stage 3 it reduces the impacts we have assessed. 17863. What is the process it goes through then? How does it work? (Mr Berryman) We do a structural survey of a house and, as we get further and better particulars from the site investigation of the ground conditions in that area, we do more detailed calculations. 17864. It might be worth Mr and Mrs Wheeler hear you tell us what the protective measures are that the project can take to minimise the likelihood of settlement. (Mr Berryman) There are a number of things that can be done. I suppose the one that has become most common in recent years is what is called compensation grouting, where we can actually inject grout underneath their house at the rate at which settlement is occurring to minimise or - I was to going to say to eliminate but ---- 17865. One of the Wheelers' concerns was, I think, mentioned, that the Limits of Deviation might allow us to move the tunnel up or down. Is that possible in this location? (Mr Berryman) In this location it is not. There is a general power for the Limits of Deviation to allow tunnels to be raised, but in this location we have to get underneath the River Lea and we are very, very tight to the side of the river, and we have to get underneath the Blackwall Tunnel Approach Road, which is a motorway, effectively, and the geometry here is very, very tight. There is no prospect of raising the tunnel. 17866. Finally, Mrs Wheeler mentioned that a way of putting her mind at rest, as far as settlement was concerned would be to underpin the property. In your opinion, is that either necessary or sensible at this location? (Mr Berryman) Certainly it would depend on the kind of underpinning that was to be done, but I would advise against it in most cases when trying to do tunnel settlement because it actually has the effect of making the foundation deeper and moving closer to the position of the tunnel. 17867. Also, do you consider it necessary? (Mr Berryman) On the basis of the information we have got to-date I certainly do not think it is necessary. 17868. MS LIEVEN: That is all, Mr Berryman. Thank you. 17869. CHAIRMAN: Just before I bring Mr and Mrs Wheeler back, I have one or two questions for Mr Berryman. The distance on the ground which was 15 metres, it is 11 or 12, what distance is that where you come out of the ground? How many metres? (Mr Berryman) At this point the railway is on a 1:30 gradient, so three metres would be taken over 90. 17870. CHAIRMAN: Ninety metres. How many properties, approximately, do you think that would take up? (Mr Berryman) I do not know - what is the average width of a property? It would be about four or five metres. 17871. CHAIRMAN: So 18 to 20 properties, roughly. The other thing is the impact of the building works which are there, which Ms Lieven referred to earlier. How long a period would that be for? (Mr Berryman) The site at the top, if you can see the words Wick Lane on the picture up there, that site would be required for a total of about 22 months, but for most of that time it would be acting as a site to service some of the other works that are going on in the area. The actual physical work adjacent to their house would take four to six months for the diversion of some sewers in Wrexham Road and connecting them to the existing sewer in Wick Lane. 17872. CHAIRMAN: It would be 22 months of barriers and a building site. (Mr Berryman) You can see the little leg at the bottom of the site, just there. That hoarding would be in place for nearly four months or five months, I suppose, but the rest of it would be 22 months. 17873. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
Cross-examined by MR and MRS WHEELER 17874. MRS WHEELER: For those four to six months we will have a work site right next to our house with a 3.6 metre high hoarding outside, almost, our main bay window to the house. 17875. MR WHEELER: Our main window is on the side, facing the site. 17876. MRS WHEELER: So natural daylight will be cut out to our main living room for those four to six months. In our meetings with Crossrail and all the documents we have read, there are surveys that have been carried out, and we always seem to come up with "no need for noise mitigation; no need for dust-proofing". We just feel a little bit powerless, really, with all these things that are being done to our house before, during and after. 17877. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if you would mind asking Mr Berryman a question in relation to that. 17878. MR WHEELER: There is one question I would like to ask, please. Most houses that have settlement, or in building works when there are cracks, a builder will come along and put a concrete slab under your house. What Mr Berryman just said is that when the concrete slab is put under our house it will increase the level of noise - is that right - if it is a two-metre block? (Mr Berryman) No, I was talking about settlement, rather than noise. 17879. MR WHEELER: If it was deemed to have to be underpinned because of settlement or there had to be this grouting level underneath, that would therefore put our house even closer to the tunnel. Is that right? (Mr Berryman) No, the grouting, hopefully, would not be contiguous with your house. What we would do is find lower levels and the grout would be injected at lower levels. It is almost like pumping up an airbed or something like that. You actually pump grout into the existing interstices in the ground. This is not actually how it works but you can look at it this way. It sort of compensates for the settlement which is occurring. 17880. MR WHEELER: Is the grout a solid block then? (Mr Berryman) When it goes off it will be a solid block, yes. 17881. MR WHEELER: Therefore, it has the effect of increasing the noise and actually increasing the vibration in the house, theoretically. (Mr Berryman) No, because it would not be, as I said, touching the house; it would be at a separate level. 17882. MR WHEELER: But ultimately it will be like a boulder (?). (Mr Berryman) There are no boulders in the ground, we do not think, at that location, but if there were it would not make any particular difference to either settlement or noise transmission, but a direct link into the house - When I spoke about underpinning I was not talking so much about the noise impact but more in terms of the settlement. There are some kinds of underpinning that you could do, but conventional underpinning with mini piles would not be helpful. 17883. MR WHEELER: So there is something you could do to help us? (Mr Berryman) Yes. If after the Stage 3 calculation that becomes the case, as I think it is explained in the information paper, then if structural strengthening is required that can be done. On the basis of the information we have at the moment, we think that is very unlikely but we will be doing further analysis of this particular property, as you have already said in you opening statement. 17884. MR WHEELER: We understand that. My concern is that a lot of the possible grouting, a lot of remedial work on the house should cracks occur, which can, I believe, under Stage 3, be up to 10 millimetres or 15 millimetres - they suggest that the damage might happen, it might not, and we understand that - but if it does happen, something has already happened to the house, so you are putting right something beforehand. We would like to be assured that, which we understand is impossible, the remedial works beforehand would help alleviate any of these problems rather than waiting until after they have happened and then put them up. (Mr Berryman) Obviously, if we are aware of problems that will happen as a result of Stage 3 (and, as I say, from the information we have at the moment we see that is extremely unlikely), if we become aware of that as a result of further work we do then, as stated in several places in our published information, we will carry out such structural strengthening as is needed. 17885. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, would you like to make a final statement? 17886. MS LIEVEN: Does the Committee want to hear Mr Taylor again or noise, or perhaps that is not necessary?
The witness withdrew
17887. MS LIEVEN: I want to say this, in case the Committee wants to hear the evidence from Mr Taylor. It is not right to describe 32 dBA as an average; it does take into account peaks, so it does take into account moments when the train actually passes. It is quite an important point because Mrs Wheeler suggested it was an average and, therefore, would smooth out the peaks where the train passes, but I am told by Mr Taylor (the Committee will know I am no expert on noise) that it is wrong to describe the 32 dBA as an average. I do not want the Committee to think that we are somehow pulling the wool over your eyes in respect of the passing of trains. 17888. CHAIRMAN: I would like Mr Taylor to give evidence.
MR RUPERT THORNLEY TAYLOR, recalled Further examined by MS LIEVEN
17889. CHAIRMAN: Mr and Mrs Wheeler, just to say you will have the opportunity to cross-examine. 17890. MS LIEVEN: Do you want to explain, Mr Taylor, more accurately the point about 32 dBA not being an average? (Mr Thornley Taylor) Yes. Unusually among noise assessments, which do - it is true - talk about averages, the way we assess the noise from underground trains is a much more onerous test, which is to look at the level we get as it rises as the train goes right underneath the house and before it falls; the "peak" is not technically quite the right word but it is the maximum sound level. One of the reasons why the maximum is used in this particular case, unlike ordinary highway noise or surface railway noise, is to give it particular weight to take into account the particular characteristics of noise from a train going under your house as opposed to a noise passing outside the window. So the numbers I have been talking about - with Mr Jeffrey I was saying it was 30 and for the Wheelers 32 - those are the maximum levels that occur during the passage of trains. 17891. MS LIEVEN: That is the only point, sir.
Cross-examined by MR and MRS WHEELER
17892. MR WHEELER: One thing I was going to say is that at a meeting last week with Crossrail people, one of the more senior members there said that 32 was an average, so we understood it that 32 could not, therefore, be peaks. That is where our statistics came from, so we have been misinformed. I am sorry. (Mr Thornley Taylor) I have seen a minute of that meeting and I think it was inadvertently said that it was an average. I believe steps were taken to put that right in correspondence to the Wheelers. 17893. MR WHEELER: We have not received any correspondence. (Mr Thornley Taylor) I apologise if a misleading statement was inadvertently made, and I hope I have clarified the position now. 17894. CHAIRMAN: If they were promised it in writing, could you arrange for a written response to ---- (Mr Thornley Taylor) I believe one is in the mill. If it has not been received it is only because of delay (?). 17895. MRS WHEELER: Really, the big question for us is the floating slab track. We are, as I say, the closest residential property to the tunnel and we thought that the least we deserved would be the best quality track available, but it seems that we are not earmarked for that, we are just going to have continuous welded track. There would be greater safeguards for us if floating slab track was to be used. 17896. MR WHEELER: In the case of any settlement or any issues on the plans, we feel that it would be more beneficial to try and stop things before they actually happen, because our lives are going to be disrupted enough without having to go through other parties to try and find out whether the crack is in the house previous or after. For us this is going to be continuous; it is not only the fact of the tunnels and that the worksites are there for two yeas, it is going to continue; during the construction of the tunnels themselves after the sewer and then after because we might have the case that if, as the gentleman mentioned, the noise level did increase above 32 dBA they would then change track, or they would do something else, but we figure that it would be nice if all these safeguards were in place before things actually happen rather than reacting to them happening. (Mr Thornley Taylor) I think it would be helpful if I could assure the Petitioners that it is not the case that they will definitely not have floating slab track; if it should be necessary they will have whatever enhanced form of mitigation was required. Suppose, totally hypothetically, it was necessary to do ground treatment to completely fill the gravel between the tunnel and the house with grout and made it much more solid than was assumed for the contours (?) - I am not saying that will happen but suppose the contractors decided that that was the simplest way for us to build this tunnel and do a large amount of ground treatment - it would be necessary to re-compute the noise numbers. If, as a result of that, it was predicted the noise level would get above 40, they would have to put an enhanced form of track support in there. The reason it is not going in willy-nilly, because it would be nice to have the best, is because - as I hope the Committee have accepted from the demonstrations of previous evidence - levels in the low-30s are very low and there is no need to spend money when the outturn is predicted to be very good in any event. 17897. MR WHEELER: You have just said "when the levels are very low" but they are still levels. From what I read, it sounds as if what you base it on is 32 decibels and it is like someone whispering to you, but it does not matter what level it is, if you can actually hear a whisper then you can actually hear it, and we will have these whispers during peak times every two to three minutes continuously for the rest of the life of the house. (Mr Thornley Taylor) I think, sir, if I could put it in context, if hypothetically we were planning the Blackwall Tunnel Approach Road and not Crossrail, we would be quite usually talking about noise from surface transport which was very much greater than the levels we are talking about. The effects of underground railways are, in fact, treated much more strictly than any other form of transportation development. If we were talking about an airport or a surface railway or a new highway we would be talking about external noise levels of around about the 70s, and internal noise levels of around 45 to 50, and those would be averages. So we are treating noise from underground railways in a much stricter way, and I do hope the Committee did find that the levels they heard from underground railways in the demonstration show that when you get down into the low-30s it is a very low level of noise. I can assure the Petitioners that we are not talking about a significant effect at all. Perhaps I should mention that the reference to "low probability of adverse comment" is a slightly different issue. It comes from the British Standard for assessing feelable vibration as opposed to audible effects of vibration when it is re-radiated as noise. There is a formal table in BS6472 which gives descriptors against levels of feelable vibration, and the lowest category in that table is this low probability of adverse comment. That is where that phrase came from that the Wheelers referred to. 17898. MR WHEELER: We can therefore feel this noise - 32 dBA noise. (Mr Thornley Taylor) When it is in the category of "low probability of adverse comment", in fact, it does not even come near the top of that category and there will not be any tactile effect from the railway in this location. 17899. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, would you like to make a final statement? 17900. MS LIEVEN: Yes, please, sir.
The witness withdrew
17901. MS LIEVEN: Sir, again, briefly, settlement and then noise. On settlement, the property is assessed, as you have heard, up to stage 3 so far, as slight to moderate risk. I would remind the Committee that those assessments are based before mitigation. So that is the unmitigated risk. So the actual chance of there being damage to property is small. Also, as Mr Berryman has told you, there are a number of steps that can be taken to mitigate the risk before any settlement occurs whatsoever, such as grouting, such as you have seen in D12 where tunnel-boring machines are used. So there are various steps that can be taken to reduce any settlement down even further. What is more, if there is damage (and, as Mr Berryman said, that is considered to be very unlikely here) it will be repaired by Crossrail at Crossrail's expense. So, sir, I cannot say "hand-on-heart", absolutely no risk of settlement because that is not the way the world works, but the risk here is small and is, in my submission, fully managed. 17902. As far as noise is concerned, the noise assessment at this property is 32 dBA, well below the 40 criterion that you have heard so much about. Sir, I would say to the Committee that although one understands the Petitioners' position to say that any perceptible noise is unacceptable, the consequences of accepting that submission are that it would make it almost impossible to build a railway, let alone a railway in an urban area like London, and that it would be imposing a requirement on a railway project which would be wholly different from the requirement imposed on road or other forms of surface level transport. So the suggestion that it should be imperceptible is, in my submission, one the Committee should be very, very slow to accept. What you have heard from Mr Taylor today and heard in the past is that at 32 dBA the chances of it causing any detriment to anyone are, really, very, very small. 17903. Sir, it may be that the greater real concern when Crossrail goes ahead for the Wheelers is the worksite, and if I can just touch on that briefly. There are two worksites that impact upon them, although they are linked together. The worksite at Wrexham Road, we fully accept, is very close to their property, but it is for a relatively limited period, which is four months - limited in the scale of the kind of times that we have been talking about on Crossrail - but, also, very importantly, it is only a daytime worksite. So although nobody chooses to have a worksite next to them for four months, it is very comparable to the kind of utilities work in the street that we all have to put up with, for instance, as our sewers are rebuilt, as is going on all over London. So the fact that it is a daytime worksite is very important. 17904. As far as the Wick Lane worksite is concerned, which is the longer one that Mr Berryman spoke about, I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that although the period for that worksite is 22 months, it is, for the vast majority of that time, all but about four months, only to be used as what is called a logistics site; so it is only for the storage of materials and plant and for site welfare facilities for the people working on the site, the Manhattan Site, a little further to the north. So the level of disturbance from that site will be very small; logistics sites do not cause people any material level of disturbance, except in truly exceptional circumstances. We quite accept that there will be an impact from those worksites, but the position is nowhere near as bad as it looks when one looks at the plan and sees two worksites. I hope that covers the main points. 17905. MRS WHEELER: The Blackwall Tunnel, A12, worksite is directly behind our house as well, so we get daytime impacts from the bottom of Wrexham Road right up against the house, and then we get night-time impacts from the work being carried out on the sewer diversion along the A12. 17906. MR WHEELER: Not only that, sir, but Wick Lane, down our end, as the lady said, will be for the workers, the plant, but that will be because the Manhattan building of the shaft will be 24-hour working. So although the building might be for people they will be going in and out of those buildings and it will be lit. I am not completely sure (I am sorry) but I believe the shaft, when it is actually built, will be 24-hour working. So those people will be in and out of those buildings - designers, planners, workers or whatever - for, obviously, overnight at that particular time. I do not know how long for, it might be only weeks, but just to correct that it is not just daytime. 17907. CHAIRMAN: Is that true, Ms Lieven? 17908. MS LIEVEN: Can I just check in relation to the Manhattan site? 17909. MRS WHEELER: There are tunnels which will be operating 24 hours a day. 17910. MS LIEVEN: Sir, my understanding - and I will be corrected by those behind me if I am wrong - is that I was entirely correct in what I said that the Wrexham Road site is daytime only. The point about Wick Lane is that for the vast majority of the time it is being used as a logistics site, so nobody is digging on that site during the vast majority of the time, but it is right to say that for a relatively short period, I think about four to six months, the Manhatten site, which is this one here, will have some night-time working. So there will be workers going backwards and forwards on to the Wick Lane site, and the site facilities means, effectively, toilets and a tea point for the people working on the site. Yes, there will be people going backwards and forwards during the night, but I would suggest that that is, although not perhaps something you would invite near your house, not a major impact, and one has to remember that in terms of the effect of people walking backwards and forwards to the facilities is concerned, we are talking about some distance from the Wheelers' house. So the Manhattan building does have some night working but the Wrexham Road site does not. 17911. MR WHEELER: The distance is just a road; it is just across the Wrexham Road to us. We can walk across the road to the site. Theoretically, as the lady said, there might be plant there as well. Obviously, plant, diggers, cement mixers and whatever, have to move backwards and forwards from this docking area to go to the site; so it might not just be people - I do not know. 17912. MRS WHEELER: The Blackwall Tunnel worksite, we are going to have a lot of daytime work outside our main window, and than at night when we are trying to sleep we will have night-time work going on just in the road behind the house. It is a tiny garden at the back of the house; it is no distance at all to the worksite. 17913. CHAIRMAN: Does that conclude your evidence? 17914. MR WHEELER: Just to say that this is ongoing; our lives will be affected for the duration of the construction of Crossrail and the duration of the construction of the sewer and, maybe - we do not know yet - for some foreseeable time afterwards. We do not really want to have to keep going to a third party or to someone who will liaise between us and the Promoter to put right things that have gone wrong in the house, regardless, as my wife said. Who knows what we will be doing in one year, five years, ten years or 20 years' time? People move on. We are expecting a family, so we might move ourselves and we want to be assured that whoever purchases the house after us, the house will be a home. 17915. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add? 17916. MRS WHEELER: I am worried about the acceptable level of risk, which I feel we are exposed to on every level. We instinctively feel, from all the meetings that we have had with Crossrail, and all that we have read, that this acceptable level of risk is a big grey area and that we are expected to put up with, at every stage, acceptable levels of risk which are determined by Crossrail and on which we have not had assurances as to exactly where that level is going to be. What is their acceptable level of risk? From what we have heard, we are worried that the level of risk we are expected to put up with is quite a lot. 17917. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That concludes the evidence session for today. Ms Lieven and Mr Elvin, is there anything you want to add about future business? 17918. I am told that coffee is available after this meeting concludes. A further hearing will take place tomorrow morning at 10.00.
|