Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12460
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
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.
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
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
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
12478. CHAIRMAN: What was he going to
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