Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11640
- 11659)
11640. MS KHELA: If you let me carry
on, I think I am about to explain.
11641. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: My
second question was, was it raised in the Commons, in the Other
Place?
11642. MS KHELA: Not by ourselves, no,
but we are raising it today.
11643. MR ELVIN: It was raised, my Lord,
at length.
11644. MS KHELA: No, it was not, not
by the WHRA. We submitted a consultation report, whether it was
taken into consideration is another matter because we did not
discuss it. We had a barrister representing us by the name of
Justine Thornton. I would like to continue, if I may.
11645. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please go on.
11646. MS KHELA: The Promoter has given
the impression that the people of Spitalfields are alone and that
they are the problem, but we hope this Select Committee will keep
an open mind and consider the evidence we are about to present.
Some of this is even supported by statements from MPs, Assembly
Members and ministers who said the consultation in Spitalfields
was flawed and excluded the community from being consulted on
the route. We will provide evidence of this.
11647. The Spitalfields community was excluded
from round one consultation and no information was exhibited on
alternative route options at the exhibition. The Spitalfields
community were prevented from being consulted as a community,
information was scant and public meetings by the Promoter left
the community to have separate meetings and share information
ad hoc. No consultation was ever suggested for Whitechapel Station.
The community asked to see evidence why viable alternative routes
were not being considered, as is required by law, so the Promoter
could consider options which avoided the densely populated and
historic part of Spitalfields. The Spitalfields community were
told such options did not exist. We later found that, yes, they
did. The information that was provided was piecemeal, involving
a paper chase and did not seek to make it easy to build a picture
of the proposals in Spitalfields or, indeed, Whitechapel. The
Promoter has had ample opportunity to rectify these errors but
has chosen not to do so.
11648. I will give you an example of the consultation
carried out by the Promoter. The WHRA Secretary, Guy Carpenter,
who is sat beside me, received a leaflet on 31 October 2003, the
final day of the exhibition on the route options in Whitechapel.
Mr Carpenter has lived in Spitalfields for many years but did
not know of the location described in Whitechapel. The address
on the leaflet said, "Whitechapel Community Room, Wodeham
Gardens" and could not even be found on the London A-Z,
and did not mention anything about Spitalfields. Crossrail members
of staff said they had run out of leaflets on the Hanbury Street
shaft even though the consultation was running between seven and
nine and Mr Carpenter arrived at 7.15, less than 15 minutes after
the opening. Mr Carpenter commented that the detail for Whitechapel
was considerable and asked could he be given some detail of the
Hanbury Street shaft. Mr Carpenter spoke to a consultant by the
name of Dick Dunmore. Mr Dunmore said he could not provide details
about the Hanbury Street shaft other than what was on the board.
Could we see what was actually on the board?
11649. Just as a short example, the leaflet
at the exhibition failed to show any of the following: there was
consultation on the route options in Spitalfields; the leaflet
implied that the Hanbury Street site was a shaft, not a tunnel
boring machine site, which is in miniature right after the information
on the ventilation shaft; two tiny paragraphs referred to a TBM
and spoil site at Pedley Street; any information or indication
of the opportunity to be consulted on the works, the alignment,
what was later to become the fixed position of Whitechapel Station,
was not there. The poster, in short, did not do any of these things.
11650. Mr Carpenter was told that there were
no leaflets to take away. This was odd as there was a shortage
of Hanbury Street leaflets even though it was later discovered
that he was only one of two people who received a leaflet. Mr
Carpenter helpfully informed the Crossrail representatives that
many groups in Spitalfields knew nothing about the Hanbury Street
shaft. Mr Carpenter offered to give the names of local groups,
but was told to fill in a feedback form. He did, but received
nothing from Crossrail and so the WHRA complained.
11651. Could we have Exhibit 12, please?[26]
I would like the Committee to contrast the information that was
given for the Hanbury Street shaft with what is on the next leaflet
which is entitled "Crossrail Line 1: Update Spring 2003".
It says: "Following an announcement by the Government of
the preferred Crossrail Line 1 route, an extensive public consultation
will take place with people and organisations affected by the
scheme ... Crossrail staff will be able to explain proposals and
answer questions. The public information centre will be advertised
locally and we will send invitations to everyone on our mailing
list".
11652. The WHRA then complained to the Crossrail
Referee. The WHRA received a letter on 16 December from Crossrail
following that complaint. The letter confirmed the round one leaflets
had been supplied after 16 December. The initial consultation
on the routes proposed ran between 8 September 2003 until 19 January.
As part of this a series of information centres had been held
between 27 October and 3 December. The Crossrail letter also said:
"We are also consulting with local authorities and stakeholder
groups such as the transport user groups and local residents'
associations. These responses ... will be included in our report
on the initial round of consultation to the Department at the
end of January 2004. A second round of information centres will
go ahead once Crossrail is given the go-ahead to apply for powers.
This round of consultation will provide further details of proposals,
explain any modifications made and seek views on the proposed
scheme".
11653. The WHRA sent a letter dated 16 January
2003 outlining their extensive concerns about the first stage
of consultations. A letter from the Crossrail Referee on 22 December
says: "The Crossrail proposals have so far been the subject
of a public awareness campaign (8-29 September 2003). The purpose
of round one consultations was to introduce the route proposals,
display preliminary project designs, explain the works and seek
initial comments." I would like you to recall that there
were no route proposals in Spitalfields shown on the leaflets.
"Key to this process was the programme for public information
centres. These were intended to display route-wide and site-specific
design information about the project with qualified staff available
to explain the proposals and answer questions". The Referee
makes no reference to the following: people and groups in Spitalfields
had been excluded from consultation on the route, which would
later be presented by Mr Montague in 2004; reveals the principal
issue raised at Whitechapel was in fact Vallance Gardens, as it
was in fact in Whitechapel, for which proposals were later changed;
blames the hand-delivery of the leaflets on a postal strike, which
had been going on for some considerable time and, therefore, it
would be reasonable to assume that those leaflets should have
arrived earlier. Instead, Mr Kennerley refers to the fact that
details will be provided in the second round suggesting that the
community can be informed about the works rather than consulted.
11654. At this stage the WHRA and the community
did not know the precise details of the alignment or the extent
of the works. This emerged later. We have extensive documentation
showing attempts to engage with the Promoter so as to involve
and inform the wider community. This would be too much for this
Select Committee but we think it would be suitable for an inquiry.
11655. From then on, the communities were told
two things by Crossrail: that the proposals could not be changed,
including the alignment, otherwise it would become unaffordable
and we were told to wait for the details of the impacts.
11656. A further letter was sent to the Referee
by the WHRA on 16 January. On 29 January an acknowledgement was
received from the Referee. This was the same day as Crossrail
reported to the DfT on the outcome of the round one consultation.
11657. On 10 February, the Referee writes to
us with a heading misleadingly entitled "Crossrail Consultation
Hanbury Street Ventilation Shaft". It was, in fact, an intermediate
tunnelling site. The Referee says: "The project will, by
that time, have complied with the requirements not only of the
Code of Construction Practice but also Transport for London's
Consultation Toolkit and the Cabinet Office's Revised Code of
Practice on Consultation". The Referee says that the WHRA's
written response has been included, but the letter makes no mention
of the following: the WHRA response was to the unequal treatment
when comparing the detail of information provided to Whitechapel,
so it was hardly a response to details it did not actually have;
the Spitalfields community had been excluded from round one consultations;
the WHRA was reluctant to have a meeting with Crossrail without
other groups as it did not believe that this was the best way
to understand the full impacts and various other groups had specialties,
which could have allowed for more informative discussions. This
request was denied without any reasonable explanation.
11658. Kay Jordan was the only person in the
community who understood the proposals technically from the double-sided
one-page leaflet she received from Guy Carpenter. In a letter
dated 17 January, she says: "The use of a major part of ...
."
11659. CHAIRMAN: Which year is it now?
26 Committee Ref: A62, Crossrail Consultation Document
2003 (SCN-20080506-010) Back
| 
