Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11680
- 11699)
11680. Here we are, MPs, ministers and the Mayor
are saying the consultation is flawed, but Professor Tony Kennerley
does not and never once recommends reopening round one consultation
on the route. Neither in his dissemination capacity does the Referee
inform the community that Crossrail have submitted an outcome
of the consultation to the DfT. So the question is, how can we
determine if the consultation was adequate. For this, we again
will turn to the Promoter's own documents. The Promoter produced
a report entitled "Consultation Activities in the Spitalfields
Area" prior to the Spitalfields Commons' petition hearing.
An odd thing to do if you have been engaged in consultation since
2003 to produce it just before the Commons' petition hearing,
but what they say is very interesting: "Consultation was
conducted in accordance with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's
Code of Practice on the Dissemination of Information during Major
Infrastructure Projects and the Transport for London Consultation
Toolkit". This is removed now from the Petition responses
we have received. Apparently they now only comply with the Code.
The reason for that may be because the TfL toolkit says: "If
you are seeking to inform any decisions which have not yet been
taken and if you are inviting comments, views and responses",
it goes on to say: "never ask for comments, views or responses
if all you want to do is explain what is going to happen anyway
and if you have no intention of changing anything ... use a reliable
distribution company to get leaflets to local residents ... "
and under "Top Tips", it says: "Visit the area
to find popular and accessible venues and draft question and answer
sheets to help staff answer key questions ... Allocate time and
staff to handle questions".[28]
The reasons that most people give for not consulting is, "lack
of money, political consensus and legal powers" which they
say impose more delays on projects than listening to the public.
On its legal obligations, it states, "Consultation must be
undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage".
Finally, it says: "It is important that TfL has not closed
its mind to alternatives". Crossrail never consulted properly
on alternative routes. They never consulted on the need or location
of Whitechapel Station and never had any intention of changing
the route tunnel alignment through Spitalfields. Instead, we have
a Bill being presented to Parliament where the Promoter is seeking
to disapply the consultation policy of TfL despite the fact that
it is joint Promoter of the Bill and it is to be handed over to
them after the Bill gains Royal Assent.
11681. CHAIRMAN: Ms Khela, you have now
spent a quarter of the time which is allotted for this Petition
talking about consultation in the past, long, long before it ever
got to this House. What is it you want us to do?
11682. MS KHELA: Okay. I am about to
tell you why it is relevant.
11683. CHAIRMAN: No. It may be relevant,
but I still want to know what you want us to do.
11684. MS KHELA: If you will give me
one second I might be able to tell you.
11685. CHAIRMAN: Good.
11686. MS KHELA: I am going to read to
you what our counsel suggested when he gave us legal advice on
this issue. At paragraph six of the legal advice from Richard
Harwood of 39 Essex Street chambers, he says: "The Environmental
Statement does not, as far as I have been able to tell, consider
alternative alignments in the Spitalfields area. The Supplementary
Environmental Statement 3 considers such alignments briefly at
paragraphs 3.5.9 to 3.5.12 on page 43 as amended in the SES3 Erratum.
The statement identifies an alignment which would comply with
the minimum radius of curvature required for the project. It says
that such an alignment would be beneath relatively modern buildings
with deep foundations and that alternative shaft sites compared
less favourably than the Hanbury Street site. The alternative
considered (shown at RTS C8(iv)) has a different alignment to
that in the 2001/2002 reports, and seems to be under more piled
buildings and nearer sensitive sites than the earlier southern
alignment."
11687. Paragraph seven: "I have also seen
a letter from Crossrail to the Residents' Association dated 14
June 2006 which says that a southern alignment was rejected because
alignment standards would be compromised and the tunnels would
need to be deeper and longer to avoid foundations. Concern was
expressed at settlement to `significant and valuable office or
residential buildings'. The letter also referred to dewatering
during works and disruption during the construction period which
appear to assume that construction will take place from a shaft
on that alignment, as was then proposed at Hanbury Street. The
letter's explanation does not sit comfortably with the Mott MacDonald
report, which gave a single and different reason for not pursuing
a southern alignment, or the latter Third Supplementary Environmental
Statement. The letter is not in any event part of the Environmental
Statement and cannot discharge the obligations on the Promoter
under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive."
11688. Paragraph eight: "I am asked a variety
of questions on the southern alignment: (a) is the information
provided by the Promoter on alternatives in the Crossrail Environmental
Statement and Supplementary Environmental Statement sufficient
to fulfil the requirements of EC Directive 85/337/EC (the EIA
Directive as amended)?"
11689. Paragraph nine: "The EIA Directive
requires the developer to provide `an outline of the main alternatives
studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons
for this choice, taking into account the environmental effects'.
The Environmental Statement and the Supplementary ES3 fail to
address the original alignment B which appears to have been a
`main alternative'. The assessment of the SES3 alternative does
not lead to a consulting on deep foundations and does not provide
the data or analysis to show why the shaft site at Hanbury Street
was considered preferable to the options considered on the southern
alignment". The WHRA sought to—
11690. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. We have
already ruled on the adequacy of compliance with the European
Community and, indeed, the transposition into British law of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and we have said that
it is adequate. We have ruled on that, so you cannot reopen it.
11691. MS KHELA: You have ruled on a
point that Matthew Horton raised, but I am not agreeing with that
point, my point is very different.
11692. CHAIRMAN: Well, I do not know
what it is in that case.
11693. MS KHELA: Well, my point is not
an objective test that I am talking about. My question is that
there was an alternative and the reasons given by the Promoter
that it conflicts with the Heron Tower is completely wrong.
11694. CHAIRMAN: In that case, are you
talking about alignments?
11695. MS KHELA: We are talking about
alignments, but you cannot have evidence being presented in this
committee room saying that an option was dismissed and rejected
as not being viable for the single reason that it conflicted with
a building when it does not actually conflict with that building.
11696. CHAIRMAN: We have also ruled on
alignments. There is nothing we can do about it you know.
11697. MS KHELA: I think there is something
you can do about it. If you will let me finish I think I might
be able to explain what you can do about it.
11698. CHAIRMAN: You get up to 2008.
11699. MS KHELA: I am going to summarise.
I have the evidence here. As no-one seems to be interested in
me presenting it all, I am a bit stuck with presenting my summary.
If anybody wants any points clarified, I can come back to those.
28 Committee Ref: A62, Transport for London Consultation
Toolkit (SCN-20080506-013) Back
| 
