Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12480 - 12499)

  12480. MR MOULD: I am in a bit of difficulty because I do not have Mr Payne's documents. I gather he delivered them to your clerk rather than delivering copies to us, so I do not know if Ms Price has got a spare one.

  12481. CHAIRMAN: You have not got this?

  12482. MR MOULD: No (same handed). My Lord, having sped-read Mr Potel's statement, having been handed a copy of it very kindly by Ms Price—

  12483. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, have you not had any of the material in Mr Payne's bundle?

  12484. MR MOULD: No, I have not. I gather what happened was that Mr Payne delivered to Ms Price, but did not deliver any copies of his file to the Promoter's offices. He appears to be under a misunderstanding as to what was required of him, but the upshot is that I have not seen this before. I have, as I say, had a quick look through the statement that he has just mentioned of the gentleman who cannot be here this afternoon and it does appear from a pretty quick read of it that the burden of the argument set out in that evidence is to suggest that there is a superior alternative to the Crossrail route as it passes through Bayswater and into the West End, so we are again into familiar territory, albeit in a different location. I also know that we are expecting that your Petitioners tomorrow, the Crossrail Coalition and the Mayfair Association, are going to raise the same route, as I understand it, so I wonder whether there is room for a little bit of case management there in terms of the Committee hearing that which it is prepared to hear in relation to that matter, perhaps deferring that topic at least until tomorrow's business when I think it is likely to be raised by other Petitioners.

  12485. CHAIRMAN: There is another difficulty about this, Mr Payne. Your Petition is very unspecific and we will have to think quite carefully about some of the issues because I am not sure that we are empowered to deal with them, so let us go ahead and see what it is that you want to raise.

  12486. MR PAYNE: I was just going to say that Mr Potel could appear tomorrow possibly with the residents of Mayfair and thereby he can give his statement then. I think he will be saying a similar thing to that which he would be saying for me in any case.

  12487. CHAIRMAN: Well, he may not be saying it at all because we have got no powers to consider it.

  12488. MR PAYNE: So you can decide later.

  12489. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, you are not going to pursue it and he cannot come today?

  12490. MR PAYNE: No, he had to go, he could not stay, so all we have got is his expert witness statement.

  12491. CHAIRMAN: You had better do your best on the face of your Petition and your bundle and we will see how far we can get.

  12492. MR PAYNE: I shall call Mr Norman Winbourne as my expert witness. There is one other thing which I have omitted to say, which is that I did have another possible expert witness, Owen Luder, and he could not come today, but he has given me a supplementary letter which I would like to add to my bundle, if that is okay.

  12493. CHAIRMAN: What do you want to do about Mr Luder?

  12494. MR PAYNE: He cannot appear, so I would just like you to take a read of his letter and please consider it.

  12495. CHAIRMAN: I have had a read of his letter. Fortunately the letter is short, but the qualifications are colossal!

MR NORMAN WINBOURNE, sworn Examined by MR PAYNE

  12496. MR PAYNE: Mr Winbourne, you have done a long report and appendices which I would like to come to later. Would you please, first of all, focus on Hyde Park Gardens and Stanhope Terrace so that there is no suggestion, as before in the last few days and in the Commons Select Committee, that we are off the point.

   (Mr Winbourne) My Lords, if I can speak directly in response to what Mr Payne has said, I would like to go through the exhibits and so on which are Mr Payne's tabs up to 11 before he starts 1 and 2, and comment on them, if I may. A lot of this is stuff that has come from Crossrail and I draw attention to the fact. Perhaps I should say, first of all, that I belong to four societies in valuations and so forth. I am a very, very senior chartered surveyor. I first entered the profession before the Second World War ended and worked for my father for a while as a teenager until he died. He was a well-known architect, surveyor and engineer. Unusually, and perhaps also uniquely, I am also a Fellow of the Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors, and I do not know of any other valuer of any consequence who is. I trust that that will be taken on board, and there is a long CV which I will not bore the Committee with, but I would ask you to bear that in mind, bearing in mind what you have just said, my Lord Chairman, about Owen Luder. He and I have worked on three or four matters previously and are working on one now. The extract from the Building News magazine of 1953, Mr Payne's tab 11, is an excellent descriptive matter of the buildings as they were converted in 1953. Mr Payne occupies one flat, but what we are looking at is a homogenous—

  12497. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, which tab is it?
  (Mr Winbourne) Mr Payne's tab 11, at the beginning, it is JPA11.[21] It is most important with listed buildings—and this is a Grade II listed building—that the listing extends to the curtilage of the building. In fact, where you have a house and garden it includes the garden. That is quite important because in this case we have an example of an 1830 or so terrace, just before Queen Victoria, I make this William IV or George IV, I am not quite sure which, and it is built with the curtilages including basements and everything else. Some of the basements have been taken away which may be important structurally and I will come to that later. This building was originally five Victorian houses, as far as Mr Payne is concerned, but in fact you are looking at a much longer terrace, well within the limits of deviation of the scheme never mind the small size tunnel line that you are shown on the maps which I find objectionable and I will deal with later. It is all within the limits of deviaton of the scheme, the entire terrace, and that is similar to others in the area. This is not the only one under the same threat. We are dealing, as far as he is concerned, with a group of vertically connected—

  12498. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Could we have a map back up so we can see the lines?

   (Mr Winbourne) Can I just deal with those lines and come back to this in a moment? Those lines are the centre lines of two eight metre tunnels and not, as we are led to believe on this submission, something under seven. Within the eight metres you have about a metre thick wall of the tunnel, so it is about seven metres on the inside. What you have on the outside of the eight metre tunnel is a band of what is called compensation grouting, which is approximately five metres, but it is not a uniform five metres because this is heavy concrete injected under pressure probably over a period of—from my experience of the Jubilee Line—anything up to two years depending on what they are doing, a very long time. That means that each tunnel effectively in construction terms is not under seven metres, it is about eighteen. I am talking about the diameter and not the circumference. Secondly, we have two of them and they diverge at this point. You will notice that they widen out. Why? It is because they are going towards what is called a shaft.

  12499. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Could Mr Winbourne be given the marker to follow this, please? (Same handed)

   (Mr Winbourne) All they are showing is the centre line of the tunnel on this one. The tunnels are much wider, as I have explained, up to 18 metres and possibly even wider than that because the reason for the compensation grouting is that it fills up the interstices in the London Clay where there are gaps and so on or for that matter any other kind of ground. Above the London Clay are terrace levels and made ground in this case. What I want to go back to is the description of the building itself, if I may. I think you should have well in mind that it is not just the black bit they show on the plans we are dealing with, we are dealing with a whole block and, equally, the one on the other side and the same goes right across Bayswater and the Hyde Park area. Can I just digress for a moment? I am certainly not against Crossrail but on the present route I would be recommending your Committee reject the Bill altogether. The point is—



21   Committee Ref: A67, Conversion of fifteen houses into flats: 24-38 Hyde Park Gardens, Architectural Building News, 1953 (SCN-20080507-016) 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