Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2980
- 2999)
2980. It is fair to say that the Crossrail proposals
for Hanbury Street and that area have changed quite significantly
over the course of the last few years, most specifically, as you
know, as a result of the revised tunnelling strategy which was
promulgated in May 2006. As Mr Elvin explained in opening today,
the scale and extent of the works which are now proposed in Hanbury
Street is significantly more limited than was the case until that
time. But that, of course, on the face of it, ought to be a benign
trend so far as the health impacts on local people is concerned,
ought it not?
(Dr Safir) Of course.
2981. So that is a move in the right direction
so far as you are concerned?
(Dr Safir) Yes. If you take it to the
ultimate, there would not be a shaft there at all and nobody would
suffer.
2982. We have to build the railway, of course,
and that is a thought we have to have in mind. No doubt you accept
that.
(Dr Safir) I accept that but I am saying
putting the shaft where it is.
2983. I note that one of your particular criticisms
in the evidence you gave—there were two concerns, the first
was the possibility of airborne pollution and the health impacts
from material excavated from the shaft itself, and the second
was the possibility for airborne pollution from vehicle emissions,
lorries and also from loads which were not properly sheeted and
so forth.
(Dr Safir) Yes, and dampened.
2984. Just dealing with the second of those,
clearly, in order to judge that question and the degree to which
that is a risk which needs to be dealt with by particular measures,
one does have to have very much in mind the quantity of lorries
and the regularity of lorry movements likely to be required in
order to serve the current Crossrail proposals? Is that fair?
(Dr Safir) That is very fair, yes.
2985. It is certainly true to say that the figures
that Mr Elvin gave to the Committee earlier on this afternoon,
that is to say during the peak nine months of construction at
Hanbury Street, we are predicting 16 lorry movements a day and
at other times during the construction period I think six lorry
movements a day, an assessment of the potential for significant
health impacts as a result from that aspect of the scheme needs
to be judged with those figures in mind, does it not?
(Dr Safir) If that is the final figures,
as I say, I have never been told until today that you have reduced
the amount of lorries going in and out of Hanbury Street, so this
is news to me today, but my feeling is that before these lorries
go in and out, some expert should be called in, that the environmental
health people at Tower Hamlets and the experts on particulate
matter, which I am certainly not one, should be comparing similar
size shafts and health impacts on other tunnels or digs in England
or even in the USA. I know there is evidence to say that even
minor shafts over a long period of time has a detrimental effect
on people's health. All I am saying is my feeling is that before
the work actually starts people need to be looking at this very,
very carefully and not just through the Liaison Committee, I think
Crossrail need to be doing it.
2986. Rest assured, I did not put to you the
value that you have been doing through your work on the liaison
panel as being an indication that that was the only measure that
we propose to take in order to control matters such as potential
for dust dispersal from lorries and so forth. Under the terms
of our Construction Code, which I think you have heard mentioned,
we have detailed arrangements that are subject to the approval
of your local authority as the interested local environmental
and health authority detailing arrangements for the prevention
of dust disturbance and air quality problems through practical
measures, as you would expect, such as sheeting of lorries, the
dampening down of dust at the work site, I could list a whole
range of measures but they will be familiar to you and to the
Committee. In fact that is by far the most effective way of addressing
and preventing the sort of potential problems that you have mentioned,
that the construction programme should be undertaken with best
practice in relation to matters of that kind, yes?
(Dr Safir) I agree.
2987. Perhaps in that respect, can we glance
at two paragraphs from the Select Committee House of Commons Special
Report because they did say something specifically about health
in Spitalfields and I have no doubt at all that when they did
so they had your evidence well in mind.[14]
This paragraph 101 and 102: "We were concerned that a large
number of asthma sufferers and those with other respiratory illnesses
in Spitalfields should be protected from the increased dust levels
that would surround the Crossrail work sites, which we understand
to be amongst the highest indication of those particular illnesses
in UK". Pausing there, I think that is a pretty fair short
paraphrase of your evidence, is it not?
(Dr Safir) Yes.
2988. "With this in mind, we expected staff
securing the roads to ensure that access is only given to lorries
properly and securely covered", that was an example of a
practical measure we mentioned a moment ago. Paragraph 102: "The
Promoter acknowledged our concern in relation to Buxton Street
and traffic entering Vallance Road and agreed to ensure that appropriate
measures are taken in agreement with the London Borough of Tower
Hamlets to control vehicular access on a 24-hour basis. We note
that the Crossrail Construction Code will require all vehicles
carrying loose or potential dust material to or from work sites
to be fully sheeted. The Construction Code forms part of the environmental
minimum requirements that the Promoter will make binding on any
nominated undertaker". Dr Safir, that is what the Select
Committee asked us to do, that is what we shall do, does that
at least reassure you in relation to one of the concerns that
you raised, that is to say the need properly to control and prevent
particulate dispersal from lorry loads passing to and from the
work site?
(Dr Safir) I have been told several times
at meetings that this is going to be the cleanest shaft and the
cleanest spoil takeaway ever in the history of the universe, I
hope that will be the case.
2989. Well, I do not say that we intend it should
be the cleanest shaft ever in the history of the universe, that
would be a high aspiration indeed, but I do say to you that we
intend to give effect to the sentiments of the Select Committee
in the House of Commons reflected in those paragraphs and, indeed,
that is something which is set in the terms of the Crossrail Construction
Code. That must surely reassure you.
(Dr Safir) It reassures me to a certain
extent, but there will still be the degree of pollution, although
you are trying to minimise it, that is going to affect the highest
susceptible population and this is where I do think that people
are just covering up the cracks and are just saying that we are
going to make it the cleanest whatever, but even minor deficits
in the quality of air in the Spitalfields area can lead potentially
to quite devastating effects on certain individuals. That is what
I am saying needs to be looked at very carefully before the lorries
go in.
2990. Can I tell you on that point, and we are
entering into quite a technical area there, which is the contribution
which construction vehicles make to ambient levels of pollution
from particulates and so forth in the atmosphere locally. Of course
that is something which is monitored by local authorities as a
matter of course, you will appreciate that. I think it is a legal
requirement that that should be done and Mr Thornely-Taylor confirms
that with national air quality measurements. We have carried out
a technical assessment of the propensity for Crossrail construction
traffic to contribute significantly to prevailing levels of vehicular
particulates in the atmosphere across the route, including Spitalfields
and that assessment is set out in documents which form part of
the Environmental Statement. I think you must be familiar with
the fact that we have undertaken that work.
(Dr Safir) Yes.
2991. I am sure we mentioned that to you in
the past.
(Dr Safir) Yes, you mentioned it last
time.
2992. I do not know whether you have taken the
opportunity—one needs a wet towel around one's head to do
it—to glance at the technical reports in question to see
if they give you some reassurance as to the assessment work that
we have undertaken in order to understand the challenge that we
may need to meet. Have you done that?
(Dr Safir) I have read part of the documents
but, as I say, because I am not an expert, I am not the one who
should be commenting on all this. What I do know is that when
levels of pollution go up, my patients get ill.
2993. My Lord, that is a very fair answer and
in the light of that, it seems to me perhaps it would be sensible
if at an appropriate moment later in the week I invite one of
our witnesses just to draw the Committee's attention to the work
that we have done in relation to air quality assessment and just
to summarise the conclusions, my understanding is, as the Committee
might expect given the relatively small number of lorries associated
with the Hanbury Street worksite, that we are not predicting any
significant deterioration in the prevailing air quality of the
area of Spitalfields as a result of that aspect of the works,
but we can deal with that, if I may, in detail a little later
on if that is convenient.
2994. CHAIRMAN: We shall hear it in time.
2995. MR MOULD: Dr Safir, the dust prevention
measures, control measures that we have discussed in relation
to lorries also form part of detailed arrangements which are set
out in the Construction Code as to the control of dust coming
from work sites themselves, you are aware of that, are you not?
Again, what we have sought to do through a relatively detailed
regime is to anticipate the sort of measures that are likely to
be required, having regard to the scale and extent of activity
which is going to be going on in any individual site. As you say,
in relation to Hanbury Street, that would need to consider the
potential for dust disturbance as a result of material being taken
out of the shaft itself, you understand that that is what we are
doing?
(Dr Safir) Yes, I do understand.
2996. As the scheme develops and as we get into
the actual construction phase, in the event that the local community
feels that matters as regards dust control need to be raised with
the local authority or with the nominated undertaker or both,
you then, through the Community Liaison Panel or directly, are
in a position to take those points up on behalf of your patients,
are you not?
(Dr Safir) I need to take it up with Crossrail
to make sure that—
2997. That is what I have just put. You touched
on the Liaison Panel. I know Ms Cove is going to be giving more
detailed evidence on that, so I will not trouble the Committee
for more than a moment or two. You mentioned the role of Planning
Aid for London. You do understand that Planning Aid for London
is an independent charitable organisation.
(Dr Safir) Of course I do.
2998. It is right to say, as you may understand,
that, having engaged them to assist us with enabling the Panel
to take up its role and to perform its work, we have been prepared
to reimburse them their ordinary administrative expenses, but
I can assure you that that is as far as it goes in so far as any
financial support from the project is concerned. Are you prepared
to accept that from me?
(Dr Safir) Yes.
2999. Thank you very much. You touched on the
fact that there was a need for the primary care trust to be involved
as a consultee in relation to possible impacts of the construction
of the Hanbury Street shaft.
(Dr Safir) I was asked whether I had any
knowledge of them being involved.
14 House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail
Bill, First Special Report Session 2006-07, Crossrail Bill,
HC 235-I, paras 101-102 (SCN-20080310-004 and -005) Back
| 
