Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12460 - 12479)

  12460. Mr Payne raises the question of land compensation in his Petition and I just ought to set the scene to say that as subsoil will be required from Mr Payne, who is the freeholder of these premises, as I understand it, he will be entitled, in principle, to claim land compensation under section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for any injury that his property may sustain as a result of the construction or operation of the railway. Suffice to say, we think it is very unlikely indeed from the predictions and assessment we have made that he will need to make any claim of this kind but he does have that right in principle.

  12461. The other matter I ought to touch on in light of his Petition in opening is to refer you back to the Hyde Park emergency access shaft. You have that document; this is the plan you were shown yesterday.[20] You will recall that we are proposing an emergency access shaft constructed beneath North Carriage Drive in the northern part of Hyde Park and an access passage, which I think Mr Berryman explained the purpose of yesterday in relation to the PRACT Petition. As you will recall, Bayswater Road is running parallel to North Carriage Drive just to the top of this plan and West Carriage Drive is off plan to the west and obviously that takes you up to the immediate vicinity of Mr Payne's property on the other side of Bayswater Road, Lancaster Gate. I mention this briefly now because things have changed, I think, so far as Mr Payne is concerned, to his advantage recently in relation to this. The scale of works that is required at this location is now much more limited than was the case in the Environmental Statement, and that is because it is not necessary to provide a ventilation shaft as well as an emergency access shaft. That means that the work site itself is much reduced in area, as you see here, and, importantly as regards the concerns he raises, it means that in order to enable Crossrail to be constructed thee is no need to close or to interfere with the movement of traffic on West Carriage Drive. Crossrail lorries will come to and leave the work site from the east along North Carriage Drive. Obviously they will make that journey from Marble Arch and travel along and then exit that way, so there should not be any appreciable impact as far as West Carriage Drive and traffic moving on to Bayswater Road through Victoria Gate under these more limited proposals. I perhaps ought just to mention that, as I understand it, broadly at the peak of construction at this work site the daily number of lorry movements is likely to be of the order of 30 or 40 movements two-way, so that is 15 to 20 actual lorries a day servicing this site.

  12462. CHAIRMAN: The carriageway will be closed otherwise of course?

  12463. MR MOULD: It will be closed and, as your Lordships see, it is necessary to close it for the duration of the works in order to enable the work site to operate and the construction of the shaft to take place. As your Lordships may know, the Carriage Drive is of course a private road within the environs of Hyde Park itself and although it is available day-to-day for use as a public road by traffic, it is in fact relatively lightly trafficked and so the closure of that—

  12464. CHAIRMAN: But there are no lorries or buses?

  12465. MR MOULD: That is right, and our prediction is that any traffic displaced from North Carriage Drive as a result of the presence of this worksite will be readily accommodated on Bayswater Road obviously just to the north.

  12466. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: There is a gallop parallel to that which is very heavily used by the livery stables and by exercising officers from the Household Cavalry. What is the crossing of that gallop at any time and what arrangements have been made to secure the safety of the horses and the riders?

  12467. MR MOULD: We are committed to making arrangements to provide an alternative route which, I think, will pass to the south of the worksite for the duration of the use of the worksite for the Crossrail works in order to accommodate park-users, including equestrians.

  12468. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Will that be a properly surfaced gallop?

  12469. MR MOULD: I think yes, it will.

  12470. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: There are nods of assent from Mr Berryman behind you, which I think we should record.

  12471. MR MOULD: I read this up in the Environmental Statement and my recollection is that we made that commitment, yes. Unless there any other questions at this stage, I will hand over to the Petitioner.

  12472. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Payne?

  12473. MR PAYNE: My Lords, Ladies and gentlefolk. I am John Payne, Chairman of the Hyde Park and Stanhope Terrace Residents' Association and Chairman and shareholder of the company which runs the freehold of the land and buildings known as 25-31 Hyde Park Gardens and 22-35 Stanhope Terrace W2. I will refer to this as `the estate'. I myself live at 23 Stanhope Terrace, a lower ground-floor flat. I thank everybody on the Committee who came along and had a look, thank you.

  12474. The estate consists of originally a terrace block of houses surrounded by gardens and vaults. It was constructed circa 1830 of brick with a stucco finish and it was converted in the 1950s to form 80 apartments on five floors plus a deep residential basement. The footings are of stepped-out brickwork. It is an impressive listed building situated on the edge of Hyde Park and within a Conservation Area. A copy of an illustrated article in the Architect and Building News dated May 28 1953 describes the block and its conversion in some detail. It is in my annex of accompanying exhibits, under JPA11 in the folder, which I hope you all have. The freehold was acquired by the residents utilising the Leasehold Reform Act 1993 after a lengthy battle of ten years with the Church Commissioners which ended in the Court of Appeal.

  12475. Your Petitioner has sought an undertaking from the Promoter to use floating slab track in the construction of the railway as a measure to mitigate the effects of groundborne noise and vibration in the tunnelling below the estate, if the scheme should go ahead. This is not likely to be sufficient in any event, so I am advised, as you will hear shortly. There is potential for direct and continuing damage to our buildings from the railway which will only be about 14 metres above the works. This is contrary to the impressions given out by Crossrail. I am advised that the Crossrail calculations forwarded to me require detailed examination.

  12476. Your Petitioner has considered for some time that there is a better route for the central London section, linking the stations of Paddington, Farringdon and Liverpool Street. I am aware of a longstanding outline plan for the northern interchange route, the Cavendish Square to Edgware Road variant. I have here with me in support my neighbour Martin Hawker.

  12477. I have deposited with your Clerk copies of exhibits and annex papers in a ring-book together with those of Mr Winbourne, and a witness statement from Darius Potel who, as Mr Winbourne will explain later, was to appear today as an expert witness for me, but unfortunately he has been called away and could not wait any longer as it is an important court case that he has had to attend. I understand Mr Winbourne will explain that later.

  12478. CHAIRMAN: What was he going to say?

  12479. MR PAYNE: He is an expert on my type of building and he is a property developer expert. He has also put a statement in which is in the back of my bundle under number 19, I think.



20   Crossrail Ref: P79, Hyde Park shaft-worksite layout (WESTCC-6_04-001) Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008