Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5140
- 5159)
5140. If we go on to the next page and look
at 4.8, which again is the same Schools Panel meeting, "Crossrail
will require each of its contractors to employ an appropriate
number of dedicated Community Relations Representatives ... will
work directly with the general public ... endeavour to deal with
any immediate incidents, problems or queries as swiftly as possible
... ", so we can see, even by reference to simply one meeting
that these issues have been discussed at least in part by one
of the Schools Panel's meetings?
(Mr Berryman) They certainly have, and
I have also attended meetings with the head teacher and some of
the governors of Swanley School, which is the school most affected.
I attended that meeting myself. I do not have the minutes here
but I was there, and the issue of students leaving and arriving
at the school and the lorry routes past the school was the main
issue of discussion.
5141. MR ELVIN: Mr Berryman, unless the
Committee has any further questions for me, I have none and I
would like you to go back and look after yourself and go to bed.
5142. CHAIRMAN: I hope you will get better
rapidly.
(Mr Berryman)
Thank you for that, my Lord.
5143. MR ELVIN: Because we need you next
week!
The witness withdrew
5144. CHAIRMAN: Now, what are we going
to do on Monday?
Promoter's closing statement on the settlement
issues in the Spitalfields area
5145. MR ELVIN: My Lord, you still have
to hear from Mr Mould, if that is convenient.
5146. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I am so sorry, yes.
5147. MR ELVIN: It is to close on the
settlement issue.
5148. MR MOULD: My Lord, we have prepared
a written note which I will read into the transcript, just pulling
together the threads from our presentation to you yesterday through
Professor Mair. As the Committee will recall from his presentation
on Tuesday, Mr Wheeler raised two concerns about the Promoter's
assessment of the potential impact of ground settlement on listed
buildings owned by petitioners in Spitalfields from the construction
of the running tunnels, and they were as follows: that the Phase
3 Stage 1 assessment reports which the Promoters have carried
out in respect of listed buildings situated within the 10mm zone
are unfit for that purpose because they are not informed by internal
inspections of the buildings. The second point was that those
assessment reports are incomplete because they omit consideration
of or reference to a number of built extensions which form part
of listed buildings. As to the first of those concerns, Professor
Mair has given a detailed explanation of the phased method of
assessment of potential ground settlement and of the application
of that method to the appraisal of potential impacts from tunnel
construction upon listed buildings in Spitalfields, and you will
recall that Professor Mair spoke to a number of matters, first
the geology of this area, the depth of the tunnel drive at about
35 metres, and the tunnelling method; secondly, the significance
of maximum tensile strain; thirdly, the negligible risk of damage
to buildings within the 10mm zone in Spitalfields from construction
of the running tunnels, and we showed you a graph which illustrated
that proposition; fourthly, he explained the Phase 3 Stage 1 assessment
method and its application and illustrated that by detailed explanation
of the report in respect of 17-25 Wilkes Street—the references
are there given. Then he told you about the scoring system which
provides for assessment of the sensitivity of each listed building
against two criteria, they being sensitivity of the structure
to ground movements and interaction with adjacent buildings and
sensitivity to movement of particular features within the building,
and that table is set out in the Information Paper D12.
5149. Then he told you about the scoring system
which provides for assessment of the sensitivity of each listed
building against two criteria, being sensitivity of the structure
to ground movements and interaction with adjacent buildings and
sensitivity to movement of particular features within the building.
That table is set out in the Information Paper D12.
5150. Then he told you of the information sources
for the purpose of that sensitivity assessment, being the statutory
list compiled and maintained by English Heritage, the Survey of
London, Pevsner's Buildings of England, and then external inspection
by Alan Baxter Associates, whose preeminent expertise and experience
in this specialist field Mr Wheeler did not dispute.
5151. Then, finally, he told you about the approach
to combining assessments of, firstly, building damage classification
and, secondly, building sensitivity in order to evaluate the magnitude
of likely impacts upon each listed building from ground settlement
from tunnel construction, and you will recall we produced an extract
from Alan Baxter Associates' report Crossrail Line 1 Assessment
of Settlement Impacts on the Built Heritage, volume 1, that
part which explained the scope and the methodology that was applied.
5152. In the light of that evidence, our submission
is that Professor Mair has demonstrated that the assessment method
for listed buildings is fit for purpose. He has shown that the
absence from the assessment of individual listed buildings at
Phase 3, Stage 1 of an internal inspection of each building does
not render unreliable the assessment reports produced at that
stage of the assessment process. I repeat my response to my Lord,
Lord Snape's question which is at the references that I give there
from yesterday's proceedings. Ultimately, it is a matter for judgment
whether any particular component is needed in order to provide
a reliable method of assessment. In this instance, the judgment
of Alan Baxter Associates and Mott MacDonald, with the approval,
as you recall, of English Heritage, was that internal inspection
of the buildings was not such a component. That judgment was accepted
by the Promoters. The House of Commons Select Committee was happy
to accept as adequate the settlement assessment of listed buildings
presented in the Phase 3, Stage 1 reports which were indeed produced
in evidence before them, and I give you the references in the
Special Report. We would respectfully invite your Lordships to
reach the same conclusions in the light of Professor Mair's evidence.
5153. Then more briefly in relation to the second
point of concern raised by Mr Wheeler, Professor Mair has answered
that at the paragraphs I give again by reference to the graph
in relation to the Phase 2 assessment, and, in very short summary,
the assessment of maximum tensile strain and the prediction of
negligible risk of damage is not affected by the presence of building
extensions of the kind illustrated by Mr Wheeler. Now, those submissions
deal with the two points raised by Mr Wheeler on behalf of the
Spitalfields Petitioners, but we should also summarise what happens
next, and here I think I come on to Lady Fookes' questions, as
to which you have the evidence of Mr Berryman on Day 10.
5154. We draw attention to Information Paper
D12 which explains the full sequence of the settlement assessment
procedure, that is to say, the method of assessing settlement,
monitoring arrangements, provision for protective works, defect
surveys and repairs. You will find that there is a particular
focus on listed buildings in section 7 of that document and section
8 describes the Settlement Deed which is available to building
owners of buildings, including listed buildings, which lie within
30 metres on plan of the running tunnels, and we believe that
class to include all Petitioners who own listed buildings in Spitalfields
situated within the 10mm contour. The Deed will provide such persons
with a direct contract with the nominated undertaker which confers
the right to secure compliance with the relevant requirements
of the settlement procedure, as described in Information Paper
D12, and a specimen Deed is annexed to the Information Paper itself.
5155. In the case of listed buildings in Spitalfields,
the procedure set out in that Information Paper is of course supplemented
by undertakings given by the Promoters to the Select Committee
in another place on 11 October 2006, and I give you the paragraph
references from the Special Report, and by the assurance given
to Tower Hamlets to produce a guide for effective property owners,
which is recorded as number 188 in the register. I have taken
instructions and I understand that work on the preparation of
that guide is programmed to begin within the next few months.
5156. In summary from those sources, the position
as regards Spitalfields is as follows. The construction of the
running tunnels beneath the Petitioners' properties is expected
to take place in 2012, and the references are to the plans on
which we show the properties in our evidence. Following Royal
Assent, and as part of taking forward the detailed design, the
nominated undertaker will be required to review the settlement
assessments which have been undertaken under the phased process
and which your Lordships have seen examples of in the exhibits.
Internal inspections of all buildings within the 10mm contour
will be carried out in order to produce schedules of defects,
and buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register will also be inspected
separately, and it may be of interest to note that as, I believe
I am right in saying, at present the sole II* listed building,
which your Lordship touched on yesterday, is on the Buildings
at Risk Register, so, if that remains the position, that will
be required to have an internal inspection under that undertaking.
Appropriate monitoring will take place in the year before, during
and for a period of seven years following completion of the works.
Monitoring and best practice during tunnelling works will be deployed
in order to minimise the generation of ground movement at source,
and Professor Mair explained briefly those matters in his presentation
on Day 2. Any preventative or remedial works required to be undertaken
by reason of the tunnelling works will be carried out at the Promoters'
expense and to a standard commensurate with the age and quality
of the listed building. As I sought to explain, I think, yesterday,
Schedule 9 to the Bill provides for such measures to be dealt
with under heritage agreements settled with English Heritage and,
in this case, the interested local planning authority, Tower Hamlets
London Borough Council, and you will find an explanation of those
arrangements in Information Paper B1 at the paragraph references
that I have given in this note.
5157. We strongly urge Petitioners who own a
listed building within 30 metres on plan of the running tunnels
to call for a Settlement Deed. Relevant provisions of the Deed
are clauses 1(2) and (3), 9, and the Appendix to the Deed, paragraph
1 and 13 to 23. Those relate specifically to listed buildings.
I can take your Lordships to that now, if it would be convenient,
or, alternatively, perhaps your Lordships would prefer to glance
at those outside of the committee proceedings.
5158. CHAIRMAN: I think we can look at
them later.
5159. MR MOULD: This will provide the
building owner with the opportunity to raise points about internal
features directly with the nominated undertaker and to pass disputes
to an independent expert for resolution. We shall explain the
Deed in the guide to property owners. I perhaps ought to say it
is right that I should refer to the disputes resolution procedure
which you will find encapsulated in clause 9 to the Deed. I should
be very disappointed indeed if it were necessary to refer detailed
matters regarding internal features to disputes resolution. I
would very much hope, and anticipate, that the building owner
and the nominated undertaker would be able to reach agreement
on matters of that kind.
|
