Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2180
- 2199)
2180. MR MOULD: My Lord, yes.
2181. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that there
is not much more that can be done within the ambit of this Bill;
but, on the other hand, Tower Hamlets have copious powers under
the Planning Acts if they should choose to follow the line, for
instance, that Lord Brooke has been putting forward.
2182. BARONESS FOOKES: And me!
2183. CHAIRMAN: And indeed Lady Fookes.
So it is an entirely separate point but I do not know whether
you can take it any further, Mr Drabble? I imagine you cannot?
2184. MR DRABBLE: I do not think I can
take it any further before the Committee, no. You have our present
position as to whether we are happy or unhappy about the exclusion
of McDonald's and I cannot say anything more about that. It is
not in the limits of deviation and we have not petitioned and
I do not think I can sensibly take it any further.
2185. CHAIRMAN: But you have heard what
is said, and I do not know whether your planning committee might
be prepared to have another look at it.
2186. MR DRABBLE: We have certainly heard
what has been said, yes.
2187. MR MOULD: My Lord, there are one
or two points I would wish to make in response—very much
matters of detail, and bearing in mind that your Lordships are
not being asked to make any specific decisions by the London Borough
on that petition.
2188. Of course the first thing I would say
is that we on our side are pleased that positive discussions have
continued with the London Borough and have led to the position
where, before your Lordships' Committee today, Mr Drabble has
felt able simply to make a statement explaining what the current
position is.
2189. Can I say this, first of all—and
this will take a very few minutes—that questions were raised
as to traffic management within the Whitechapel and Hanbury Street
area. Your Lordships are to hear petitions, as you know, from
the Spitalfields' residents next week, and one of the things that
we expect to deal with in a little more detail in our presentation
to your Lordships is to explain lorry routine, and so forth.
2190. Just touching again on the question of
schools, it may also help Lord James in particular to know by
way of background that Swanlea School was a Petitioner in the
other place and it was in the context of their Petition that a
number of the matters that we have already explained to the Committee
as regards working groups and so on were established, and it is
a matter of record that the school is, as I understand it, content
with the processes that have been set up—they certainly
have not petitioned your Lordships' House in relation to those
matters.
2191. The next point is that Mr Drabble touched
on what he called Ham and Wick sewer diversion. Your Lordships
have not heard anything about that and I do not think your Lordships
will hear anything about that because it is not the subject of
any particular Petition. But I thought it might be helpful just
to say this: that that relates to enabling works which are to
be carried out as part of the project to divert an existing sewer
to enable the running tunnels to be constructed at a point to
the east of Bow Road, up towards Pudding Mill Lane.
2192. Mr Drabble touched on the question of
the need for the Hanbury Street shaft, and, again, we will be
dealing with that in a great deal of detail, I have no doubt,
next week. Suffice to say that our present position is that there
remains a shaft at Hanbury, both for emergency access and for
ventilation purposes. We will explain that next week.
2193. As regards the question of compliance
with published guidance for the design of gypsy and traveller
sites, the project plan that you have been looking at certain
aspects of during the course of this morning's proceedings, amongst
other things, provides a commitment that the reinstated gypsy
and travellers' site will be designed in such a way as to comply,
so far as it is reasonably practicable, with current government
guidance. There is some emerging detailed guidance on the design
of gypsy and travellers' sites which was published by the Department
for Communities and Local Government, I think, last year, and
my expectation is that by the time the work begins in earnest
on the nuts and bolts of the design of the reinstated site that
guidance will have become published guidance—firm guidance.
As I say, the project plan makes provision for compliance, so
far as reasonably practicable, with that guidance.
2194. There are two other points. Firstly, in
relation to a number of assurances where we have undertaken to
meet costs of certain things—the question of the Stepping
Stones Farm was mentioned earlier—clearly, where we have
done that we have done so on the basis that we will meet such
costs as are reasonable. I have been asked to make that clear.
The Petition of Mr James Middleton
2195. Another point which has, I think, been
a source of interest, both in this Committee and, indeed, in the
Committee in the other place, concerns community relations, and
I thought it might be helpful, with one eye on next week as well,
of course, just to draw your Lordships' attention to one of the
matters that were dealt with in that detailed letter that I drew
attention to earlier in the context of the Whitechapel issue.
If I can ask for page 14 to be put up.[9]
2196. CHAIRMAN: Is this the one that
is up on the screen now?
2197. MR MOULD: It is a different part
of the same letter. Under the heading "Community Relations
Strategy", there are two points. First of all, we have been
reviewing our approach to community relations, and the Construction
Code now contains a fairly detailed exposition of the key features
of the proposed Community Relations Strategy. Those are set out
there. I will not read it all out, but your Lordships can see
the framework which is set out. At a convenient moment, I will
ask for the next page to be put up.
2198. CHAIRMAN: It obviously goes on
a bit!
2199. MR MOULD: It does.
9 Crossrail Ref: P14, Correspondence from CLRL to
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets-Community Relations Strategy
(TOWHLB-86_4-014) Back
| 
