Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11820
- 11839)
11820. MS KHELA: Even though the safeguarding
itself where an affidavit is sworn, there is information available
where people who were on the safeguarded part of the route had
not received information or notification. We have evidence in
the scrutiny papers that they had not received this information.
So not only is Option B not in there, the information that informed
the safeguarding cannot be relied upon either.
11821. CHAIRMAN: It does not make any
difference to the powers of this Committee governed by Standing
Orders.
11822. MS KHELA: I am going to turn to
the undertakings that we will be seeking. I would just like it
on record that these issues remain for the WHRA and the reason
that we delayed our hearing was to obtain the full information,
and now we have been denied the information on why the tunnel
route policy goes through the Spitalfields area. We will be pursuing
that separately, and perhaps not here but in another forum.
11823. CHAIRMAN: Which information have
you been denied?
11824. MS KHELA: We have been denied
information on the policy that informed the tunnel route alignment
through Spitalfields.
11825. CHAIRMAN: Is that not in the list
of documents that I have just shown you?
11826. MS KHELA: No.
11827. CHAIRMAN: Well, where is it?
11828. MS KHELA: Those earlier revisions
are still possibly in the Department for Transport with the Promoter.
I could not say.
11829. CHAIRMAN: This is the material
that you are trying to persuade the Information Commissioner to
provide you with on appeal?
11830. MS KHELA: Yes.
11831. CHAIRMAN: The difficulty about
this is he is not going to do it in time for the end of our Committee
hearing.
11832. MS KHELA: Yes, I know.
11833. CHAIRMAN: So we are not going
to be any wiser.
11834. MS KHELA: No. Could I possibly
read a very short passage about our additional undertakings. We
previously supplied information about undertakings but we have
added to this very short list. "The Promoter has given an
assurance to build on Channel Tunnel Rail Link in the Commons,
so Petitioners have sought to examine what the Promoter, Crossrail,
has done to build on the experiences of the Channel Tunnel Rail
Link to minimise harm and disturbance and comply with the law.
These undertakings are presented in addition to the undertakings
sent to the Select Committee and the Promoter. The Channel Tunnel
Rail Link team considered hundreds of alternative routes; Crossrail
did not. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Committee ensured the selection
of an alignment away from residential areas to minimise harm and
disturbance; Crossrail did not allow this. According to the Arup
Report, Dr Keith Bowers said the Channel Tunnel Rail Link gave
two undertakings. Similarly, the Crossrail project's position
with respect to settlement and its effects should be established.
This applies both to tunnelling and other works, such as shaft
construction. As an illustration, the Channel Tunnel Rail project
provided commitments amounting to the use of best practice in
construction and an explicit commitment to the House of Lords
to make good any settlement damage to third party assets at no
cost to the owner. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link project also committed
to the principle that any change to the scheme after the parliamentary
stage should not be environmentally worse than the base case in
the original Environmental Assessment of the scheme. This is known
as the NEWT principle."
11835. CHAIRMAN: What document is this
that you are reading from?
11836. MS KHELA: I am referring to the
Arup report.
11837. CHAIRMAN: I see.
11838. MS KHELA: "In the case of
Crossrail, most of the information about the environmental impacts
has been left to what is called the detailed design, therefore
the impacts will not really be known until the Bill gains Royal
Assent, so who will be keeping an eye on the Promoter to protect
the interests of Petitioners? Is the timing of the petitioning
period not prejudicial to being able to protect their interests?"
The Arup report also says on Best Practice in Construction, "The
documentation that has been reviewed to date lacks any comprehensive
guidance or commitments on the procedures to be adopted to manage
and mitigate risks related to settlement and tunnelling control.
Such commitments should be sought at the parliamentary stage such
that the nominated undertaker has binding obligations to best
practice in the delivery of the works." No such concerns
have been raised by Tower Hamlets Council in their petition.
11839. At paragraph 3.1.2, "In this area
the limited geological information presented by CLRL indicates
that the drives may pass out of the bottom of the London Clay.
There is much precedent experience of these difficult-to-control
water-bearing sands occurring at this horizon and such conditions
could be extremely hazardous to such a shield and by extension
to overlying property if control of the tunnel feasibility was
lost."
| 
