Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2860
- 2879)
2860. CHAIRMAN: I am merely concerned
that all the Petitioners should know where to look for your case.
2861. MR ELVIN: My Lord, while Mr Mould
was on his feet, the Petition Response documents which, as the
Committee knows, are sent out two to three weeks in advance of
any hearings, refer to the relevant Information Papers. Certainly
as an example I am looking at a Petition Response document to
Spitalfields Small Business Association, Kay Jordan, and it specifically
refers to Paper B8 in answering issues with regard to environmental
assessment and to human rights. So, as far as I can see, their
attention has been drawn specifically to them but if the Committee
wishes to send a further reminder, we can do that this evening,
but it has already been sent out to them in the form of the Petition
Response document. That is part of the function of the PRDs.
2862. CHAIRMAN: I am raising it at this
stage, Mr Elvin, because I do not want the Petitioners to come
along and say that they have never heard of this.
2863. MR ELVIN: Well, in that case, you
Lordships also will need to look at the House of Commons Select
Committee because this is an issue we have been over several times
with the same Petitioners.
2864. CHAIRMAN: I agree that you have
said in your Response Document that it has been set out. I just
do not want Petitioners to come here and say they are lost amongst
all this paperwork. I hope they will not be.
2865. MR ELVIN: So do I, my Lord.
2866. CHAIRMAN: I interrupted you, I
am so sorry.
2867. MR ELVIN: No, my Lord, the purpose
of this is for me to assist the Committee with the issues. My
Lord, if it is convenient, I will briefly run through the various
issues which have been identified.
2868. My Lord, on the "need" question,
the location of the alignment, clearly as the Committee will be
aware there is a need to link Liverpool Street and Whitechapel
Station with an alignment which retains and allows improvements
to Liverpool Street, in the form of a new ticket hall, and to
Whitechapel Station, and the Committee will be well aware of the
need for improvements to Whitechapel Station. The alignment we
propose lies within the Bill's limits of deviation and we say,
as the Committee has already put to Mr Carpenter, that suggestions
with regard to alignments which lie significantly away from the
Bill alignment fall outside the principle of the Bill and therefore
are not matters properly for the subject of petitioning. Indeed,
it is fair to say that the Select Committee in the other place
took a similar view. In any event, so there is no doubt about
our position on the alignment, let me make these points clear.
2869. Many alignments were considered at the
stage of designing and considering the project along the whole
route of Crossrail , including this area, and the preferred option,
which was eventually costed and became the Bill scheme, was the
final result of an exercise which was carried out across the whole
route. Alternative alignments in this area were considered prior
to the selection of the Bill scheme and the other alignments were
rejected in favour of the Bill alignment. The southern routes
which are mentioned by the Petitioners particularly in Spitalfields
are not considered, whatever view one takes, as an appropriate
choice because an alignment to the south would pass through an
area which comprises a large number of multi-storey buildings
with deep pile foundations, often 20 to 30 metres deep, which
expose the project and the building owners and occupiers to considerable
risk from ground movement and from damage should the tunnel boring
machines pass under them.
2870. The route which has been selected is a
relatively pile-free alignment and you can see from this document
here we have projected downwards in a graphical way the depth
of the piles which are anticipated for the buildings along the
southern alignment, and to these buildings are now added projects
such as the Heron Tower at 110 Broadgate which is now under construction.
The issue is not only one of increased risk of instability but,
as the Committee knows, the tunnel boring machines are constantly
at work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there is a real
risk because the absolute and precise depth of the piles and their
location are not precisely plotted on any plans. There is a risk
of course that the tunnel boring machines would collide with the
piles. So, as the Committee can imagine, a route was sought to
be selected which would be satisfactory in engineering terms and
would not generate the risks which the southern alignment generate.
2871. If you require any information further
on this issue—and I appreciate what my lord, Lord Colville
said to Mr Carpenter a few minutes ago about the principle of
the Bill—however if there are any questions which the Committee
has, Mr Berryman in due course will be able to answer those and
answer how the process went about looking at the alternative alignments.
2872. Turning now to the shaft at Hanbury Street,
at the moment the requirements of ventilation and emergency intervention
are requirements imposed on us by the safety regulators, Her Majesty's
Road Inspectorate and the Fire Service. They are required at roughly
one kilometre spacings and, on the alignment between Liverpool
Street and Whitechapel, the Hanbury Street location is the general
area in which the shaft has to be located and indeed it is the
least damaging location because other locations would include
in the middle of the residential properties further to the west,
or Brick Lane, or indeed Spitalfields Market, and this site was
chosen as being on the alignment and most appropriate in terms
of its lessened impact on its surroundings than other locations
would generate.
2873. The general position on the selection
of ventilation and emergency shafts is found in Information Paper
A4 which I hope is properly indexed because it is an earlier paper
than B8.
2874. Although there was an initial misunderstanding
with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets about the continuing
need for the shaft, the position which has been made clear to
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets that we are continuing to
work on the issue of the shaft and are in discussion with the
safety regulators. Should it become possible to remove the need
for the shaft, because the safety regulators are satisfied a shaft
is no longer required, then of course there will be no need to
proceed with the shaft. However, we are in the hands of the safety
regulators as to what their requirements are, and we have given
an undertaking to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which I
hope can be put up—it is Undertaking 394—and that
is an undertaking which effectively commits us to continue to
work on the options for the shaft in the hope that further work
will lead to the need for the shaft being removed.[6]
However, I have to make it absolutely clear, so no one is under
any misapprehension, that we do not have the sign off of the safety
regulators at the moment, and at the moment therefore the modified
Bill scheme which is before this Committee is still that which
we have to pursue.
2875. On the issue of settlement, Petitioners
raised concern about potential ground settlement in connection
with the construction of the running tunnels through the Spitalfields
area, particularly in the light of the presence of a number of
historic buildings in the middle of the petitioner zone in and
around the area beneath which the running tunnels for Crossrail
are to be constructed. There are a series of plans which we will
be able to deploy to show your Lordships the location of the Petitioners'
respective properties in relation to the running tunnels and to
the shaft, and some are being put up now.
2876. CHAIRMAN: And it is a conservation
area too, is it not?
2877. MR ELVIN: It is indeed. One of
the reasons for this alignment is that it avoids the running tunnels
going underneath Christ Church Spitalfields, which the Committee
may well be aware of—I think it is being pointed out—which
is a Grade I listed building and of considerable architectural
and historical importance and it seemed appropriate the tunnel
should at least avoid the risk of going directly underneath that
church.
2878. The Promoter has done a considerable amount
of work, as the Committee will have already heard from Professor
Mair on the second day of the hearings, to ensure that the settlement
impact on all buildings, including listed and historic buildings,
has been adequately assessed and appropriate mitigation measures
put in place. Professor Mair explained to the Committee the methodology
which the Promoter has applied to the assessment of settlement,
and settlement assessment reports which have been produced which
consider every individual structure within the permitted zone
of influence along the route, that is within the 10 metre contour.
2879. The results of the assessment process
are reported in one of two ways. Firstly, there is the reporting
process for listed buildings, these are the subject of individual
reports, such a report as been produced for all listed buildings
within the permitted zone of influence within the Spitalfields
area, and we have included copies of those reports in the exhibit
packet. The individual reports include a heritage appraisal which,
amongst other things, identifies any feature of particular architectural
or historical importance or matters of sensitivity.
6 Crossrail Ref: P23, Extract from the Register of
Undertakings and Assurances, No. 394 (TOWHLB-XR5C-012) Back
|
