Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13320
- 13339)
13320. CHAIRMAN: What is this?
13321. MS KHELA: This is the Mott McDonald report
which I have submitted with my submission. Can you read what it
says at 4.2?
(Mr Berryman) "Three alignments were considered in the
Crossrail report: Alignments A, B with a station at Whitechapel
and Alignment C without a station to the south of Whitechapel,
approximately along Commercial Road. Of these Alignments B and
C can no longer be considered due to the development east of Liverpool
Street Station at Aldgate, a 50-storey development. Should the
development proposal change, then these alignments may become
viable options once again".
13322. MS KHELA: That is my point. I have no
further questions. They become viable options, which is quite
clear, they were viable options. Nowhere does it say that there
were any piled buildings, nowhere does it mention there was a
Whitechapel interchange, all of these points have been raised
after the event. Had Mr Berryman appeared earlier, Michael Schabas
was happy to deal with that point. That is it. I have no further
questions.
13323. MR ELVIN: I would like Mr Berryman
to continue by way of re-examination.
13324. CHAIRMAN: Yes, by all means.
Re-examined by MR
ELVIN
13325. MR ELVIN: Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman) My Lords, I have already explained
the thinking that went into the selection of alignments in the
Whitechapel area. The matters which have been raised by the Petitioner
relate to consultants' reports which are produced for us. We release
all this information through the Freedom of Information Act. They
do not necessarily represent our considered and final opinion.
This is the advice of professional experts who are putting down
points which need to be considered. They are not intended to be,
nor could they ever be, comprehensive examinations of all the
options in detail taking into account all the factors. There are
a number of very good reasons why Option A was selected. The principal
ones are to do with the station of Whitechapel and the difficulty
of building a station at Whitechapel under Option B. In that report
Mott McDonald were not asked to consider that point.
13326. MS KHELA: On that point, can you clarify—
13327. CHAIRMAN: I thought you had finished
your questions. Ms Khela, either you are going to ask Mr Berryman
questions or you are going to say that you have not got any more.
I thought you said the latter.
13328. MS KHELA: I did.
13329. CHAIRMAN: In that case you can
sit down.
13330. MR ELVIN: I have nothing further
to ask Mr Berryman, unless the Committee has.
The witness withdrew
13331. MS KHELA: I do have other points in my
submission that I need to deal with that have not been answered.
13332. CHAIRMAN: I do not know what you
are talking about.
13333. MS KHELA: Matters that Mr Elvin has raised
about my submission. I only raised that one point; I have several
other matters which I would wish to raise that have not been answered
and they are quite clearly set out.
13334. MR ELVIN: My Lord, if the Committee
are happy, I have no objection to Ms Khela outlining her response
to my points. It is probably the simplest way of dealing with
matters.
13335. CHAIRMAN: I should think so. What
are we meant to be looking at?
13336. MS KHELA: My submission, the letter of
7 May.[19]
13337. MS KHELA: The first point, I did not
just mention the Hanbury Street shaft, I mentioned that an email
had been sent out to all Petitioners along the route saying that
there may be a possibility of dispensing with the need for shafts.
I was trying to make it very clear that this undertaking had been
given almost a year ago. I wanted to ascertain what work had been
undertaken by the Promoter in relation to this and I asked a very
specific question. If necessary, I will put that under the Freedom
of Information Act. We would like to know when full revised plans
have been submitted to the relevant authorities in terms of the
shaft alignment so that they can adjudicate whether it is possible
to have a different shaft arrangement and at what date that took
place. Previously we were told it was an extremely challenging
situation that they had to deal with.
13338. My second point is at some point I wanted
to know if the Chair would make a statement on which undertakings
the Spitalfields community would receive as recommendations because
they were dissatisfied with the undertakings that they received
in the Commons, in particular that the Promoter would be monitoring
settlement instead of an independent body and they were further
concerned that the clause material damage is included instead
of any damage. We did not see the relevance of using the word
"material damage", so we ask that to be substituted
with "any damage, defect or deterioration ".
13339. As I understand it, Patricia Jones requested
this and nothing came of it, but we would like it on record that
if any damage, defect or deterioration occurs because of that,
this is on record that we requested independent monitoring. The
area, and I will put this Mott McDonald report back up, Spitalfields,
they said, in 2002 is identified as being extremely sensitive
environmentally. Subsequently, I have never seen that statement
ever produced in Crossrail reports, so it would seem that some
remarkable event has occurred in Spitalfields where it is no longer
sensitive environmentally. That is all I would like to say on
that point.
19 Committee Ref: A69, Woodseer and Hanbury Residents'
Association Hearing Submission (SCN-20080508-005 to -008) Back
| 
